Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 7

Daily newspaper editorial board endorsements

 * The NYT - "The Times editorial board has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president..." (primary source).
 * Cincinnati Enquirer (primary source). Washington post coverage of Cincinnati endorsement: "Another conservative newspaper editorial board just endorsed Hillary Clinton" . Cincinatti Patch coverage of this endorsement, CNN coverage , Politico coverage . Also mentions Dallas Morning News (see below).
 * LA Times endorsement  (primary source). Coverage of this endorsement by Politico . Coverage of this endorsement by UPI
 * Dallis Morning News (primary source). The Washington Post coverage of this endorsement  stating: "For the first time since 1940, the "Dallas Morning News" has endorsed a Democrat for president, telling readers in one of the nation's most reliably red states Wednesday that they ought to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump."

It could be these matter because it is the general election cycle between only two candidates, and one is lacking in endorsements at this point. The Washington Post stated, "'For Trump, losing out on the Cincinnati Enquirer's endorsement deprives him the backing of the third-largest newspaper in a crucial swing state. And it continues a pattern of rejection by media outlets and politicians who should theoretically be behind the GOP standard-bearer.' Also, the WP said, 'The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary Clinton on Friday afternoon, joining the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle among the ranks of newspapers with conservative editorial boards that have spurned Donald Trump and backed his Democratic rival instead.'" There might be more coverage of the NYT endorsement later since this is essentially "breaking news". Any thoughts? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first with a proposal to be placed somewhere within this article:
 * Clinton has been endorsed by the New York Times, LA Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Dallas Morning News editorial boards. The Dallas Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1940. The Cincinnati Enquirer has not endorsed a Democrat for almost 100 years.
 * I think this is notable, particularly for papers and orgs that have traditionally endorsed Republican candidates (I believe Cincinnati Enquirer is another one).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm following up on the Enquirer and will post shortly with the primary and third party sources. I agree this is notable. In fact, I think this is remarkable. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * oopa! I already posted it. Well, I have some other sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like that would be appropriate. We could also add that the Union Leader, which often endorses the Republican, chose not to endorse Trump. Or, maybe that only belongs on the Trump campaign article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking this is more about daily newspapers specifically endorsing Clinton. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that consensus is developing to place this in the article - so I did so, in the section entitled "Endorsements" - with the following revision history comment "add content - per talk discussion "Daily newspaper editorial board endorsements" - appears to have consensus". Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic has only ever made three presidential endorsements: Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. I'mm gonna add that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the unreleased transcripts of her paid Goldman Sachs speeches
The RfC led to consensus for inclusion. Can we please agree on a specific text to add to the article then? One or two sentences may suffice. We don't need to let this drag on forever, but we do need to heed the RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * to which RfC and consensus are you referring to? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was archived several times, but you can see it here. It was closed as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.".Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the last discussion ended with, "since you care so much, put together a proposal." Timothy Joseph Wood  12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The community cares. The RfC led to consensus for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: "Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, despite being asked to release them many times by Bernie Sanders in the primary. Some media outlets have suggested she may be hiding something; presidential candidate Jill Stein concluded that Clinton was "Goldman Sachs' best friend". (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs top executives are only allowed to donate to her campaign, not Donald Trump's.)"Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite difficult to take this loaded suggestion seriously. Best you go back to the drawing board, or get someone else to draft a sentence that isn't full of artistic license. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 13:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, it reflects reality. And this is not about me. This is a suggestion. If you or other editors have suggestions, please put them down here. Otherwise there is consensus for inclusion and I may have to be BOLD.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)My sentiments are directly relevant to a suggestion that just happens to be made by you -- no need to take it personally. Be bold, as you may; you'll be reverted anyway. You may (?) have consensus for mentioning GS -- but you don't have consensus for the above suggestion re GS. Kind regards, —Mel<b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to make a better suggestion if you think you have one. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it's a start. Now take that and try to word it neutrally, and do so using reliable secondary sources that are not incendiary direct quotes by...lets be honest...a candidate no one really cares about anyway. C'm on Zigs. You're not stupid. You know what parts of that are obviously slanted. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. It just reflects reality. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to suggest it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Again. C'm on. Act like an editor with 100k edits. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "repeatedly" is important. She did not refuse just once. "six-figure" is important. She was paid a lot for those speeches. "many times" is important; Sanders did not only ask her once. Sure, we can cite those media outlets once we've agreed on the text (otherwise it's a waste of time). The Jill Stein bit seems important to me; she's a contestant in the race. And finally, the top executive donation restriction was also reported in the press. Sorry, all of it reflects reality.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not how this works. You do not form your article and then find citations for how you want it to read. You find citations and you write an article based on what they say. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to waste my time looking for citations if the text gets rejected. But actually you could find them in the archives of this talkpage topic. Do you have a better text to suggest?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Right now I'm in this to see if you can be bothered to make a substantial neutral contribution to an election article. If any suggestions you make it not clearly supported by reliable sources, it can be presumed rejected. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided a citation for Jill Stein, and you rejected it. You could do this about everything. The editor who closed the RfC suggested starting another RfC about the specific wording. I was hoping to end this quickly with a few lines that reflect the reality of these transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the time it's taken us to discuss whether or not you should provide sources, you could have found two dozen. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources, and you could reject them. So if anyone else has other suggestions for a text we could add about this topic, please write it here. We can assess if we've made progress within a week.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources and you could spend months debating endlessly on talk, and refuse to actually get your hands dirty when it comes down to it. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion for a text. Happy to read other suggestions from other editors in the next few days. Not happy to waste my time though. Please respect my time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no respect for your time when you wish to spend it posting 600+ comments on this talk, and can't be bothered to do any actual work. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then don't talk to me. Other editors will suggest another text, otherwise there is consensus to add such text as per the RfC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Trump has once mentioned these Goldman Sachs speeches. Has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The text already in the article is more than adequate: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." - Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think an argument could be made that the sentence be expanded. Perhaps: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents." I'm not specifically endorsing the idea, I don't think it is necessary, and it may ultimately be removed again with historical hindsight, but at this point I'm willing to do almost anything to see this crap fall off the talk page and prevent any further archive warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is close, but I think needs at least a hint of what kind of attention it received. "[...]drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents who insinuated/alleged that (she may be beholden to wall street/that she had promised them something/that she had been (illegally) campaigning for president prior to announcing)". There is probably some neutral way to cover what was being accused there. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Scrutiny is not exactly what it drew, it drew a mention by campaign opponents. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs highlighted by political opponents in particular." I disagree completely with the suggestions made by ResultingConstant though.-- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both, because neither a rooted in any description made by a reliable source. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. Let's leave it as it is then. It can't be said that I didn't make an effort to accommodate this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with including the content, but it doesn't make any sense to parse wording unless you have something to base that wording on. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just best to add after "various organizations" a brief list of them, "such as Goldman Sachs," etc., without adding any commentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, some excerpts have been released by Wikileaks. I am morally opposed to Wikileaks to be honest, but The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, CBS News, etc., are all reliable sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An interesting turn. I think this would belong under the heading of alleged Russian election interference. The focus of the story reported by the sources today seems to be more that Russian state-sponsored hackers may have been behind the hack, and that this may be the bombshell that Assange thinks will destroy Clinton, than that she said anything particularly controversial. There is talk that some of the material may have been altered. As far as the WP:NOT#NEWS cycle, the whole thing seems to be buried on page 3 behind news of Trump's comments about women, and the hurricane sauntering up the Florida coast. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think at this stage, we may need a separate subsection about those speech transcripts, maybe called "Speeches to Wall Street". This started in the primary, it was highlighted by Sanders, this is still going on, there is no proof about Russia as far as we know (blaming them sounds like HRC's campaign spin to be honest). It's a defining issue in her campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What has been released is nothing more than emails talking about statements she made that were "flagged" because they could be used against her, which is normal campaign-related discussion and not at all newsworthy. Wikidemon is right that the real story here is Russian interference in an American election. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unless the contents of the speeches become a massive thing, it doesn't deserve its own section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What difference, at this point, does it make whether it was the Russians or a bored pro-life housewife from Nebraska, who released those secret transcripts? She admitted to being unrelatable because of her rich husband, and she also admitted to saying one thing in front of the public and another thing in private.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The alleged Russian involvement is the locus of the issue, as reported by the sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's the campaign spin to dodge the real issue: what she said. Reliable third-party sources have been asking for what she said in those speeches for over a year.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. When Trump had his big chance to use the speeches against Clinton last night, she properly noted that she was talking about Abraham Lincoln (see FACT CHECK) and then pivoted to Russia, which Trump embraced. It's long past time for you to let this go, Zigzig20s. Far too much time has been wasted on this by the good editors of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. There was an RfC which led to consensus for inclusion. You cannot override that. If you're not interested in the topic, no one is forcing you to comment on this discussion. Please don't discourage other editors from adding referenced content for which there is consensus. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC is probably a red herring at this point. The material was already included as of the close of the RfC. Any attempt to glean more from the RfC than that is pointless, and stale. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree, as does the person who closed the RfC. Sorry, there is consensus to include this and you cannot override that. That is why we had an RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Please stop beating the dead horse. Whether we add the Russian hacking to the article at some point has nothing to do with the RfC. For now there's nothing here to see. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13: When you closed the RfC, which led to "overwhelming" consensus for inclusion, you said, "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". Indeed, four months later, there is complete disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording. What shall we do then?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant material was already included. The RfC is stale and apart from you, we have all moved on from this months ago. The passage of time has yielded knew material, which has further reduced the weight value of the speech stuff. Your continued unwillingness to work with the other regular editors of this article has been noted. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not been included at all. You may have disagreed with the RfC but the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents disagreed with you and you do not own this article, so we should respect and honor the RfC. I think User:BU Rob13 could help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The RfC does not support your interpretation. The closing (non-admin) editor's opinion was that inclusion was supported, but not with the specific wording you asked for. Moreover, the editor stated that if an agreement could not be reached on the specifics, another RfC might be necessary. My contention at the time was that it (a) lacked the proper context, and (b) was in the wrong section. It is now October, and that discussion ended in April (with a closure in May), which means it is stale. Furthermore, the current version of the article is stable. You are the only editor obsessing over this. Why is that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we should respect the RfC. I am certainly not the only one because the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents agreed with me. We know you disagree, but please respect the consensus. Yes, the RfC closer suggested starting another RfC--let's see if he thinks that is necessary, or if we can just go ahead and add the text. The information (namely, that HRC has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions, leading some in the press to wonder what she is hiding) needs to be added, as per consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a current proposal for adding any specific content to the article or an update to an earlier proposal? If so we can see whether it has consensus. I think my position is clear but I'd entertain any serious proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently, where in the article does it mention the Goldman Sachs speeches? The RfC resulted in consensus to include that, but I see them nowhere in the article. would be absolutely right to add a brief mention of them into the article, at the very least, and I would consider its removal to be editing against consensus. Given the very large and well-advertised RfC, that should be included in the article until there is specific consensus to remove it. And no, the close is not my "opinion", it is a binding summary of the consensus reached in that discussion. If you wish to challenge the close itself, feel free to message me on my talk page. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The section Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 contains the statement: "After she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013, speculation picked up sharply, particularly when she listed her occupation on social media as "TBD". In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." The RfC, now at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 3, asked the question should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info?. The RfC close states There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. In the five months since the RfC closure the issue has not been taken up by Clinton's new rival, Donald Trump, to the extent as her old rival, Bernie Sanders, and the main development of note is the release of excerpts of the speeches by Russian hackers via Wikileaks. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13: Thank you for being so reasonable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website, and it wouldn't matter if this hadn't been in the headlines lately, but in actual fact this was mentioned by the media and Sanders in the primary, then by Jill Stein and Kellyanne Conway, then by the media when the donation restrictions for Goldman Sachs top executives came to light, and now by the media because of the release of excerpts (there is no proof it was done by the Russians). I agree that we should respect the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps we could add:
 * For over a year during the course of her campaign, Hillary Clinton refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies. Opponent Bernie Sanders asked for their release during the primary, as did rival Jill Stein in the general election. Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything; they later published information showing that top executives at Goldman Sachs were banned from donating to Donald Trump's campaign, but free to donate to Clinton's. In October 2016, excerpts from the speeches were published by the press. They showed that Clinton believed she could not relate to most Americans because of her rich husband; she admitted she said one thing in public and another thing behind closed doors; and she disclosed information about the Ben Laden raid.
 * Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13: Perhaps you haven't read the extensive and exhaustive discussion that has gone on since the close of the RfC. Your exact words in closing included "though not necessarily using that exact term," and in the months since the closure we have been debating exactly what would be appropriate. Numerous good faith attempts to come up with appropriate text have been made, but Zigzig20s has rebuffed all of them in favor of extreme, non-neutral absurdities like the ludicrous proposal in the comment preceding this one. And now, with the benefit of historical perspective, it is clear the original proposed text was recentism at best. I should also point out that nowhere in WP:RFC does it say a closure is "binding" - only Arbcom has that power. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:CON, which details that consensus is our method of deciding article content, and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, describing what you could do to challenge a close if you disagree with it. You can also refer to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which lists rejecting community input (with a specific reference to RfCs) as an example of disruptive editing, and WP:BP, which allows blocks in response to disruptive editing. I'm not saying we're anywhere close to anything like that; we're not even on the same continent yet. But a plethora of our most basic policies support that you must follow the consensus reached at an RfC until you can demonstrate that consensus has changed. Further, given how large the RfC was, any alternative consensus developed without an RfC would likely be a local consensus; you'd need an additional RfC if you want to alter the outcome of the issue. On the other hand,, you have over 100,000 edits, so I won't insult you by treating you like a new editor. "Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything." Really? You know perfectly well that that's completely non-neutral, and you haven't even bothered to provide a citation to such an evocative statement. Currently, the article states that she gave speeches, but not that the speeches became a campaign issue during the primaries and were questioned by her primary opponent. As per the RfC, that should be added. Until further consensus develops, it should be added minimally and neutrally, meaning something to the effect of "Clinton's practice of giving paid speeches to corporations such as Goldman Sachs was questioned by her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, who called for Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches." This is really a bare minimum that would comply with the RfC outcome. If even that is objectionable to anyone, you'd have to make another RfC, because the current consensus was to include that information in the article. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:BU Rob13. It's not my word, but if you want to rephrase it, that's fine. The important thing is to respect the RfC, as you suggest above.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and expanded the material per this discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's sufficient.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It complies with the RfC per the discussion above. If you want additional material, I suggest you begin a new consensus-building discussion for it at the bottom of this talk page. But this matter is now concluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: Please don't threaten me with blocks when you have absolutely no basis for doing so. If I had edited against consensus, or edit warred, or anything like that then I would agree with you, but I absolutely haven't. All I have done is engage in discussion to resolve the issue which you yourself highlighted. In fact, several editors have attempted to find common ground with the original poster, but to no avail. If you have a problem with the way I have conducted myself, take it to WP:ANI, but don't make block threats without a solid grounding for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:BU Rob13. Can we please add "Goldman Sachs"? Also the fact that this was not just an issue during the primary, but throughout the campaign (to this day), and that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, until excerpts were published in the press? And the content of the excerpts?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * x2 I did not threaten to block you. In fact, I explicitly stated that we aren't even on the same continent as the blocking policy having anything to do with this. I was explaining the policy basis for consensus being binding until a new consensus is reached, and the blocking policy happens to be a part of that. I've been pinged to this page nearly a dozen times since I closed that RfC, and I'm somewhat shocked that the RfC result still hadn't been implemented months later. Clarity was needed that the result cannot simply be ignored, especially given some of the incorrect statements made above about how consensus-building works.  You may not think it's sufficient, but it complies with the letter and spirit of the RfC result. A new RfC would be needed to go farther (except possibly for the addition of "Goldman Sachs" as an example of a corporation she gave speeches to, which was well-supported at the past RfC).  Thanks for the expansion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict]. "Goldman Sachs" should definitely be added. By the way, I think this should be in the "controversies" subsection as opposed to buried in the "post-2008 election" section, as it has most definitely been a constant "controversy" throughout the entire campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added Goldman Sachs specifically, the issue of not releasing transcripts, and that it was an issue in the general election too, all of which are helpful for context and introduce useful sources. Generally, articles are best organized chronologically or else thematically by subject matter. Adding too many things to a "controversies" section creates a lot of problems with flow, is hard to deal with for POV, and can turn into a WP:COATRACK. The story of an election campaign is about issues, fundraising, tactics, actions, and yes, some amount of sparring between opponents. Designating every issue as a controversy simply because opponents cast it as one is not a good idea. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we are done here, with Wikidemon's text satisfying the RfC. I move that we close this thread immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Give us a minute. We have failed to reach consensus about where to place this information. I will have a think.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, is there no consensus to add the Goldman Sachs top executive donation restrictions and the content of the excerpts? User:BU Rob13 suggested starting another RfC for it if we have to.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, BU Rob13 and I all agree with the edits performed by Wikidemon. You are the only editor disagreeing. Time to close. And you don't NEED another RfC unless discussion has broken down on proposed changes, and you haven't even proposed such changes yet. Do so in a NEW SECTION at the bottom of the page if you must, but do not extend this discussion because it has ended. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, please stop trying to close topics before we are done. You did this several times (with the campaign book for example). If you don't like a topic, no one is forcing you to look at it. There is no consensus for where this information should go (indeed, it is currently buried in the primary even though it's been an issue throughout the campaign). The new RfC is not my idea, it's User:BU Rob13 's: "A new RfC would be needed to go farther."Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Wikidemon's edits. I think that's sufficient and any more goes to WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might think it has gotten undue weight in reliable third-party sources for over a year and still is, but that's not for us to decide. This issue did not end in the primary and it makes zero sense to bury it in the primary subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a small issue in the primaries and it's an even smaller issue now, even with a few excerpts released. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more, due to RS weight. It was even mentioned at the last debate. Not a small issue at all. I am busy preparing a meeting for tomorrow, but we should think about where to place this and where to add the content of the excerpts (since she still won't release the transcripts); I suppose we could add her line of defense (blaming it on the Russians, no mea culpa). Saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think that, then start an RfC in a new subsection with your proposed changes. There's no point in pinging me; I have no strong view one way or the other on this. I'm merely acting as the closer to implement the community's consensus at the RfC, and the edits by satisfy the consensus developed at that discussion. Further attention/detail will require an RfC given the amount of opposition for it here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on "weight" from "RS's", the most important thing to come out of the second debate was Ken Bone. And yet he isn't going to be mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is on the same topic--not a trivial issue at all. Why would we try to hide the content of the transcripts? According to The Guardian, this is what her campaign wants to do.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is kind of trivial, in its way. I just came across this New Yorker piece that calls the leaks "illuminating but unsurprising" and "illuminating but underwhelming". The content of them is really minimal. Hillary's campaign is scripted - like we didn't already know this. John Podesta has a really great risotto recipe. Yum! What more should we be adding than what's already there? She's allowed to give these speeches, she's allowed to have different public and private messages (much, as she pointed out, Lincoln did regarding slavery). This is a whole lot of nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it seem trivial to you that she is saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations? That she pretends to be in favor of protectionism (against TPP) but dreams of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"? These are real policy differences behind closed doors. Why won't she release those transcripts for the American people to know what's what?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unclosed this because the editor who "closed" it is not uninvolved, and their rationale is invalid. Not every politician gives policy positions to the public and the exact opposite to her donors like Goldman Sachs: only HRC does this. The content of the transcripts has received substantial media coverage in reliable third-party sources and it has become a campaign issue; it should therefore appear in the article. Do we need to start another RfC to add this?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you are just being disruptive and tendentious. Closing a thread does not need an uninvolved editor. It just needs the thread to be over, which it is, because the RfC has been satisfied. And "Only HRC does this" is a BLP violation, because it's a blatant lie about a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not uninvolved, and the discussion is not over, because as I explained several times this topic is not just about the RfC, but also where to place the info, and what the content of those transcripts is. And no, it's not. Name other politicians who have told the exact opposite policies to Goldman Sachs? As far as we know, there is just one.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The current wording is "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks. The speeches, and Clinton's not releasing their transcripts, would be raised as an issue by her opponents during the upcoming primary and general election campaigns." That seems adequate for now because while terse, it is appropriate weight considering media coverage. The media paid little attention to what Jill Stein said for example and the current Wikileaks publication of leaked Podesta emails has been overshadowed by the leaked Trump-Billy Bush tape. TFD (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You are correct to point out that there is ample content about the Trump allegations but not enough about Hillary's. However, I disagree with you about weight of RS regarding the excerpts from HRC's secret Goldman Sachs speech transcripts. There would be enough references to create Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations (to echo our undue content about Trump). What I suggest right now is simply that we add encyclopedic content to this campaign article about what she has been telling Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies, as it is the exact opposite of what she has been telling the American people. Since we are dealing with campaign policies here, it is absolutely relevant to this article. We could start with the fact, as reported by The Guardian that she has told the American people she would reign in Wall Street, and yet she told the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is unrelated, please move it to a new section at the bottom of this talk page and allow this section to be closed. Also, "Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations" is never going to exist per WP:POVFORK. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. It is not unrelated. It is absolutely germane. This topic is the Goldman Sachs transcripts and we are discussing the content of the Goldman Sachs transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is a new thing not related to the RfC, which this discussion was about. Please just do what I asked and open a new section, otherwise this will continue to be an unwieldy mess as we are forced to wade through all the previous POV bullshit when we add comments. Pretty please, with a cherry on top. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. This topic is about the unreleased (or secret) Goldman Sachs transcripts. Sure, there was an RfC because some editors (including you) wanted to keep the information out of this campaign article, and the community consensus as a result of the RfC was for inclusion. But now we are also discussing the content of those transcripts. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to come here. But let's try to focus on what's at stake here: what she said in those speeches, as per weight of RS. For example, the exact opposite of what she has told the American voter about financial regulations. Or her hidden support for transnational free trade. Real policy differences between her public statements and secret speeches.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could we please agree on a short text to add? Something like, "Clinton campaigned on the need for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite."?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Twitter flight
Is Twitter considered an ok source or is it a primary source? It appears that within hours of each other today, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, Michele Obama, George Soros, Joe Biden, and John Kerry all unfollowed Hillary Clinton's official Twitter account. TweedVest (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd need a secondary source to suggest adding anything like that to an article, and I find that insignificant even if it's true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those high-level Democrats and Clinton supporters have been retweeting her tweets throughout this election. For them to suddenly unfollow her, all within a few hours of each other, is really bizarre.  If it's legit and not a hack, then something big is up. TweedVest (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And Huma Abedin's account just unfollowed Ms Clinton. What's going on here? TweedVest (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike Cernovich just tweeted that it's a bug/false alarm. TweedVest (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I expected. If they rescinded their endorsements, that would've been something. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Spirit of BLP
…in the…I am collapsing this page. Halloween is over, vampires are back in bed. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/4/wikileaks-john-podesta-invited-to-spirit-dinner-ho/

Looks like Clinton's aides involvement in these fringe religious rituals as revealed in the Wikileaks got some media attention over the weekend. Mention? TweedVest (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The Clinton campaign was not involved in any such thing. This is yet another of your attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion. Please stop it.- MrX 19:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Khan ad
Are these two sentences about a recent Clinton campaign ad featuring Khizr and Ghazala Khan, placed under the "Advertising" section, worthy of inclusion? My initial reaction is "yes," because
 * (1) the ad got a significant amount of media attention (CNN and Washington Post are cited, and dozens more news sources have articles of their own about it, e.g., NYT, CBS, Politico)
 * (2) TV advertising is a critical thing in campaigns, and this ad is running in seven "battleground states"; and
 * (3) the length (two sentences) seems proportionate and the placement (under "Advertising") seems reasonable.

Thoughts? I am courtesy-tagging, who added the material at issue. Neutralitytalk 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Khizr and Ghazala Khan is a notable story, but it was not even mentioned on this page. Why? Of course it must be mentioned, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it, because there was no consensus, but you reinserted it without consensus. When we edit, there is a message saying, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.". Does this mean you are allowed to reinsert the content without consensus? I am genuinely confused. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, why would we try to turn this article into a campaign ad, by giving undue weight to her own campaign ads?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to actually make a substantive argument, not just make a flat assertion ("it's undue") or rely on circular reasoning. In other words, Wikipedia policies aren't magical incantations; you have to actually explain why you think a policy applies.
 * To the point: (1) do you really believe that two sentences in a lengthy article is "undue," and if so, why?, and (2) is there any reason whatsoever to believe that discussing a campaign ad, with citations to the reliable sources that do the same, is somehow equivalent to "turn[ing] this article into a campaign ad"? Neutralitytalk 03:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it is undue weight and POV. It's advertising, basically (by definition).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, that is merely making an arbitrary assertion. You offer no actual reason to believe why it is "undue weight," "POV" (how??), or "advertising." Neutralitytalk 03:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A campaign ad is advertising is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously not understand the distinction between describing/discussing a campaign ad and being a campaign ad? Neutralitytalk 03:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's undue to discuss POV content like a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, simply put, a stunningly inaccurate understanding of NPOV. Neutralitytalk 04:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you believe that "The Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza described the ad as "remarkably powerful,"" is NPOV? Really? Will it be similarly NPOV if we quote another critic calling it, "remarkably horrible"? I mean please. Give me a break.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, yes. He's a very notable commentator, the source is reliable, and it's given in-text attribution. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like it" (and maybe "the media is biased against me"). But that's not a policy-based rationale. In any case, this back-and-forth clearly does not seem productive. I will wait for other editors to chime in. Neutralitytalk 04:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is POV to add "screaming fan" opinions, especially from someone who works for The Washington Post: they've endorsed HRC for POTUS! We can cite them for NPOV content, but not when they express their opinions.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong on every count. The editorial side of a newspaper is separate from the newsroom side, and so the endorsement is completely irrelevant. Cillizza is a political reporter, not a "screaming fan." "Powerful" is a completely fine descriptor even in a straight-news story. And since we give in-text attribution, it's irrelevant whether it's an "opinion" anyway because we clearly attribute the opinion. Neutralitytalk 04:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you think "powerful" is NPOV. It's not a neutral term by any stretch of the imagination.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Other sources besides The Washington Post also describe it as powerful. As long as "powerful" is attributed to one of these sources, it is appropriate to include it.- MrX 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ad is noteworthy and the material is worthy of inclusion, especially given the related controversy. It has been extensively covered by major news organizations: CBS News, CNN, USA Today, Time, Fox News, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post. While a campaign ad is obviously not neutral, we are certainly able to discuss it in this article and explain to readers why it's noteworthy without violating the NPOV policy. The proposed text presented by Neutrality does that without any problems.- MrX 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to say it's powerful? Some might think it's horrible. We shouldn't add judgements, even if they are direct quotes from commentators. Or if we do, we should add both sides.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because our readers need some context to understand why this ad stands out from all the others and because several sources have independently used that same adjective. I'm not sure what other side you are referring to, but Ive shown my four sources, so can I see yours?- MrX 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, this is an admin's wet dream, that little edit war over those 1,349 bytes; I was wondering who the first 2R victim was going to be. I'm glad all of y'all thought the better of it. Allow this admin to make a few comments. a. "Since when has Wikipedia become a mouthpiece for political ads?" (I'm quoting .) It is not, and that sentence is crooked to begin with. Reporting on an ad does not mean you're a mouthpiece for the campaign. You were not the only one confusing these things. b. if y'all decide on including the ad, I suggest you leave out a bit of the detail in the description of the ad. c. if a notable person describes the ad as "powerful", and it's well-sourced and all, and you include it with proper attribution, then it is not Wikipedia saying the ad is powerful., this is you again (besides the aforementioned confusion), and this "other side" stuff makes no sense: do you want to find a commentator who says it is not powerful? This confusion between attributed statement and statement is really elementary. So "Why do you want to say it's powerful?" completely misses the point, to the point of CIR. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be reporting on campaign ads, but if there is consensus to do so, I rest my case. Whatever.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we add who paid for this ad--which Super PAC or donors?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a great ad, and it certainly has received media coverage; however, I am not personally swayed by the arguments for inclusion. It seems rather incidental to the campaign in general, and there's no evidence in reliable sources that it has been "effective" in moving the election needle. This puts me in the awkward position of being on the "same side" as Zigzig20s on this matter, albeit for different reasons. I may need a lie down. I'm not going to object to its inclusion, but I think at this point it is better left out of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hells bells, I think I just entered the twilight zone.- MrX 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL "compromised account". Consider this proof to the right wing whack jobs that I really am a neutral editor ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nuanced position – We can perhaps mention the existence of this particular ad as notable, but we absolutely shouldn't insert a value judgment about its "powerful" quality, even attributed. Several editors think that Chris Cillizza's opinion is worth mentioning; well, why wasn't his opinion worth mentioning when he wrote back in February that 1 in 5 voters considered Hillary Clinton "dishonest"? This was rightly considered undue by RfC. So, this reporter can be lauded for his capacity to make positive or negative statements about the candidate, and to uphold neutrality our editor community should take both or none. I'd rather we take none. — JFG talk 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables
Still no mention in the article while it is still being brought up on the Sunday morning political talk programs. NBC, Meet the Press, interview with Joe Biden. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The absence of coverage of the "deplorables" controversy is a fault with the article. I suggest adding it very briefly, and building coverage tentatively.
 * JFG's version (above 10:40, 16 October 2016) above reads OK to me. Scjessey's version (14:04, 16 October 2016) reads on the short side. Scjessey glosses GOP and Trump responses ("was criticized by political opponents and compared"), I would think a little more information is warrented, one or two sourced examples of the criticism.  At this point, I see no justification for having less than Scjessey's brief version as written, with expansion only as explicitly agreed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * JFG's version is definitely not okay. It contains a bunch of opinionated and POV material. A minal version would be something like this:
 * On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech in which she said that "half of Trump's supporters [were] what I call the basket of deplorables." The "Deplorables" moniker was later adopted by Trump and his supporters.
 * - Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, of course the material cited will include opinion and POV. The NPOV requirement does not preclude sources containing it.  JFG's version is arguably excessive, but yours, devoid of reference?  The second sentence is too terse, almost unintelligible.  Was how adopted, and to what effect?  There are no words commenting on the reception of the speech.  Yours is excessively brief.  But do put it in, because it is certainly not too much.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of the following references are acceptable?

User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's denunciation of alt-right in NYT and association of Trump with it. Deplorables in context, NPR Deplorables speech Bloomberg Deplorables comment NYT Walkback Time Deplorables Trump tee shirts USA Today Pushback by Trump and supporters, The Hill Trump ad about deplorables remark, Politico Public reaction, Washington Post
 * Fred, they could all arguably be considered acceptable, but together they are excessive, and generally they are all too close to be called good sources. Are there any considered pieces of writing, written at least a week later?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if it comes up in the debate tonight. If it does, it certainly has stuck and I will try to put something in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!).  Also, after JFG trying to impose (again, IMO) his views and his deadline on this topic, why are you now starting an additional thread on this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct. That reference is about another matter, her association of Trump with Alt-Right. Should not be used for deplorables section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence about the August 25 alt-right speech was added per request of who argued that it provided appropriate context to her September 9 address. I'm only trying to build consensus by curating suggestions from various editors. I'm getting a bit tired of being accused of "imposing my views". — JFG talk 09:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't. The treatment already in the article seems satisfactory for the time being. I recommend this section be archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Frankly, this part of the article has been ruined. We now have an overlong quote from Clinton that really isn't necessary, and it is overcited to the point of absurdity. What should be nothing more than a small paragraph mentioned a Clinton comment that achieved notoriety has morphed into a veritable tome that crosses the undue line. We can do better. I suggest we return to the text JFG and I worked out together and implemented with this edit and then try to address any concerns editors have on this talk page, rather than edit warring over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and shortened the quotation, most of which was an attack on Trump and not about the deplorables comment. I also removed the statement that political commentators compared it to Romney's 47% statement, which was unsupported and in fact contradicted by the cites. The cites variously said that it was not like Romney's 47% comment (because it did not alienate potential votes for her), that it remained to be seen whether it would affect voters, or that Republican operatives — not commentators — were comparing her statement to Romney's. If anybody really wants to wade through the sources I think you'll find that they only compare in a "compare and contrast" sense, and conclude that despite the quote being reminiscent, it is actually in contrast. So not terribly helpful to explain things to the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks, Scjessey. I just love to get tarred with the weasel brush, but you may want to take another look at your Wikipedia Xref:  "… views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."   Also, it seems that your wording was unsupported not only by my additional sources, which you removed,  but also by those already there.  I support Wikidemon’s removal of the sentence.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that I already agreed to Wikidemon's version, was there a point to your comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points, actually: Objecting to the unwarranted weasel accusation and to the snarky summary dismissal of a viewpoint in your edit summary.  You may have considered the comparison to be unimportant but that doesn’t make it so, whether you remove the "eleventy billion references" or not.  Admittedly, I was already peeved about you and TFG ignoring both my text proposal and my objection to the arbitrary - and short - deadline.  Funny thing is, I considered removing the "gaffe" sentence altogether but decided to be polite, leave it in, and merely change it to reflect the sources more accurately.  Oh well, I’ll know better next time.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much any use of "many" is as a weasel word. And I also objected to the short deadline. At this point, it looks like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016 seems good enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Identification of people
Can anyone identify the people in the images below (they may or may not be notable)? Taken from a Tim Kaine rally in Philadelphia and transferred from Flickr.

Thanks, MB298 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not what a Wikipedia article talk page is for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Pantsuit Power
Can we fit the below text somewhere in the article?

Thank you, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Choreographers Celia Rowlson-Hall and Crishon Landers with the help of film producer Mia Lidofsky created a flash mob dance video on 2 October 2016 in support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 set to the music of Can't Stop the Feeling! by Justin Timberlake &mdash; with all of the dancers wearing pantsuits in reference to Hillary Clinton's outfit of choice. They called the event #Pantsuitpower Flashmob for Hillary. The video became popular, with coverage in news media including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Vogue, &mdash; and garnering over 2 million views on Facebook. From New York City, the Pantsuit Power movement then spread to Raleigh, North Carolina on 23 October 2016 with another flash mob.
 * Very interesting, but not really significant enough to be part of the telling of the story of the campaign. Perhaps you could find some other article where the content fits better, or even consider a stand-alone article about this if there is enough sourcing to make it independently notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if there's more flash mobs cropping up in multiple groups? You really think it's enough for its own article ? Where else or what other articles could it fit into? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Declined, per WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)