Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 5

RfC: "dishonest" in lede
Should the following statement be included in the lede to this article?

CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude unless reworked with additions/context. If it is included, it needs to be balanced, otherwise it's classic cherry-picking. Polls show that Clinton has indeed struggled on voter perceptions of honesty and trustworthiness, but she also consistently rates highly on questions related to "strong leadership qualities" and "the right experience to be president" (see, e.g., NPR, Washington Post). To include the "honesty/trustworthiness" struggles in the lead in isolation, without also including the equally important or more important "leadership/experience" metrics, would not be a fair characterization of the totality of polling over the course of the campaign.
 * Note that the experience perception has been an important figure in polling data...
 * Mark Hensch, Poll: Clinton has experience edge over Trump, The Hill (June 3, 2016).
 * Nick Gass, Poll: Clinton's biggest asset is Trump's biggest liability, Politico (June 3, 2016).
 * Frank Newport & Jim Harter, Presidential Candidates as Leaders: The Public's View, Gallup (April 29, 2016).
 * Justin McCarthy, Clinton's Best Asset, Trump's Biggest Liability: Experience, Gallup (June 3, 2016).
 * Carrie Dann, Poll: 61% Percent Concerned about Trump's Experience, NBC News (May 23, 2016).
 * And has been a key theme of Clinton's campaign, as she has emphasized experience:
 * Steve Benen, After Brexit, Clinton stresses 'steady, experienced leadership', MSNBC (June 24, 2016).
 * Julie Pace & Robert Furlow, Hillary Clinton promises 'steady leadership' at 'moment of reckoning', Associated Press (June 24, 2016).
 * Nick Corasaniti, Hillary Clinton Emphasizes Her Time on the World Stage, New York Times (July 9, 2016).
 * Evan Halper & Chris Megerian, Sanders turns confrontational and Clinton emphasizes her record in Iowa town hall, Los Angles Times (January 26, 2016).
 * So no, we shouldn't add the honesty/trustworthiness perception issues to the lead unless we're also going to add content related to the experience/leadership issue. Neutralitytalk 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * By itself, definitely not. It might be possible to include it with proper context and other attributes however. But I'd have to see the actual text to have an opinion on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, include. Perhaps add some context: dishonest because of the secret transcripts and fake Benghazi video. This can all go in the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include It is a significant aspect of how the public sees her. Her major opponent has even called her "Crooked Hillary" and Republicans chanted "Lock her up!"  None of that makes sense unless it is explained that she is perceived as dishonest.  TFD (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not. Wikipedia absolutely should not make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest, and if we're going to include "public perceptions" of the candidates, them we would have to include "bat-shit crazy" in the lede for her opponent. Let's not do either. Ground Zero &#124; t 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC question is not whether we should "make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest" but whether "she is perceived as being “dishonest.”" If Trump is perceived as "bat-shit crazy," then we can consider that in his article.  "Neutrality" "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  In fairness, Clinton is the most distrusted and least liked person ever to receive the Democratic nomination.  TFD (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is a matter of undue weight. This should absolutely be discussed in the article, but in the lead? Where exactly would that go? "She declared her candidacy. She faced Sanders in the primaries. She's now in the general against Trump. Oh, wait, yeah, she's also super dishonest." It just doesn't fit at all in a neutral summary of the topic. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do Not Include. Firstly because the comment is not neutral and hard to quantify, and secondly - and more importantly - the campaign is not yet over, so such a judgement (if it is even possible to make one) cannot yet be made. Tonyinman (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nopey McNopeFace. And frankly, was an RfC necessary? Could this not have been a normal, consensus-building discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes If we're going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Massive difference between the two things. Clinton is not at all dishonest. That's just a perception created by repeated attacks from the right over 25 years. Besides, stuff happening somewhere else is not a good justification to do anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's not. Ask Dr Ben Carson. He treats everyone the same. HRC is perceived as dishonest because of a self-fulfilling prophecy re: secret speech transcripts, deleted e-mails, recurring lies, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my best Rocket laugh from Guardians of the Galaxy... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It's like you are in Star Trek's "mirror universe" or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a misrepresentation of the proposal in the referenced RfC. It doesn't posit that Trump is a racist but rather that others view him as appealing to racism. - MrX 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should we add to the lede that HRC is seen as appealing to Pinocchio lovers?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a [parallel RfC] at the corresponding article for Trump on whether to include a reference to his being "racist" in the lede.  It's interesting to note the editors who are in favor of one, but at the same time not the other.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude – Campaign is not over, and when it is: then we can add such judgement provided such judgement exists. Also, in order to be neutral as Neutrality discussed above, we would need to mention polling on 'leadership qualities' etc which rate her favourably. Notwithstanding this, I'm not willing to add anything into the lede that isn't discussed in length in the body of the article. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As currently framed, the statement is absent any context, and not appropriate. The perception of honesty is linked, in the sources I have read, to specific issues: the email controversy, flip-flopping on gay marriage, or the TPP, or something along those lines. If we used the perception of these issues to add context, the statement might be acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude – For lead material? Absolutely not. It's out of context, and it's just one piece of data gleaned from the extensive polling that has taken place and will continue to take place. There are lots of other public perceptions. Why single this one out of the lineup?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in lede and include section in the body of the article on reasons and sources for it. Multiple reliable sources. It is the polling result that is well established, not her underlying character. That needs to be clear in any extended section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No way, not in a million years. Just because the political opposition attacks somebody's character, and gets some traction with that attack, does not justify that we as an encyclopedia do the bidding of the political operatives. Even if it were not a BLP-magnet, a single political attack point is very rarely such a defining issue that it would belong in a politician's lede. Nixon resigning, yes. Dean screaming, maybe. But Hillary Clinton's supposed dishonesty? No way. By the way, since when do we have at least one RfC a week on the presidential election articles. An RfC is supposed to be the near-final stop on a content dispute, not a tool for writing articles, nor a single editor's resort for not gaining fast consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Without context and balance (e.g. presidential qualities Clinton does well in), this should not be in the lede. If there's an appropriate body section, it could go there, with context of course, but there doesn't seem to be one. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - The only question here should be whether the perception of Clinton as "dishonest" is notable or non-notable. A number of RS's on all sides of the political spectrum have reported on Clinton's perception problem. The sources say it, and so should we. That's regardless of what our own personal opinions of her honesty are. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No chance per, among others. "[S]ignificant proportion" are weasel words and is so vague that I don't even think it appropriate for the lede exception to WP:WEASEL. I'm also inclined to think it's not sufficiently notable for the lede. Whether it could be worked into something suitable for the lede (as it plainly isn't in its present state), I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rule it out. Graham (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From the NYT's: "...a weak candidate with a muddled message who faces an electorate in which a majority of voters do not trust or like her." User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No Not in its current form and not at all in the lead. This may be appropriate in the general context of polling. This could include, for example, a Pew poll, and an overview of the results they obtained. You are therefore deferring to Pew on the matter of what the important results are, not deciding them yourself. Otherwise it's a clear POV by selective inclusion.
 * VM was correct in removing this from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, this was not even mentioned in the article...at all, and these grounds alone justify removal. Further, this AfC should probably not have started at all without some prior attempt at consensus building showing the need for broader opinion. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely do not include This is classic WP:SYNTHESIS. First, significant is an vague interpretation given in Wikipedia voice.  Second, this is a polling based point, which would required (1) current polling aggregation data and (2) reliable sources interpreting current poll aggregation data.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not include - The lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no discussion of the perception issues in the article. I recommend a discussion of the public perceptions in the body in an WP:NPOV way and then summarise it in the lead in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, for reasons already given, including problems with WP:SYNTHESIS and not fitting guidelines for a good lede. Including something like this in a "public perceptions" section of the article, in a way that avoids synthesis and respects WP:NPOV by discussing positive aspects of her public image would be acceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if reworked Immediately after posting my comment, I thought better of it and decided maybe my initial reaction was too strong. I can see something like this being included in the lede if the proposal is reworked to respect WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEDE, but the proposal in its current form doesn't do those things. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. Sadly, yes. The bot sent me. It is well sourced, it doesn't violate BLP, and it is has wide coverage in the reliable media sources. The public does perceive her like this because she's done it on television. There's video evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email bits. It's not WP:synth, it doesn't violate WP:NPOV and it meets WP:LEDE. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email. That's just a narrative pushed by the right, and aided by some clever editing of the Comey testimony by Fox News. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely include - Whether she is or isn't is not the question. This election season is plagued with ethical choices and Hillary is certainly fighting the perception of her being dishonest. It is such an influential issue that she has had to address it many times; at one recent point she said one of her answers was a "short-circuited" response.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton is battling the reputation of being dishonest and that is a major focal point in this election season.  It's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact - again, not that she is a liar, but that she is faced with correcting that perception. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Juda S. Engelmayer So you would support the statement proposed without context or editing? You don't make that clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need context, it is a factual statement. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you actually read the statement and its supporting sources? Are you not bothered by the word "significant", which is arbitrary? Even if you just read the quotes from the sources, and not the sources themselves, you can see that "significant" is a problem, based on the wildly differing polling data. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Include -- This is not consistent with WP:BLP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - incomplete otherwise And revise lead. The lead is a bit dated, being overly focused on the primaries.  The first para seems fine, but seems less than complete without mentions of the actual campaign highlights - anti-Trumpism and qualifications versus fighting the dishonesty and finance topics ?   Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude - This should definitely be left out per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV. -- Dane 2007  talk 03:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it's worth, the lack of trust appears to be international: "many ordinary Cubans don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm: Did you actually read that article? It has nothing to do with the topic of this section. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote speaks for itself.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is about Cuba, and has nothing to do with honesty. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension, or being deliberately disingenuous? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even people in Cuba think she is dishonest, as they "don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton". The key notion here is dishonesty, lack of trust, suspicion, which is what this RFC is about.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Try rereading the article. What it says is that they do not trust Clinton to lift the trade embargo given her earlier support for it and the requirement for Congressional approval, not that they consider her dishonest. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't trust her.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She said she would lift the embargo and Cubans do not believe she will. Dishonesty includes saying things one knows to be untrue.  TFD (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed the outdent - see edit history for rationale. I am trying to comment here and I have to contend with an outdent about one article? Other people are involved in this RFC and this should be respected. It appears someone wants to be a comic throughout this thread. I can understand one or two jokes at the beginning, but not the whole thread. Please go find a comedy club somewhere. This is ridiculous. My comment is this RFC should not be happening because it undermines the chance for editors to fine tune the material, obtain the data behind it, and add other polls about her strengths such as leadership. It undermines the whole process for a keep or delete solution. IMHO - this is not good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not include This is a totally one sided proposal and would contradict WP:NPOV and is a BLP issue. And as mentioned above data behind the polling needs to be provided or else these "dishonest" polls are of no value. And even with the polling data it would still be emphasizing one attribute when there are other attributes to consider. Also, the following two sources seem to contradict a lead sentence promoting a "dishonest" view, . These sources indicate this is not a black and white issue, and the proposed lead seeks to present this as a black and white issue. Additionally, I agree that this "dishonest" perception is from repeated hammering over 25 or more years by the right, and mostly has no basis in fact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment I have not worked on articles related to Hilary too much so I was not familiar with which editors who promote WP:UNDUE and try to get that into these articles. So, what I mistook for a comic's humor was actually repeated right wing mantras such as Benghazi materials and so on (including one misrepresented Cuban article) throughout the thread. I have to apologize to thread participants for not realizing this editor was serious. But hopefully it can be understood why I laughed at such unsubstantial assertions, thinking this person must be joking. Also, I was really tired and did not have the energy to play catch up until now. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - Take a look at the lead on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and then the lead on Clinton's campaign page... The lead on Trump's campaign page includes significantly more coverage of controversies, negative descriptors, etc. For example, "Many of his remarks have been controversial", "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism", and "Trump's campaign rallies have attracted... public controversy" while the lead on Mrs. Clinton's page has been whitewashed of any negative information. We should maintain consistency and address the public's view of Clinton as being “dishonest”. Meatsgains (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What goes on at another article has no bearing on what goes on at this article. Besides, Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton, so there's really no comparison you can make. For example, Trump openly calls for an entire religion to be banned from entering the country, whereas Clinton is criticized for propping herself with cushions, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton" is your own opinion, which you are more than entitled to but Clinton is no saint either. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude, in the form proposed. There is no denying that Clinton is perceived as dishonest by some, but that statement should not exist in isolation in the lead. The word "significant" is problematic especially when one source says "1 in 5 Americans". Whatever version of this sentence is appropriate for the lead should include some qualification and quantification of the perceived dishonesty, relative to previous and current presidential candidates. Sources like this one: offer better context than some of the sources proposed in this RfC.- MrX 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude as it lacks context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Is father of Orlando gay club murderer relevant to the campaign?
Seddique Mateen is the father of the mass murderer in the June 2016 massacre at a gay club in Orlando. He attended a rally for the Clinton campaign and endorsed Clinton. He has publicly commented that while he disapproves of the murders, he is against homosexuality (or maybe not). These facts were reported by media outlets as something of interest to the campaign (presumably, something that could influence voters to vote for or against Clinton), but public commentary on the matter died out after a few days.

Should this incident be mentioned in the article?

I request that people not comment here on details of what the article should say about the incident, but focus on the simpler threshold issue of whether it is even worth mentioning, as there is already controversy over even that. If consensus is that the matter is appropriate for the article, further discussion can determine details. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. He says he was invited to the campaign rally, and VP candidate Mike Pence has talked about him at another campaign rally, regarding national security. It was also mentioned by Donald Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So now I have to point out (the above thread was closed before I could) that there's no evidence he was "invited". Did he see a flyer and take that as an invitation? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He says he was invited. Don't twist my words--or his.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He never said "who" invited him, certainly not anyone in the Hillary campaign or DNC. Read the Snopes link I shared. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The first point in my response was that he was invited. That was it. Apparently by the Florida Democratic Party, but that was not my point (though that appears to have been Saddique's). I then proceeded to make two more points. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the Florida Democratic Party "invited" everybody in the general population. I'll respond to any points you make when I can find them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFC asks, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he was invited to and attended a campaign rally; plus mentioned by Pence and Trump during the campaign. Enough!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "he" was not invited, any more than you or I were. And not everything that comes out of the mouth of a POTUS or VP nominee is going to be included (WP:NOTNEWS). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He says he was invited. But in any case, the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? For the aforementioned reasons, yes, it is, no need to ask me again.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand that "He says he was invited" and "he was invited" (both direct quotations from you) do not mean the same thing? You have provided no evidence of the latter. Graham (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From Snopes: "Both Mateen and the Clinton campaign explained his appearance at the rally as a function of the event's being 'open to the public,' and neither party stated or implied that any invitation had been extended to him or accepted." – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He says, "I was invited.". We have no reason to believe that he lied. This is veering off topic. The RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? Yes it is, because the rally was a campaign rally. Enough already!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, we absolutely have "reason to believe" that what he said is untrue. Did you not read the article posted? And deconstructing your argument is definitely on topic – unless you're suggesting that your argument is itself irrelevant…? Graham (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my first response after "Include". It includes the word "campaign" several times. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And what's your point…? Graham (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I responded to the RFC, as requested by User:Giraffedata. Sorry I won't have time to repeat this endlessly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, and don't be ridiculous. We are trying to make an encyclopedia here. A good question to ask about stuff like this is "will future generations, people 30 or 40 years from now, find this useful information". Lots of people attend rallies and lots of people are sent to sit behind the candidate. No reasonable person thinks this means anything. IIRC Donald Trump had some unpleasant person sit behind him at one of his rallies and that also meant nothing. BTW Hillary Clinton had waffles for breakfast that day, shall we report that for future generations. Campaign reporters have to write about something every day. We don't. I know it's silly season but let's not get sucked into this. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include What makes the story significant is that S. Mateen was seated behind Clinton by her staff. It gained further notice when Trump commented on it and ironically his staff placed a disgraced former congressman behind him.  To answer Herostratus, yes people interested in Clinton's 2016 campaign and wanting to know more beyond one or two paragraphs will find it interesting.  If she loses the election, she will only be remembered for being First Lady and first female candidate for a major party.  TFD (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. I think it would be biased and left-wing favoritism, not to include it.--Broter (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Right is backing Hillary. TFD (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I felt the Bern.- MrX 13:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend ointment. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Articles of this nature must be written from with the historical perspective in mind. If nobody is talking about this mere days after the event, why would anyone think this would be of significance a year, two years or two decades from now? If we included every 24-hour news story into campaign articles, this article would be 12 times larger and the equivalent Trump article would be eleventy-billion times larger. Also, why was this RFC even necessary? The matter was discussed at length in the previous section with a clear consensus for exclusion. Now it appears that a certain RFC-happy editor has managed to convince someone to open this RFC by whining about it at WT:RFC. That really doesn't look good. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude This has as much bearing on the Hillary campaign as Mark Foley's presence at a Trump rally has on Trump's campaign. And for all the other reasons we've gone over, WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't replicate everything from every 24 hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu: According to your reasoning, the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article could be significantly reduced in size because it is full with WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. To include the David Duke story in his article and at the same time exclude this story in the Hillary article is biased without end. Omar Mateen has even an article. So it is relevant.--Broter (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. David Duke has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far, while Seddique Mateen went to one rally, and hasn't been mentioned since ending its turn in the 24 hour news cycle. If you care to make any particular proposals about RECENTISM on the Trump page, make them on the appropriate talk page. (Oh and Seddique Mateen doesn't have his own page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As User:Broter correctly explained--apples and apples. One could say both Pence and Trump believe Seddique Mateen "has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far". Besides, at least Mateen went to a rally--as far as we know, Duke never did.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Trump and Pence want people to think that. It's a ridiculous notion, which is why it died after it went through a 24 hour news cycle. Duke just works to stoke the relationship between Trump and the alt-right through his radio show (read some of those transcripts if you like). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Duke is equally "ridiculous", if not more. I won't read his transcripts--not interested in what he has to say. Trump has disavowed him, just like Hillary has disavowed Mateen. It's apples and apples--except Mateen went to a rally.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, HRC campaign disavowed Seddique Mateen when they heard he was there. Trump's first chance to distance himself from Duke didn't go so well. Apples to apples is Mateen and Foley. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Mateen attended a rally, Duke didn't, actually. The question is, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he attended a campaign rally and he was mentioned by Pence and Trump, during the campaign. That's it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude. This was a two-day story with no apparent enduring significance. As Herostratus and Muboshgu said, including this here would be analogous to including the Mark Foley thing on the article about the Trump campaign; both would be equally inappropriate. Neutralitytalk 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude - This embarrassing incident received a brief burst of coverage after it happened and then quickly faded from interest. It would violate WP:NPOV to include this because it has not enjoyed sustained media coverage; it's only tangentially relevant to the campaign; and it would tend to unfairly associate the campaign and the candidate with a mass murderer.- MrX 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude I studied the Google News hits and timeline on it. The story broke on Aug 9, reporting that Clinton's campaign didn't invite him. Within a day the news reported Clinton disavowed him. The story rapidly died, with later coverage repeating that there was no connection. A second-hand connection of a relative of a murderer supporting of a random candidate may make a flash in the 24-hour news cycle, but it has no lasting significance in this article. It has already failed WP:RECENTISM. We are WP:NOTNEWS. This is WP:UNDUE. We can't and don't include every blip in the 24-news-cyle, especially when most coverage is deflating this blip as an irrelevant unwanted-endorsement. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude. This proposal is not viable, and a poor reason to create yet another RfC — a process that typically takes one month — on a trivial content matter two months before the campaign in question is finished. This is not a substantive issue in the campaign, and even on the scale of "gotcha" politics it is no more than the opposition's talking point of the day. Filling campaign articles with these fake outrages would create a weight / POV problem, and would also veer into a covering of politics that is more tabloid than encyclopedic. I note that those advocating the importance of this non-event both on and off the encyclopedia seem to be conspiratorially minded, claiming that Clinton is somehow sympathetic or in cahoots with the terrorists. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't follow the relevance of the fact that the campaign will be almost over before all the comments are in. As many of the anti-inclusion people have pointed out, we don't write Wikipedia articles for short-term interest.  This article presumably exists because there is consensus that the campaign will be of interest long into the future.  So what does this near-term election have to do with anything?  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that conducting an RfC on a current event of great interest that will culminate shortly after the RfC is done makes no sense, and is horrible editing process. The election article talk pages are being swamped with RfCs on trivial, POV-ish proposals like this. One of them managed to dupe you into starting this as his proxy by forum-shopping a complaint that he was being harassed on this page, after he was cautioned that his ongoing proposals were growing tendentious. Indeed, if we're writing the article for the longer term, anything that's actually worth having an RfC about can wait until after the election so as not to disrupt the business of productive article editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, exclude already, per and . This was already decided in the above discussion and WP:RFC tells us that "If you are able to come to a consensus… [on the talk page] then there is no need to start an RfC." As discussed above, the story already died and as Wikipedia is not a news source, we don't cover the minute-to-minute of the 24-hour news cycle. This is blatant recentism. Graham (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything like consensus in the discussion above, which I read thoroughly before deciding to request comments. I see a small number of people solidly on each side of the issue.  The question of whether something is notable and worth recording for history is something best answered by a wide audience giving their opinions, not by a few invested people bickering.  Hence the RfC.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude – WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. In a month's time, a year's time, a decade's time — I doubt, based on current discourse, this will be relevant to the campaign. —MelbourneStar ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude, per MelbourneStar. This is a guilt-by-association smear that does not need repeating. -- The Anome (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? This article is not about HRC. It's about the campaign. It's happening during the campaign. He went to a campaign rally and her campaign rivals have talked about it. So the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The story has failed to get legs, so it's irrelevant. We keep things like Michael Dukakis' tank photo, the Dean Scream and Ed Miliband's sandwich because they achieved notability; not every single thing said in a campaign achieves lasting notability in this way. If it did, both campaign articles would fill up with every accusation and counter-accusation made by anyone in either campaign. If the story had taken on a life of its own, it would of course be appropriate to include here. But it hasn't, so it isn't. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This RfC is a great candidate for a WP:SNOWCLOSE, with a trouting for the editor who filed it for being taken in by a POV warrior so easily, and a topic ban for Zigzig20s for tendentiously editing, forum shopping, and wasting everyone's time again. This has got to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Why can't you answer the question that User:Giraffedata asked--is Mateen relevant to the campaign, for attending a campaign rally during the campaign and being mentioned by her campaign rivals? This appears to be a campaign issue--that's why there is an RFC. Please stop trying to personalize Wikipedia editors--it is not "tendentious" to ask if this article should relay information from reliable third-party sources. This article is not supposed to be advertising for HRC. Please try to be constructive by taking this RFC seriously, as it should be. Besides, I am not alone: both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter want to include it. Again, please stop personalizing this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I already answered this question in full. I was the first "exclude" response. I also answered in full in the previous consensus discussion which you lost. By repeatedly bringing up the same thing on the same page, and then shopping it to other forums, you are absolutely being tendentious. RfC's are not intended to be used as a POV-pushing tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Giraffedata explained he did not see a consensus in the closed discussion. This is a serious RFC--your attempt to personalize this is fruitless.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The forum for trying to obtain a topic ban would be WP:AN/I, I believe. Neutralitytalk 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only trying to give the full picture of the campaign, based on reliable third-party sources. Remember, Duke is mentioned in Trump's campaign article. That is why we think Mateen should be mentioned here.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, what goes on in some other article has no bearing on what goes on in this one. I don't edit any Trump articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not about you. It's about improving content. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but neither is Wikipedia meant to be your propaganda organ. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We simply relay factual information from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL you don't. There's no "we" about it. You are trying to shoehorn stuff into the article that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, you are trying to do this all the time because you aren't apparently capable of abiding by a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And you apparently don't know how to let someone else have the last word and let the RfC take its course. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There should never have been an RfC in the first place. And talk about pots and kettles, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude and support snow close. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you afraid of letting this RFC run its course? Let editors decide! By the way, you have not answered User:Giraffedata's question about relevance.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The purpose of a SNOW close is to stop wasting everyone's time. 2. Obviously, since I think it should be excluded, I do not think it is relevant. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am frankly hurt if you think I don't value my time or other editors'. Both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter think this should be included, and with the RFC, more editors may want to include it as well. I am not alone. We are trying to improve the article in a constructive manner here.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus is clearly against including this, and it's not worth wasting any more time in telling you why it won't be included. You have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes constructive dialogue difficult. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a major case of listening to other people, like User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But not the people who you disagree with. Do you need me to count them? Because there are a lot more than three people saying "exclude". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No because the RFC has just started and we'll see how many want to include it for its relevance. That's the whole point of RFCs. Please be patient and respect User:Giraffedata. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude – WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. This is tabloid stuff and this RfC should never have been started in the first place.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude WP:NOTNEWS and it's damn sure not a tabloid. Seddique Mateen, father of Omar Mateen the Orlando Night club shooter endorses Hillary Clinton. He may or may not be homophobic. Oh pardon, the request was to focus on the details later.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include The RfC is misleading because it does not explain the relevance to the campaign. In Orlando, where the killings took place, Clinton's campaign staff chose to seat Mateen close behind her.  That's why the media gave it extensive coverage which continued after Trump drew attention to it and his staff placed a congressman who was forced to resign behind him.  Who Mateen endorses is of course of no relevance, but what the Clinton campaign does is, at least in this article.  As for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, this article is about a recent news event.  Take out the recent news and there's no article.  TFD (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude - I hereby endorse Gary Johnson for President of the United States. Who cares? Whilst, of course, Mateen's endorsement is much more significant than mine, the principle is the same: as points out, the aim of encyclopedias is to preserve knowledge for future generations -- future generations are not going to be terribly interested in how his endorsement impacted the race, and nor will they care how my endorsement impacted the race. This story lasted for one brief news cycle, and has not had any lasting effect on the campaign (opinion polling has not suggested any shift in voting intention based on the endorsement). Perhaps his endorsement could be mentioned on List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 but it is not worthy to go on this page -- and it is certainly unworthy to go on this page whilst the endorsements of far more notable people (e.g Warren Buffett) are not mentioned. Specto73 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude - Notnews, Recentism, Undue weight - Mateen has not been shown or reported to be relevant to Hilary's campaign. His attending the rally was about him, and had nothing to with Hilary's campaign. Her campaign rivals mentioned this incident hoping to cast Hilary in a negative light, which is what her political rivals have been doing since the 1990s. So this is not encyclopedic material. Rather, it turns out to be more fodder for the news cycle and is a trivial detail that won't matter once the president-elect has been elected in November. In fact, it is already well of the media radar anyway. I was just thinking, the media must love presidential election years - there is so much drama available. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "dishonest" in lede
Should the following statement be included in the lede to this article?

CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude unless reworked with additions/context. If it is included, it needs to be balanced, otherwise it's classic cherry-picking. Polls show that Clinton has indeed struggled on voter perceptions of honesty and trustworthiness, but she also consistently rates highly on questions related to "strong leadership qualities" and "the right experience to be president" (see, e.g., NPR, Washington Post). To include the "honesty/trustworthiness" struggles in the lead in isolation, without also including the equally important or more important "leadership/experience" metrics, would not be a fair characterization of the totality of polling over the course of the campaign.
 * Note that the experience perception has been an important figure in polling data...
 * Mark Hensch, Poll: Clinton has experience edge over Trump, The Hill (June 3, 2016).
 * Nick Gass, Poll: Clinton's biggest asset is Trump's biggest liability, Politico (June 3, 2016).
 * Frank Newport & Jim Harter, Presidential Candidates as Leaders: The Public's View, Gallup (April 29, 2016).
 * Justin McCarthy, Clinton's Best Asset, Trump's Biggest Liability: Experience, Gallup (June 3, 2016).
 * Carrie Dann, Poll: 61% Percent Concerned about Trump's Experience, NBC News (May 23, 2016).
 * And has been a key theme of Clinton's campaign, as she has emphasized experience:
 * Steve Benen, After Brexit, Clinton stresses 'steady, experienced leadership', MSNBC (June 24, 2016).
 * Julie Pace & Robert Furlow, Hillary Clinton promises 'steady leadership' at 'moment of reckoning', Associated Press (June 24, 2016).
 * Nick Corasaniti, Hillary Clinton Emphasizes Her Time on the World Stage, New York Times (July 9, 2016).
 * Evan Halper & Chris Megerian, Sanders turns confrontational and Clinton emphasizes her record in Iowa town hall, Los Angles Times (January 26, 2016).
 * So no, we shouldn't add the honesty/trustworthiness perception issues to the lead unless we're also going to add content related to the experience/leadership issue. Neutralitytalk 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * By itself, definitely not. It might be possible to include it with proper context and other attributes however. But I'd have to see the actual text to have an opinion on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, include. Perhaps add some context: dishonest because of the secret transcripts and fake Benghazi video. This can all go in the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include It is a significant aspect of how the public sees her. Her major opponent has even called her "Crooked Hillary" and Republicans chanted "Lock her up!"  None of that makes sense unless it is explained that she is perceived as dishonest.  TFD (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not. Wikipedia absolutely should not make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest, and if we're going to include "public perceptions" of the candidates, them we would have to include "bat-shit crazy" in the lede for her opponent. Let's not do either. Ground Zero &#124; t 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC question is not whether we should "make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest" but whether "she is perceived as being “dishonest.”" If Trump is perceived as "bat-shit crazy," then we can consider that in his article.  "Neutrality" "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  In fairness, Clinton is the most distrusted and least liked person ever to receive the Democratic nomination.  TFD (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is a matter of undue weight. This should absolutely be discussed in the article, but in the lead? Where exactly would that go? "She declared her candidacy. She faced Sanders in the primaries. She's now in the general against Trump. Oh, wait, yeah, she's also super dishonest." It just doesn't fit at all in a neutral summary of the topic. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do Not Include. Firstly because the comment is not neutral and hard to quantify, and secondly - and more importantly - the campaign is not yet over, so such a judgement (if it is even possible to make one) cannot yet be made. Tonyinman (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nopey McNopeFace. And frankly, was an RfC necessary? Could this not have been a normal, consensus-building discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes If we're going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Massive difference between the two things. Clinton is not at all dishonest. That's just a perception created by repeated attacks from the right over 25 years. Besides, stuff happening somewhere else is not a good justification to do anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's not. Ask Dr Ben Carson. He treats everyone the same. HRC is perceived as dishonest because of a self-fulfilling prophecy re: secret speech transcripts, deleted e-mails, recurring lies, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my best Rocket laugh from Guardians of the Galaxy... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It's like you are in Star Trek's "mirror universe" or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a misrepresentation of the proposal in the referenced RfC. It doesn't posit that Trump is a racist but rather that others view him as appealing to racism. - MrX 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should we add to the lede that HRC is seen as appealing to Pinocchio lovers?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a [parallel RfC] at the corresponding article for Trump on whether to include a reference to his being "racist" in the lede.  It's interesting to note the editors who are in favor of one, but at the same time not the other.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude – Campaign is not over, and when it is: then we can add such judgement provided such judgement exists. Also, in order to be neutral as Neutrality discussed above, we would need to mention polling on 'leadership qualities' etc which rate her favourably. Notwithstanding this, I'm not willing to add anything into the lede that isn't discussed in length in the body of the article. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As currently framed, the statement is absent any context, and not appropriate. The perception of honesty is linked, in the sources I have read, to specific issues: the email controversy, flip-flopping on gay marriage, or the TPP, or something along those lines. If we used the perception of these issues to add context, the statement might be acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude – For lead material? Absolutely not. It's out of context, and it's just one piece of data gleaned from the extensive polling that has taken place and will continue to take place. There are lots of other public perceptions. Why single this one out of the lineup?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in lede and include section in the body of the article on reasons and sources for it. Multiple reliable sources. It is the polling result that is well established, not her underlying character. That needs to be clear in any extended section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No way, not in a million years. Just because the political opposition attacks somebody's character, and gets some traction with that attack, does not justify that we as an encyclopedia do the bidding of the political operatives. Even if it were not a BLP-magnet, a single political attack point is very rarely such a defining issue that it would belong in a politician's lede. Nixon resigning, yes. Dean screaming, maybe. But Hillary Clinton's supposed dishonesty? No way. By the way, since when do we have at least one RfC a week on the presidential election articles. An RfC is supposed to be the near-final stop on a content dispute, not a tool for writing articles, nor a single editor's resort for not gaining fast consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Without context and balance (e.g. presidential qualities Clinton does well in), this should not be in the lede. If there's an appropriate body section, it could go there, with context of course, but there doesn't seem to be one. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - The only question here should be whether the perception of Clinton as "dishonest" is notable or non-notable. A number of RS's on all sides of the political spectrum have reported on Clinton's perception problem. The sources say it, and so should we. That's regardless of what our own personal opinions of her honesty are. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No chance per, among others. "[S]ignificant proportion" are weasel words and is so vague that I don't even think it appropriate for the lede exception to WP:WEASEL. I'm also inclined to think it's not sufficiently notable for the lede. Whether it could be worked into something suitable for the lede (as it plainly isn't in its present state), I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rule it out. Graham (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From the NYT's: "...a weak candidate with a muddled message who faces an electorate in which a majority of voters do not trust or like her." User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No Not in its current form and not at all in the lead. This may be appropriate in the general context of polling. This could include, for example, a Pew poll, and an overview of the results they obtained. You are therefore deferring to Pew on the matter of what the important results are, not deciding them yourself. Otherwise it's a clear POV by selective inclusion.
 * VM was correct in removing this from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, this was not even mentioned in the article...at all, and these grounds alone justify removal. Further, this AfC should probably not have started at all without some prior attempt at consensus building showing the need for broader opinion. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely do not include This is classic WP:SYNTHESIS. First, significant is an vague interpretation given in Wikipedia voice.  Second, this is a polling based point, which would required (1) current polling aggregation data and (2) reliable sources interpreting current poll aggregation data.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not include - The lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no discussion of the perception issues in the article. I recommend a discussion of the public perceptions in the body in an WP:NPOV way and then summarise it in the lead in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, for reasons already given, including problems with WP:SYNTHESIS and not fitting guidelines for a good lede. Including something like this in a "public perceptions" section of the article, in a way that avoids synthesis and respects WP:NPOV by discussing positive aspects of her public image would be acceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if reworked Immediately after posting my comment, I thought better of it and decided maybe my initial reaction was too strong. I can see something like this being included in the lede if the proposal is reworked to respect WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEDE, but the proposal in its current form doesn't do those things. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. Sadly, yes. The bot sent me. It is well sourced, it doesn't violate BLP, and it is has wide coverage in the reliable media sources. The public does perceive her like this because she's done it on television. There's video evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email bits. It's not WP:synth, it doesn't violate WP:NPOV and it meets WP:LEDE. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email. That's just a narrative pushed by the right, and aided by some clever editing of the Comey testimony by Fox News. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely include - Whether she is or isn't is not the question. This election season is plagued with ethical choices and Hillary is certainly fighting the perception of her being dishonest. It is such an influential issue that she has had to address it many times; at one recent point she said one of her answers was a "short-circuited" response.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton is battling the reputation of being dishonest and that is a major focal point in this election season.  It's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact - again, not that she is a liar, but that she is faced with correcting that perception. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Juda S. Engelmayer So you would support the statement proposed without context or editing? You don't make that clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need context, it is a factual statement. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you actually read the statement and its supporting sources? Are you not bothered by the word "significant", which is arbitrary? Even if you just read the quotes from the sources, and not the sources themselves, you can see that "significant" is a problem, based on the wildly differing polling data. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Include -- This is not consistent with WP:BLP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - incomplete otherwise And revise lead. The lead is a bit dated, being overly focused on the primaries.  The first para seems fine, but seems less than complete without mentions of the actual campaign highlights - anti-Trumpism and qualifications versus fighting the dishonesty and finance topics ?   Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude - This should definitely be left out per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 03:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it's worth, the lack of trust appears to be international: "many ordinary Cubans don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm: Did you actually read that article? It has nothing to do with the topic of this section. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote speaks for itself.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is about Cuba, and has nothing to do with honesty. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension, or being deliberately disingenuous? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even people in Cuba think she is dishonest, as they "don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton". The key notion here is dishonesty, lack of trust, suspicion, which is what this RFC is about.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Try rereading the article. What it says is that they do not trust Clinton to lift the trade embargo given her earlier support for it and the requirement for Congressional approval, not that they consider her dishonest. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't trust her.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She said she would lift the embargo and Cubans do not believe she will. Dishonesty includes saying things one knows to be untrue.  TFD (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed the outdent - see edit history for rationale. I am trying to comment here and I have to contend with an outdent about one article? Other people are involved in this RFC and this should be respected. It appears someone wants to be a comic throughout this thread. I can understand one or two jokes at the beginning, but not the whole thread. Please go find a comedy club somewhere. This is ridiculous. My comment is this RFC should not be happening because it undermines the chance for editors to fine tune the material, obtain the data behind it, and add other polls about her strengths such as leadership. It undermines the whole process for a keep or delete solution. IMHO - this is not good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not include This is a totally one sided proposal and would contradict WP:NPOV and is a BLP issue. And as mentioned above data behind the polling needs to be provided or else these "dishonest" polls are of no value. And even with the polling data it would still be emphasizing one attribute when there are other attributes to consider. Also, the following two sources seem to contradict a lead sentence promoting a "dishonest" view, . These sources indicate this is not a black and white issue, and the proposed lead seeks to present this as a black and white issue. Additionally, I agree that this "dishonest" perception is from repeated hammering over 25 or more years by the right, and mostly has no basis in fact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment I have not worked on articles related to Hilary too much so I was not familiar with which editors who promote WP:UNDUE and try to get that into these articles. So, what I mistook for a comic's humor was actually repeated right wing mantras such as Benghazi materials and so on (including one misrepresented Cuban article) throughout the thread. I have to apologize to thread participants for not realizing this editor was serious. But hopefully it can be understood why I laughed at such unsubstantial assertions, thinking this person must be joking. Also, I was really tired and did not have the energy to play catch up until now. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - Take a look at the lead on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and then the lead on Clinton's campaign page... The lead on Trump's campaign page includes significantly more coverage of controversies, negative descriptors, etc. For example, "Many of his remarks have been controversial", "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism", and "Trump's campaign rallies have attracted... public controversy" while the lead on Mrs. Clinton's page has been whitewashed of any negative information. We should maintain consistency and address the public's view of Clinton as being “dishonest”. Meatsgains (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What goes on at another article has no bearing on what goes on at this article. Besides, Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton, so there's really no comparison you can make. For example, Trump openly calls for an entire religion to be banned from entering the country, whereas Clinton is criticized for propping herself with cushions, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton" is your own opinion, which you are more than entitled to but Clinton is no saint either. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude, in the form proposed. There is no denying that Clinton is perceived as dishonest by some, but that statement should not exist in isolation in the lead. The word "significant" is problematic especially when one source says "1 in 5 Americans". Whatever version of this sentence is appropriate for the lead should include some qualification and quantification of the perceived dishonesty, relative to previous and current presidential candidates. Sources like this one: offer better context than some of the sources proposed in this RfC.- MrX 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude as it lacks context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine RFC
Some editors here may be interested in an RFC at Talk:Kaine (disambiguation) on whether "Kaine" should direct to comic book character Kaine, to the disambig page, or to the Democratic nominee for VP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pneumonia treatment
Hillary Clinton's Doctor confirmed that she had pneumonia, mirroring both the prior concerns of Clinton's health by her opponents and her coughing fits days ago. It is covered by reliable sources such as New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and BBC News. I would like to add this to the article because these concerns have been ongoing for a while. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. Reliable third-party sources and it's been confirmed. Nothing "fringe" about the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't even be having this discussion at this point. It's just not appropriate. Let's hold off for a day or two at the very minimum per WP:NOT. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you find reliable third-party sources that suggest it is 'inappropriate' to tell the truth, that she has pneumonia, or is that an opinion? The campaign is by definition a series of news events by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that since we are not a newspaper (we are an encyclopedia), we take a larger view and do not report every development. After all, a pneumonia diagnosis puts today's events in perspective, and we would've been inappropriate by adding anything before the diagnosis came out. Now, we don't know yet if this is it and what it means, or if there's more developments around the corner. That is why we wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But this article is about an ongoing campaign. And I happened to agree with User:The Four Deuces's point before the last topic was closed. If it's in reliable third-party sources, we have to relay the information. Reliable third-party sources highlighted the fact that she had multiple coughing attacks; we should add it. Reliable third-party sources highlighted that she has pneumonia; we should add it. By the way, have other presidential candidates had pneumonia, or is this unprecedented?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well now shes had a medical event at the 9/11 memorial. Include. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the information in the article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-leaves-911-ceremony-early-after-feeling-overheated-20160911-grdylq.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ  Hillary Clinton Leaves 9/11 Memorial Early After Feeling 'Overheated,'

"Washington: Hillary Clinton's health became a genuinely dominant issue in Election 2016 with the release on Sunday of an extraordinary video – of the Democratic candidate seemingly disoriented and collapsing after an unscheduled and hasty departure from a solemn September 11 memorial service in New York." <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-leaves-911-ceremony-early-after-feeling-overheated-20160911-grdylq.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ  Hillary Clinton Leaves 9/11 Memorial Early After Feeling 'Overheated,' "Washington: Hillary Clinton's health became a genuinely dominant issue in Election 2016 with the release on Sunday of an extraordinary video of the Democratic candidate seemingly disoriented and collapsing after an unscheduled and hasty departure from a solemn September 11 memorial service in New York. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)"
 * No. Per above discussion, WP:NOT. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop comment deletion Wikidemon, its not on. Last warning <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a hint, SaintAviator. Other editors and I can and will delete copyright violations. I've gone ahead and fixed your clumsy attempt to quote passages from news articles without proper attribution, something you failed to before per my warning on your talk page. Take a clue, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we have a "health" subsection now, we need to mention her multiple coughing attacks. Also the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release her extended medical records.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coughs don't attack. She has allergies, walking pneumonia, and that's pretty much it. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the fringe theories of the increasingly desperate alt right. Unless Clinton's doctor says she has serious health problems, and the mainstream press covers it in sustained fashion, this content has very little value to an article about the campaign. Campaigns are about speeches, primaries, polls, debates and policy, not tabloidesque trivia. - MrX 11:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable third-party sources have certainly covered it. Her doctor has confirmed her pneumonia. There is nothing "fringe" about the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONUS and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS.- MrX 11:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that applies. Do you deny that reliable third-party sources mention her health extensively?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What would happen in the unlikely event that most editors should have a pro-HRC bias? That is silly. We ought to reflect the breadth of content from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps take it up here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No time! I have books to read and meetings to prepare in real life, too. I suppose one could start another RfC about her health, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that Clinton was coughing, the issue was that Clinton was coughing extensively. Also, "coughing" is one of the symptoms of pneumonia. It would be a bit silly not to include that in the article, especially when a criticism long perceived by the media to be a "conspiracy theory" has some basis in fact. The fact that she has pneumonia contradicts earlier reports regarding her health. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ""coughing" is one of the sitcoms of pnenomia." ← You said a mouthful there.- MrX 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed my typo. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump recently released a statement that he hopes Clinton gets well soon. Politico Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus required
A reminder re a DS instruction that appears at the top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Here then are a couple of recent edits that violate that instruction:, , ,   (so, also a 1RR violation). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine was reverting a 1RR violation, editor now on 3 day article ban. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse, and not an exception to the discretionary sanctions. You were reverting in support of another editor's 3RR attempt to post disputed content. The bottom line is that the edits were challenged via reversion. The proposing editor made 2 more reverts, the disputing editor made two more reverts, and you joined in with the sixth revert. That's edit warring in anybody's book. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Im in the clear plus I dont delete comments. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've lost your case already around here. Best give it up with the political advocacy and get with the program of creating an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a Forum WP:NOTFORUM <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)