Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 8

Prior discussion
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton referred to half of Donald Trump's supporters as "deplorables". Afterwards, after being faced criticism by Republicans and other groups, Clinton responded by saying that she was "grossly generalistic". Her speech and her criticism is covered by many reliable sources including New York Times, NPR, and Time Magazine. Also, her political opponent Trump responded to her speech by retweeting a quote that Obama has said back in the 2012 election, as covered by newspaper The Hill. Should I add this infromation in this article? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so. Many commentators have compared it to Romney's 47% comment. It also came a day or two (?) after her husband's attack on "coal people".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, we need to wait until we see how this pans out. Relax, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, wait, let's see if it has legs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We need to wait and see what impact, if any, this has. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to cram every fringe right talking point into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This incident has considerable potential, Clinton's contempt for a substantial portion of the population, and the laughter her remarks elicited from an upscale New York audience, strike home, but, regardless of how it resonates with me, or not, with any of us, is not our editing issue. Her campaign immediately recognized the nature of the gaff, and the candidate is trying to cure. Good chance we are going to see this in Trump ads, over and over. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's slow down and smell the roses for awhile, folks Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An ongoing campaign is by definition a news story. And any part of the campaign that manages to attract a lot of attention should be included.  Hillary Clinton just referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it."  Trump and Pence replied, Clinton has backtracked, sort of. TFD (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton just correctly referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it." - There, I've fixed it for you. Clinton "gaffed" by speaking the truth about Trump's supporters. But WP:RECENT still applies here. Let's see where it is at after a few days to gestate in the media. It's not like she referred to a whole nation as murderers and rapists, or called for a ban on an entire religious group, or anything absurdly egregious and disqualifying as that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, what's up with this? Only a "half"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As George Stephanopoulos on This Week on ABC asked this morning, "Will anyone care about this a month from now?" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable third-party sources telling us that she insulted 20% of the US electorate "correctly", or is this just an opinion?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that a tiny fraction of Trump's support is from alt-right or neonazi sources such as David Duke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you able to find a reliable third-party source saying she believes the US electorate comprises 20% white supremacists? That would make international headlines for sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Large majorities of Trump supporters have negative views of Islam, of American Muslims, and of immigrants in general. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of Trump supporters believe that African-Americans are more inherently "lazy", "violent", and "criminal" than whites. These are reliably sourced facts (see Pew, Reuters, and Reuters again). So insofar as such facts matter, it was reasonably correct to estimate that "half" of Trump's supporters fall into a basket of racists, Islamophobes, and xenophobes (with an unquantified but clearly non-zero number of sexists, given the prevalence of Trump-associated campaign schwag referred to Clinton as a "bitch"). But you weren't really interested in those sorts of facts, I'm guessing. MastCell Talk 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in The Atlantic agrees, "She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters: Clinton said half of Donald Trump’s supporters were prejudiced. If anything, her numbers are too low." and maintains that her statement is true. However, he goes on to say "all truths are not equal. And some truths simply break the whole system.", reasoning that the media is avoiding a substantive discussion of racism, by defining Clinton's assertion as a "gaff." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIQWwonFYHE User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See George Stephanopoulos: "Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign.".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTI)
 * Also said on This Week, by panel members: "Every candidate should have a postit note on their mirror in the dressing room saying 'I am a candidate, not a political analyst." and "It is OK to attack your opponent; it's not OK to attack the electorate" (not exact quotes) User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Its certainly notable "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'," Clinton said. "Unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. Some of those people were irredeemable, she said, but they did not represent America. Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * David Duke. Also, please stop stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pee-wee Herman. VM I didnt see you here, but came here after seeing below Saint Aviator  lets talk 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 20% of the voting public do not represent America?  And remember that Sanders supporters, none of whom support Trump, according to Clinton, are also racist and misogynist.  So we are up to 40% plus.  Not to mention Obama supporters in 2008, who now all support Clinton, were also sexist.  Doing the math, she has more sexist supporters than Trump.  TFD (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahaha! Did you type that with a straight face? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Half" may be an underestimate .Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an entire section in Trump's Campaign article devoted to his comment on Hillary and the 2nd Amendment which was interpreted by his critics as a call for 2nd Amendment supporters to assassinate Hillary. Given that, this statement by Hillary seems at least as notable and worthy of mention here.CFredkin (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed I have to say this yet again, but what happens in the Trump article has no bearing on what happens here. Besides, calling morons a bunch of morons is nowhere near as outrageous as suggesting 2nd Amendment supporters assassinate someone. That's false equivalence. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Imagine if Trump called 50% of Hillary Clinton's supporters morons. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be taken as just another Trump comment. Like when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. Your strawman argument still has no bearing though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump's comment required "interpretation" by his critics to derive the assassination "suggestion", while Hillary's comment attacking a large segment of the voting population requires no interpretation at all. As noted above, her comment is directly equivalent to Romney's 47% comment and there's also a very large section in Mitt Romney's Campaign article on that.  Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. You guys have jumped the shark by  opposing any mention of it here.  You are in effect advocating for a double standard for Campaign articles of Dems vs. Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 16:52, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * No one, so far, has opposed any mention of it. The question is how important it will be with respect to her campaign. It seems important and was included in every Sunday morning new talk show and is the subject of wide comment. So it will probably be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Interpretation"? Direct quote: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." What's to interpret? That's what he said. Does his campaign article mention that? Without looking, I doubt it.
 * I am inclined to agree, by the way, that her "basket of deplorables" comment is relevant, but in the context of her "alt-right" speech, since it's the same subject. I see the alt-right speech is not included in this article either. Why is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the Trump comment I'm referring to.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one. Trump is too smart to say "we should assassinate Hillary Clinton". So he implied it with a dog whistle. You don't have to be a genius to get his meaning. Everybody did. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC
Should the following statement be added to the "Controversies" section of this article:

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's comment was criticized by her opponents, and the following day she stated that she regretted saying 'half', and added "It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people." CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Oppose as written. A mention of the "deplorables" could be worth adding if added with the context of her "alt-right" speech, which gives good context on who the "deplorables" are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. It's been compared by a number of sources to Romney's "47%" comment, which received prominent mention in his  Campaign 2012 article.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and please withdraw / suspend yet another pointless RfC. As things now stand it would be a weight violation, as well as POV depending on the wording. Whether this issue will eventually belong in the article, and how, is simply not knowable at this point because it is too recent and events if any have not yet unfolded. The proliferation in American political articles of rapid-fire and often overlapping RfCs on minor issues that are derogatory to the candidates, of that fail to gain immediate consensus, is disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing or to article creation. We are now about 7 weeks before the election and each of these RfCs theoretically runs for 4 weeks. When started the issue at hand is fairly fresh in the news and lots of people who aren't familiar with the article, or editing political articles in general, rush in to say it's notable because it is in the news. Days later the story dies down, and we're left with an RfC that is neither well thought through or represents any lasting consensus of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree this was yet another rush to RfC. We've only had a weekend to process the "deplorables" comment, it's only still going through its first cycle in the media, so we don't 100% know how to portray it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. The breadth of reliable third-party sources covering this remark, the fact that Trump's campaign has responded, and its comparison to Mitt Romney's 47% comment all mean that this has become a campaign issue. Thus, it should be included. The RfC is unfortunate but necessary to make sure the article reflects content from reliable third-party sources and that we all remember this should not be a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary, and quite WP:POINTY in fact, since discussion to reach a consensus for inclusion is still ongoing above. Have patience. We're not Breitbart. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither are The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Please let this RfC run its course. Anyway, I am reading a book--I don't have time to reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, there are NYT/WP/CNN stories on just about everything a candidate does during the presidential election. That doesn't mean every detail deserves inclusion in the article. I say wait and see if there is a lasting impact. Brianga (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include It has received significant coverage and has been compared to Obama's "cling to their guns and bibles" (2008) and Romney's 47% (2012) comments. And of course we should include Clinton's defense, that it was an over-generalization that she regrets.  TFD (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in some form User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include the comments made news, and it was not some fringe news, so much so that Hillary had to apologize for the comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in some form, impact of remark continues to grow and media coverage, response, and analysis is, in fact, so massive that this topic could probably support an independent article. I strongly urge that we close this discussion and add material to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * comment I was asked to come here and to delete a brief statement on this which I had added to the article ("On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that... Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America."[199] According to New York Magazine, this was the 3rd time that Clinton had referred to Trump supporters as "deplorable," but the first time that the Trump campaign made "a big deal," out of the description.[199]") If deleting it is the correct procedure, I will do so. However, I added it to the article because after 3 days of intense coverage (now including commentators responding to the responses to her remark, and a debate about whether to count Clinton's apology as an apology or merely to describe it as a "regret," and much more ) and I frankly deem it better for the project to include a simple statement of what she said, even while we discuss what more to add.  the sourcing is just so massive, and imho we damage only our own reputation by the appearance of not covering major campaign developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question -- what to do about the fact that someone has gone ahead and added it even though there's an RfC in progress? Seems like wasting people's time.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We remove it. Rather than simply come to a consensus on our own, this RfC abuse means we have to wait for the whole process to conclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not make stuff up tell lies about me, User:Moboshgu; it is rude and slanderous. "clearly" the sequence of events  was hat I went to the page after listening to the new cycle and and added content that to me seemed both neutral and patently notable. Then someone came to my talk page to inform me that this is an ongoing RFC.  Then I came here and asked an honest question about whether the material I had added should be removed while this RFC is ongoing.  Note that there was no edit war. no reversion (except yours).  I beleive that you owe men an apology.  I would still like a clarification on whether we have a policy on whether the moot material stays on the page or is removed during an RFC.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline directly the broad point of editing an article during an RfC or consensus discussion. Perhaps there is and I missed it. However, as a matter of good editing practice I would think that in the spirit of collaboration and BRD, people should not upset the status quo version of an article while an RfC or consensus discussion is in progress on that very topic. E. M. Gregory makes a good point: that the content is so obviously necessary that it would be a disservice to readers and look bad for the encyclopedia to omit it during the RfC process. I don't agree with that point, as it turns the burden on its head of establishing consensus for making changes. Also, the discretionary sanctions (described at the top of this page) include the caution: 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. The content has been challenged here on the talk page. It shouldn't be necessary to go through a game of adding and then reverting it in order for editors to exercise caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include - This speech was analyzed and critiqued by many third-party sources. The speech is still controversial because Clinton only apologies for her exaggerated percentage; she still refers to many of Trump's supporters as deplorables. Type in "Hillary Deplorables" onto Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 1 - The speech is still reported by many news articles (via Google News). For example, here is a recent analysis by Vox regarding her comment. Also, the word "Deplorable" has increased greatly on Google Trends. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 2 - In a report by USA Today, several Trump supporters embrace the "Deplorable" label. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 3 - Trump just addressed his crowd in Miami with this opening line: "Welcome to all of you deplorables". Report from the Guardian and Report from Business Insider. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 4 - New York Times has posted this opinion article on September 22, 2016. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 5 - Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, has doubled down on Clinton's deplorable comment in an interview on Meet the Press by claiming "I think a lot of the people that stand by Donald Trump are deplorable. And the things that they say are deplorable." Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of this material and Support suspending this RFC for at least two weeks. I oppose inclusion because I can see that this is way too soon to know if these news reports have any impact at all on the course of Hilary's presidential campaign WP:NOTNEWS. Also, if reports of her remarks turn out to have no bearing on the direction of the campaign, then the error of including this material would probably amount to a BLP violation, per NPOV. Also, thank you for removing this material from the article per WP:TOOSOON and per NPOV. I support suspending this RFC per User:Wikidemon - it is premature. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another RfC? - From WP:RFC: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The debate over this issue is just a few hours old, with no evidence of the need for any form of dispute resolution at this early stage. Many regular editors have not even had a chance to comment in the discussion. This is another abuse of the RfC process, which always seem to come from editors eager to put negative stuff in Clinton articles, by the way. The RfC should be withdrawn, the OP should be trouted, and the discussion that had really only just begun should be allowed to run its course in the usual way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are the "regular editors" that you referred to above? The suggestions that conducting a RfC is disruptive (when there are no other RfC's in progress for the article) and that it's somehow a bad thing to solicit input from the broader community are absurd. IMO editors making such assertions are the one's who should be trouted.  And for the record, this RfC at the Talk page for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was started with absolutely no prior Talk discussion on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CFedkin, although this is an "Otherstuff" argument, it appears there was discussion, as pointed out by the second Ivoter jn that particular RFC - one link is  this one ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The proliferation of RfCs is surely disruptive. The process is intended to solicit wider input on significant questions well down the process of consensus-building, if the article editors need some additional perspective, not a knee-jerk process gaming by an editor who can't shoehorn in their favored content three days into a news cycle. If the Trump articles have the same RFC abuse as the Clinton articles, that's not really our problem here but that would be a disruption issue to address there as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This. This is another instance of CFredkin trying to abuse one process or another to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy. Spamming RfCs to have content determined by vote rather than discussion and consensus is indeed disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose to the version posted on the RfC. I think only 2nd comment by Clinton could be included somewhere, but only in appropriate context and not as a separate subsection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in some form, strongly. It is clearly relevant and past precedent is clearly in favor of it. I see absolutely no reason not to. Even in the form above is fine - it is, after all, a wiki, and if people object to the specific wording, then they can edit it, so long as the basic essence remains. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Piers Morgan:"This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency []. The repercussion are continuing to explode, commentators are talking about Clinton throwing away her credibility last Friday. Let's not trash our credibility by deleting this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing Piers Morgan's opinion isn't worth the spittle coming from his mouth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who gives a shit what Piers Morgan says? I mean, Ed Anger is a more reliable and noteworthy source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Postpone decision for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding the above paragraph, but the information should be included somewhere. The biggest problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't mention the other "half" of the Trump supporters that Clinton described. I believed she said the other half felt economically anxious and politically let down, looking for any kind of change. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but the whole description should be included, not just the "deplorables" bit, per WP:WEIGHT. FallingGravity 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. Stongly. Saint Aviator  lets talk 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - This has been covered by multiple high-quality sources and is directly relevant to the campaign. Although the MSM may stop covering it in few days, it has already reached the level of significance to justify inclusion, much like Binders full of Women and similar public comments that politicians wish they hadn't made.- MrX 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and most certainly not without the other part of the quote. Come on, the important half of the quote is being cut off in a pretty transparent attempt to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude We can point to Romney's "binders full of women" and 47% comment as campaign-ending gaffes only because he lost the election, arguably due to those statements. We can't say that about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" at this time. Even the sources we have are just speculating about its impact. clpo13(talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Romney's Binders full of women article was created on October 2012, one month before Romeny lost the election. Although the article was considered for deletion around the same time, the result was "No Consensus". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the Aleppo gaffe is discussed on Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016; where it was removed, but re-added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And that Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has a section containing about a dozen such gaffes. We either need to delete major, new-cycle leading gaffes from the Gary Johnson and Donald Trump pages, or keep this one here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, there is a controversy on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 called Veterans for a Strong America event. There are not any recent sources for that news story and there are only 234 reports listed on Google News. Meanwhile, Hillary's Deplorable statement has half a million articles listed on Google News. There are even less stories on Khizr Khan alone (with almost 100,000 articles on Google News and about ten thousand articles about "Gold Star Family") and that gaffe was all over the news for a while. Finally, Trump's biggest gaffe (The second amendment speech) has about 182,000 articles on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude but only for the time being. The comment could very well be a turning point for the election, and if it rises to the prominence of Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment, I would consider it a slam-dunk.  I think the article, and the general cause of knowledge, can suffer the delay.  After all, an encyclopedia isn't news. Heterodidact (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment From my experience watching this (and I've been watching it all), we have a lot of editors who want to argue a lot and not do crap to improve the project, we have a few experienced editors who have forgotten what it's like to AGF, we have a lot of editors who don't show up until there is an RfC, and none of it matters, because when they all disappear no one who is left can pull their shit together long enough to even implement the consensus of the last RfC. So the default outcome of this RfC is not include, because even when previous RfCs have had consensus for inclusion, everyone is so involved in arguing and attacking one another that nothing gets done anyway. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Include per MrX. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note For the sake of completeness here is the full quote. As can be easily seen, quoting just the cherry picked part is obviously POV. Just because that's the way breitbart does it, doesn't mean we stoop to their level:

''You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket–and I know this because I see friends from all over America here–I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas–as well as, you know, New York and California–but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.''

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the final phrase of citation "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well" is important. In essence, this RfC asks a question: "Should [this selective quotation out of context] be included?". I am sure that using selective quotation out of context goes against our core policies ("five pillars"). Whatever consensus here might be, it should be void and overwritten by our core policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, the proposal is a blatant attempt to push POV by manipulating the quote and context and many of these "include" votes aren't much better. Maybe half of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include – Eminently notable statement, widely described as a defining moment of the campaign, both by supporters and opponents of Clinton. — JFG talk 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include This was an important statement and there was a lot of media coverage of it. Metron (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to close this discussion and include a brief description of incident. My reasoning is that it is an abuse of the RFC process to use it to keep patently notable material and RS material  out of an article, we risk WP:UNDUE and giving our readers the impression of political bias not only by acts of POV inclusion,  by also by acts of POV omission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't "move" to close discussions, we let RfCs run their course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with closing this RfC because it should never have happened, and I also agree the matter needs to be included, but absolutely not in the way written by the OP. We can continue this discussion outside this RfC in the usual way, until consensus wording emerges. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include – it is note worthy and akin to Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment; there is enough independent coverage by RS sources, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - A widely-reported and obviously significant incident, since it has led to media speculation it could potentially cost Clinton the election. No valid reason for not mentioning it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. It's funny. (And also, it's widely reported, well-sourced, and probably will get some lasting impact.) epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include, major political gaffe with heavy coverage and substantial implications for the future course of the campaign. The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump fans, and Clinton's walking-back of the remark attests to the controversy's notability. It was deemed significant enough to use in an ad: . It's even spawned sub-controversies, such as Pence's refusal to call David Duke "deplorable": . It doesn't need its own paragraph, but a few sentences will do for now. If it becomes more significant as things develop, I imagine we can expand it as needed. However, I do think the second quote should be trimmed, as it doesn't seem to add anything. GABgab 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, this controversy should be included, but not in the way suggested on this RfC. Yes, the phrase was taken out of context by campaigners to conduct their propaganda, but it does not mean we should continue their propaganda in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include this version. Per conversation below, consensus seems to be for this wording in particular. Agree with GAB that the second quote needs trimmed to about half, or replaced with prose to the same effect, but for the time being I support inclusion of this wording as a starting place, which can be subsequently tweaked as needed. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS -- I doubt it would damage Clinton to have this included here, but I think it would damage Wikipedia to act as such a transparent vehicle for the campaigning interests of those who think she spoke out of turn. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exlude per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. thing any such politician says is "controversial" to someone.  Whether this is a lasting, noteworthy controversy that will affect the campaign waits to be seen (and is highly dubious).  This article is not meant to be a catalog of every potentially "controversial" statement ever made by Clinton.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: There are many controversial actions made by Donald Trump that remain on his controversies section that are smaller than this particular controversy. For example, the Veterans for a Strong America event is not widely reported by the media, with only 295 articles on Google News. Also, there is a section dedicated towards Trump's misstatements, and yet Clinton does not, even though she has said many controversial comments like the Deplorables comment, her emails (Clinton has claimed that she "did not send or receive any material marked classified", despite receiving emails that were later found to be classified at a confidental level), and her comment against coal miners, in which she called the comment a "misstatement". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, what goes on in the Trump article has no bearing on what goes on here. Why is this so hard for editors to understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; Yoshiman6464 is just making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument-to-avoid. The Donald Trump article has its own problems, and the editorial pool at it has their own hands full working them out. The responsibility of editors at page is making this article as best as we can, on its own merits, not as part of, or a tool of, the off-WP political struggles going on.  Given the debate I saw on TV a few hours ago, I have little doubt that the pressure to include more "controversies" in the Trump article will mount, but that has nothing to do with undue weight and encyclopedic relevance issues at  article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Include. There are reliable sources who analyze the comment in terms of what it means to her support in polls:, .  There are also sources that analyze it in terms of the atmosphere of the election: .  And, there are sources who report that it's being fact-checked: .  That's a lot of analysis.  Find a way to neutrally summarize the analysis and include it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Include, for obvious reasons; this is clearly one of the most important events of the 2016 campaign and should have its own section, as I'm sure it will in the medium term once the historical analysis of the campaign starts to appear. As for the wording, it needs serious copy editing. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude. WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM. The Washington Post question was: "Do you think it’s fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump’s supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?"  The question did not mention Hillary Clinton or her choice of words, and starting the last sentence with "this attack" is your clearly biased POV.  Your summation of Flegenheimer’s NY Times article is also way off the mark. WP:NPOV.  The remarks received some coverage, but it was never a controversy.  Public attention has moved on.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. But with significant rewording to more accurately describe what she said... Let's not kid ourselves, just because he makes gaffes all the time doesn't mean that her making one is therefore not notable. As a politician, and by those standards, the comment was notable in its use of the word half and should be included saying as much.  Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors   13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Building a consensus formulation
As this RfC is leaning towards inclusion, I'd like to work here with fellow editors towards a consensus formulation of the event. Starting with the nominator's proposal and a few helpful suggestions mentioned along the way, adding citations about recent developments. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using 'racist lies' and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated 'You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.' Clinton's remark was criticized as potentially insulting to millions of Americans, and the following day she expressed regret for saying 'half', while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified 'hateful views and voices'. The 'Deplorables' moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters, with the Trump campaign inviting 'deplorable Americans' on stage and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement. This attack was deemed unfair by a large share of Clinton's supporters (45%) as well as Trump's (90%), many commentators comparing the gaffe to Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012." Please add your support, opposition, comments and suggestions below; I will amend the text above until we reach an acceptable consensus formulation. — JFG talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, but here's a good place to say this again. Her "deplorables" comment cannot be fully understood without considering the "alt-right" speech she gave about two weeks prior. I would like to see a sentence mentioning the alt-right speech placed before the deplorables remark, if this is indeed to be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Counter proposal? Timothy Joseph Wood  22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a rough sketch. Also I don't think the snap "voter feedback" stuff is so useful, as really any uproar has long since died out. Also the "was criticized" has a strawman feel to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I incorporated your suggestion about the alt-right speech in the proposal above, so we can keep the conversation clear. No need for a "criticized by whom" as this is in two quoted sources (criticism came from Trump's campaign, pollsters and journalists). Regarding the negative voter feedback, this was culled from a September 26 article reporting on public opinion about this very question, two weeks after the controversy erupted, so that's not part of an initial knee-jerk reaction which would have died out; keeping the phrase. — JFG talk 05:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I would replace "moment" with "comments" or "statement". "Moment" in this case, is a completely meaningless vanilla filler noun. Other than that is seems fine. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with the final sentence. First, the referenced poll did not specifically ask respondents about the "basket of deplorables" comment, but rather it asked about a generic generalization that is loosely related. Second, the sentence seems to suggest Democrats were "negative" toward the comment, when in fact less than half (47%) of Democrats were negative toward the generic question asked in the poll and 49% thought it was fair. Third, it seems to mash up the response of the polled registered voters with the opinions of commentators, which is problematic for both the mash up and the fact that we shouldn't be using opinion pieces. Fixing the sentence would be difficult, because you would necessarily have to go into the weeds of why the poll is only related to the comment. It would be better to simply say "a poll indicated a majority of respondents thought it was unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities" and ditch the opinion pieces comparing the comment to the Romney gaffe. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point, however this article makes it clear that Clinton's comment resonated negatively not only with Trump supporters (90%) but also with a large segment of Clinton's base (45%), which is unusual in this strongly polarized election and the salient fact emphasized by the article. It's not an isolated comment, as several sources support this assertion (but we don't need to bludgeon the paragraph with more). To address your concerns, I rephrased the text to "This attack was deemed unfair" and I added the raw numbers so readers can judge for themselves how strongly this statement has been rejected. Concerning the comparison to Romney's statement, most of the sources drew this parallel (I referenced four from sources already used in this paragraph, without even looking deeper to find more), so inclusion is WP:DUE. — JFG talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Include though I may quibble with the wording: the comment generated substantial international interest in addition to huge domestic coverage, and it would be an NPOV violation to leave the matter out. Of course, I do wish that those folks who simply have an axe to grind against Hillary would stick to matters of substance, like her flip-flopping on the TPP, but I suppose we cannot blame Wikipedia for the failings of the mainstream press in the United States. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Thanks all for your feedback. I believe we have reached a fair formulation, so I have now added the text to the article. Of course it can still be amended by the regular editing process. — JFG talk 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your archiving of this discussion, which was closed prematurely. I have also made changes to the text you put into the article, because (as I stated earlier) the text indicating polling of Democrats misrepresents their views. "Large share of Clinton's supporters" gives the impression of a plurality, which is wrong (even with the percentage you added). The question asked in the poll did not even mention "deplorables", so it cannot be directly tied to the comment. I've also removed the weasel word from the following text about the 47% gaffe, and separated it out. Please don't archive this discussion until the text is actually agreed upon. You will note I graciously didn't just revert your entire text, which I certainly could've reasonably done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, and thanks for preserving most of the text; my only goal is to get something acceptable done so we can all move on. Do you have a suggested wording for the phrase you disagree with? — JFG talk 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My contention is that the phrase should be omitted entirely, which is what I have already done to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. I think it's significant because it addresses one concern that was expressed in the RFC discussion, namely that of recentism. But I won't push it unless we get consensus support. Fellow editors, any other opinions? Should we have a phrase reporting on voter feedback a few weeks after the incident? — JFG talk 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, my main problem with the proposed inclusion (aside that it was really just news for a couple days and now it's more or less outdated) is that it omits the second part of the quote. To paraphrase, what she said was that half the Trump supporters are deplorable racists etc., but the other half are people who have a legitimate grievance and who's economic situation has been ignored. The "but the other half" part is important to understanding the meaning of the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion how to include this second half in a concise manner? Perhaps add "She further mentioned that the other half had legitimate grievances to address." after her direct quote? — JFG talk 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is not to bother with this stuff at all. Just leave it out. And seriously, tacking on a weak ass sentence at the end of a quote purposefully taken out of context and pretending that's "balance", where that added sentence actually summarizes what the quote was really about is pretty much the definition of violating POV and WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my revert to the proposed consensus version, so I can't revert back because of WP:1RR. However, the version you restored, as altered by two prior editors and, had not been discussed by them. We are trying to build a consensus version here and I have taken into account all incoming comments before adding the text to the article. Please make your suggestions here before intervening further. — JFG talk 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you have a difficulty -- this edit removes quotation marks from the section title, something you have now done twice in the last 24 hours. Hence, a 1RR violation. I suggest self-reverting.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's a purely cosmetic change. Any comments on substance from your side? — JFG talk 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, the RfC is still open. Though the "include" votes outnumber the "exclude" ones it's hardly a slam-bang. Even if there is consensus to include the material, that hardly argues for an entire heading and two paragraph long "controversies" subsection. It's incorrect to characterize it as primarily a controversy, that's beginning to make the controversy section into a coatrack. Rather, it's part of the usual back and forth sniping between candidates leading up to an election. The proposed text is not good. It contains excessive quotations and position statements, as well as unencyclopedic opinion. "Millions of Americans" is campaign-style rhetoric, not encyclopedic tone. "Expressed regret" is inaccurate, as is inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage. "pointed the label back at Clienton" is inaccurate. "A rallying cry" is unencyclopeidc tone. It shouldn't be called a 'gaffe', and the fact that some sources made an inapt comparison to Romney's 47% of Americans comment is not relevant to the campaign. I don't think it's reasonable to have a so-called consensus discussion in the middle of an RfC, much less insist that a version people are editing in the article in the meanwhile represents consensus, which is why I'm waiting to participate until the RfC is closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Even if this is included the "millions of Americans" part needs to go, as it's pure editorializing. Second, some of those "include" votes were/are based on the notion that "this is like Romney's 47% remark". That was WP:CRYSTALBALL when those !votes were made. Now it's pretty much obvious that that is not the case at all. It's nothing like that, people got over it, most people, outside the far-right blogs and faux-media moved on, a large number of people actually seem to agree with her. So maybe the RfC should be restarted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's the obvious point: JFG is a contributor to the RFC, right? Then WTF is he doing "closing" the RfC?  And then pretending that his edit is a "consensus version"?  Get real dude.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OK guys, relax, I'm just trying to reach closure on this discussion. Given that the RFC attracted plenty of comments and no new editor weighed in after September 23, I felt justified in moving forward. As some of the participants noted, these events are time-sensitive and it is not mandatory to wait 30 days if the discussion has essentially stopped for more than a week. Regarding the decision to include, I'm happy to let some uninvolved admin assess this, however consensus on inclusion looks pretty obvious. I get it that you'd rather have no mention of this event in the article but it looks to me like the community has decided that it's worth mentioning (and I would recognize that even if I'd !voted against). Regarding the exact text to include, I started a process to improve on the OP's suggestion taking into account remarks made in the discussion and I incorporated the feedback I received. This is called consensus-building; if you want to help, you're welcome to participate and make suggestions. It's not enough to just criticize every part of the text you dislike without submitting anything constructive. Attacking my integrity won't help either. — JFG talk 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have to wait 30 days, but an (experienced) uninvolved editor should properly weigh consensus and close the discussion. Also, material was added in addition to the proposed text in the RfC. The first time it was removed, it should have stayed out until consensus was formed for its inclusion, per the prominent edit notice.- MrX 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct. And somebody just posted a close request to that effect. In the meantime, I'm still open to constructive suggestions on the exact text to include, because the OP's text was deemed insufficient by several commenters. — JFG talk 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, you're not being "attacked", you're just being criticized for trying to close an RfC in which you've been quite active, which is pretty sketchy. Second, there's no "time sensitive" issue here unless someone's purpose for including this material is to try and influence the outcome of the election - but this is an encyclopedia, not a god damn tabloid, and that kind of approach sort of betrays the intention of WP:ADVOCACY. Third, stating that only minor alterations to your proposed text constitute "constructive" discussion, while rejecting this POV nonsense wholesale is not, appears to be a (fairly transparent) attempt to manipulate the discussion by framing it in a way which makes meaningful disagreement with your position impossible a priori - and that's an underhanded tactic. Fourth, it's worth recalling at this point that this RfC was started by a user who is now topic banned from this area, and for good reason. That sort of cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole process (the fact that this RfC was disruptive to begin with has been noted by several users above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I refute any accusation of partisanship. Please note that in this discussion, and in many others related to the election, I have been working towards consensus by including relevant comments made by both supporters and opponents of the proposed inclusion. Your position that nothing should be included has been made loud and clear, but it doesn't reflect the wider community opinion at this point. So your best way forward would be actually proposing some concrete alterations, and accepting that other people will suggest different ones until we reach a formulation that nobody is super happy with but everybody can grudgingly live with. You can't with a straight face call "POV nonsense" a well-sourced summary of what has been actually said by both political sides and numerous serious commentators about this incident. Even, (a sentence describing exactly what you asked to add) and you fail to suggest any alternative except "leave it all out". If you want your arguments to be heard, please work with the people who are actually listening to you. — JFG talk 08:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the deplorables material because we have not yet worked out a consensus text, as indicated in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What is our proposed text so far? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The accusations and commentary about Trump and his supporters engaging in racist, sexist, etc. behavior are a biographical and campaign issue for Trump, not Clinton. Clinton's saying the same thing as everyone else is certainly not a controversy. The only controversy part, if it can be called a controversy, is that she said half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, when the actual number is less than half or perhaps they are not so deplorable. So if this is going to be described as a controversy the content would be roughly that Clinton described Trump's supporters as deplorable, and after initially bristling at the statement Trump and his supporters coopted it as a matter of self-identification. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Building a consensus formulation, round 2
Acting upon the RfC close, I'm now restarting the consensus-building exercise towards a good enough formulation. Starting with the proposed version as amended earlier. Please comment below and I'll incorporate changes as they are adopted. — JFG talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using 'racist lies' and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated 'You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.' Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as potentially insulting to millions of Americans. Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012   and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well. The following day Clinton expressed regret for saying 'half', while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified 'hateful views and voices'. The 'Deplorables' moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters, with the Trump campaign inviting 'deplorable Americans' on stage and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement." I suggest 48 hours of further comments and consensus-building, i.e. until Tuesday 18 October 12:00 UTC, after which the text will be included and follow the normal editorial process. — JFG talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a number of problems with the proposed text. I don't think we should have any of it, frankly, but in the interests of trying to work constructively I am offering an alternative. Criticism came almost exclusively from political opponents, according to the sources used, so that needs to be stated. "Millions of Americans" does not appear to be supported by the sources used, and is vague and wishy-washy anyway. Most of what follows from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" does not have anything to do with the Clinton campaign. As I said in the previous discussion, the "polling data" misrepresents the views of Democrats, because the question asked in the survey did not match what Clinton said. Finally, I've removed the weasel words (again!) from the Romney comparison and rearranged the end to make it read better. I have no objection to the sources used, so I have not included them. So here's my suggested text:
 * "On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using 'racist lies' and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated 'You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.' Clinton's remark was criticized by political opponents and compared to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe. The following day, she expressed regret for saying 'half' while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified 'hateful views and voices'."
 * Finally, I respectfully suggest you retract the arbitrary 48-hour deadline you imposed. It should not be added to the article until there is consensus, however long it takes. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I agree with attributing criticism to her opponents, namely quoting Trump himself as the sources do; see my edit. Some editors would like to drop the first sentence mentioning her prior alt-right speech (see below section); what do you think? The WaPo piece titled "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach" looks significant enough that we should include it, perhaps with a different wording: the rejection of this blanket characterization by Democrats as well as Republicans is the key theme of this report. I suggest trimming things to "deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and letting readers refer to the source for details. Finally, the appropriation of the "deplorables" moniker by Trump supporters is well-documented and has endured to this day, so it deserves inclusion. I'm open to wording changes and extra sources for this part, which now comes last in the proposed paragraph.
 * The 48-hour deadline is here to ensure that we move forward; we have already waited for the full 30-day RfC period and we can't let this glaring omission about a significant campaign event drag on until everybody's happy with the text (that will never happen). Yes it's arbitrary but I'm confident that, with a spattering of good faith from all involved, we'll reach consensus on some kind of mention fast enough, then normal editing can resume. — JFG talk 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are moving in the right direction, User:JFG; however, I still feel strongly that you cannot use that poll to link the views of Democrats to the "deplorables" comments. The question asked in the poll was way too unspecific to make a direct link, and the RS only vaguely refers to it in the headline (from which you presumably took "approach"). I would still favor excluding polling data completely, especially since it was only a single poll. I also think everything from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" onwards has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, but in the interests of getting this done I am no longer going to consider this a dealbreaker. As to the first sentence, I think it does give useful context, but to be perfectly honest it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as newsworthy. It would be fair to say I'm neutral as to its inclusion/exclusion. In summary, remove "and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and you have my support. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I removed the part you opposed and inserted the text into the article. Thanks for your assistance. — JFG talk 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * USER JFG: Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk?  You edited the closed RfC by adding an official-looking comment to the admin’s closing notes, and you seem to be trying to impose your views by arbitrarily closing an ongoing discussion, starting a new one, and setting a deadline for conclusion of that discussion or else.  The RfC close clearly states "… that there is no consensus for including the material in the proposed form …",  and here’s your "new" proposal, exactly as proposed before and strongly objected to by numerous editors.  Here’s my proposal for a neutral version:

"Speaking at a New York LGBT fundraiser for her on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said that '… just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables[]' because they are '… racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic …'. She continued to say that 'the other basket … are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down … and they’re just desperate for change.'  Trump said the remarks showed 'her true contempt for everyday Americans;'  some of his Twitter followers added the attribute 'deplorable' to their names. Truth-o-Meter The following day, Clinton issued a statement saying that she regretted saying 'half' and continued her criticism of a Trump campaign built '… largely on prejudice and paranoia …'. Time"


 * Several of the other sources should also be included, TBA if and when the time comes. Signing off with a not-quite-out-of-context Trump quote: "And some, I assume, are good people."  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not "in charge" or "imposing my views", I'm just trying to reach consensus and move on. I separated the discussions to clarify what was debated before the RfC close and what is being debated after. Editors who "strongly opposed" typically wanted to include nothing; now the community has decided that this event is notable enough for inclusion and we are collectively refining the text. — JFG talk 10:38, 17 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!).  See also my remarks at the end of the new "Deplorables" section (currently last one on this Talk page).  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This sentence was added for context per request of another editor; I'm only curating here, not misquoting or misinterpreting; please WP:AGF. — JFG talk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You have no respect for consensus, after everyone has moved on. Fine, enjoy yourself; I'm not going to fight over this, but let it be clear that I have no respect towards your attitude. — JFG talk 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * JFG, as User:Space4Time3Continuum2x says above " Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk?" You made a proposal and now you insist that just because you made it it's "consensus". It's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is closed, folks. Please do not extend it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Specific wording
Since a previous RfC was closed with a consensus of include, but no consensus on specifics, and it was subsequently abandoned and never implemented, here is the specific wording proposed by E.M.Gregory as c/e by Sandstein. Those voting to include please also comment on whether you would support this specific version. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging include votes:            Timothy Joseph Wood  21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - How is this comment from not an egregious violation of WP:CANVASS? Also, the RfC doesn't looked closed to me. There shouldn't have been an RfC. The initiating editor abused the process, which has become S.O.P. for conservatively-minded editors on Wikipedia lately. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because those I pinged had already voted to include, and those who have voted against inclusion in principle are assumed to also be against this wording. This isn't bringing anyone new to the conversation; it's asking for further clarification from those already around. Do use a bit of common sense please. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's doesn't explain it at all. You are specifically drawing attention to this new section to the people you feel will support it, and not to others. That's textbook canvassing and totally inappropriate. Don't do that, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Spare me your vitriol. This was an effort to clarify whether support votes were in support of the wording in general, or the specific wording proposed by either the originator of the RfC or as added by EMG. Spit your venom somewhere else. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either. The whole thing looks like a procedural mess that can't really be fixed at this point, but might as well inform the other participants who were not yet pinged. Am I correct that there is no closed RfC with a consensus to include? j            - Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- Wikidemon (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC closed? I don't see where the RFC has been closed by an un-involved Admin or editor. Also, it appears to me that RFC consensus strongly supports exclusion of the proposed version by CFredkin. And, Josephwood demonstrates a blatant case of canvasing. The RFC should not have happened in the first place - it now appears to be an end around of the first step of the process - talk page discussion - which was obvious - but people went along. Steve Quinn (talk)
 * The closed RfC I was referring to was this previous one on a different proposal. Because it did not reach consensus on specific wording, but rather on inclusion in principle alone, it was never implemented. As soon as interest died down the talk devolved into the same three or four intransigent editors on either side who have forgotten that WP isn't a forum for political debate. Also asking for clarification on votes re: wording is not canvassing. Please read policy before you accuse someone of violating it. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say everyone here has read the policy. If people didn't keep violating it, you wouldn't have to remind everyone to reread it. Incidentally, the bungled RfC you refer to was already implemented as of the time it was started, which is why there was no further action. It was one of the most pointless among many pointless out-of-process RfCs. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the nonsense accusations by exactly the intransigent editors I refer to, the RfC was not and has not been implemented despite the efforts by both these exact accusatory editors to misrepresent it, for you personally, now at least twice. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you and your editing colleagues didn't spray Wikipedia with unnecessary RfCs and used "regular order" instead of underhanded tactics like canvassing and forum shopping, we wouldn't be in this ludicrous mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, unlike yourself and WD, I actually edit articles not related to HRC and the 2016 election. My !voting record here has also been fairly split between including and not including content based on its merits, and if I didn't get the overwhelming impression that a few obsessive editors were using this talk to strong arm any dissenting opinion, I wouldn't be here at all. If you think I'm canvassing then report me. If not, then get off it, and stop confusing Wikipedia for your twitter feed. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TJW, as I have cautioned you before you have become part of the problem here and not part of any solution. You admit above that you have come here to do WP:BATTLE against a perceived pro-Clinton cabal. You have been egging on editors to abuse process, and now in that same post, misrepresenting the history of other members of the community, "for the record" as you put it. That is unwelcome, and will come up in arbitration enforcement if there is any. Pipe down already, please. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TJW, according to the user stats I have edited over 6,000 unique Wikipedia pages. I've been editing on Wikipedia for over a decade across a wide range of science and political articles. Don't question my commitment to the project again. Your actions above speak for themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I wasn't questioning your commitment to the project, I was questioning your exceptional commitment to Clinton articles. Additionally, the continual disruptive attempts to discredit every successive RfC are part of the problem, as is the continued general incivility, stonewalling, deleting other's comments, and the like that makes continued RfCs necessary. Timothy Joseph Wood  10:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure - except that "New York Magazine" should be in italics (New York Magazine). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a somewhat inferior version than the one proposed in the RfC above, and not as neutral. As usual, I oppose any quote with the middle of the quote omitted as indicated by ellipses. - MrX 21:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this needs the additional context of Hillary's August "alt-right" speech, which is clearly related. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not this version. This version makes it sound like she was right to dismiss millions of Americans as deplorables. Does she want to be the president of all Americans, or only the chosen few? I also think we should add some info about Trump's campaign ad about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to make it sound like she was "wrong". And no to adding Trump's ad, that's political back-and-forth that's utterly predictable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not for us to claim she was right to insult millions of Americans either, by picking out one specific reference out of thousands. And I disagree about the ad. It shows that it's become a huge campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should also add Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's criticism of the "deplorables" remark. He said, "When it comes to an election, your job as an opposing candidate is to try and inspire and enthuse people to follow your policies and your candidature, rather than slagging off people for supporting the other candidate. She was right to apologise.”".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there more international reactions we could add?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should we include any international reactions to this comment? They aren't relevant. And as it's not for us to claim she was right, it's not for us to claim she was wrong, or push the POV that she was, as you're suggesting by mentioning Sadiq Khan. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * She's running for president, which means she will have to deal with international leaders. She appears to have made an international faux pas. (In the same way, Trump's temporary Muslim ban includes the international reaction.) And please assume good faith; I don't accuse you of bad faith, so please be civil. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Bit Lame Agree with Zig Zag. It was a hugely Foolish thing to say. Saint Aviator  lets talk</i> 22:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I approve the RFC wording by : clear, concise and neutral. Possibly add GAB's suggestion above from latest developments: The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump supporters. (with his citations) — JFG talk 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose everything, because this is a dreadful mess. I move that we delete Wikipedia and start again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TMI. How about On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." According to... All that other stuff is just sensationalizing, right? So delete it. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording. It doesn't improve much on the previous wording as it leaves out even more from the original quotation, most notably the "grossly generalistic" bit. Additionally, there is no mention of the other "half" of Trump's supporters that Clinton described or her subsequent comments. FallingGravity 01:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointlessly redundant. Our readers are not morons. If we used this quote at all, just use the quote, don't restate exactly what the quote says immediately before quoting it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Romney comparison
An editor has restored a statement, not supported by the sources cited, that "Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012.". Four sources are cited. So of the four sources, only one, arguably, claims that Clinton's comment is similar, but it is hardly the only comparison or main point of the story. Using it as a primary source to generalize about what political commentators say is weak, particularly when the other three sources, whether or not their authors are political commentators, bring Romney up in the context of political opponents and voter reactions, and do not say the comments are similar. If it is true that political commentators claimed similarity we would need sources to support that. Either way, I don't think the sources support that bringing up Romney is the most pertinent public reaction to the quote. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first is an NPR piece that says only that the comments "remind of" remarks by Obama, Romney, and Paul Ryan. It then goes on to compare and contrast statements by various candidates about their opponents' supporters. It is not fair to say that the main point of the piece is that Clinton's statement is like Romney's,. The piece does not say that commentators have compared the two. It is a piece by a journalist described on various NPR sites as "NPR's lead editor for politics and digital audience".
 * The second does not describe the deplorable's comment at all in relation to Romeny, or claim that political analysts do so. Rather it quotes "Republican pollster Frank Luntz" saying so.
 * The third, likewise, does not discuss the comment in the context of Romeny or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that it "struck some Republicans as similar".
 * The fourth also does not compare the two comments or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that voters polled about the comments rejected them in about the same proportion as Romney, but then goes on to say that "it's not clear" that the Clinton quote would have the same kind of effect on the election, because"Romney's comment might have alienated people who actually might have voted for him" — hardly a comparison.

I agree that the reinserted sentence is not supported by the sources, "… if you read beyond the headlines and first paragraph" (to quote the reinserting editor’s edit summary), so I’m now boldly going with my initial inclination and removing it. Please, do not reinsert it until this matter has been discussed. Other sources to consider:
 * making the case for two key differences and ending on "wait and see".
 * is an entire list of differences, too many to repeat here or put in the article.
 * This is a Slate blog but if the Bloomberg article, which doesn’t contain much more than one Republican pollster’s opinion, is acceptable as a reliable source then so is this, which refutes the same pollster’s opinion.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables vs 47 percent
During the RFC on Clinton's "Deplorables" comment, several editors quoted sources comparing this event to Mitt Romney's "47 percent" remark in 2012. An attributed statement was accordingly included in the consensus text and sourced to no less than four reputable press articles:

Later on, this sentence was by, arguing that it misrepresented sources. I after double-checking the sources and I commented that the text was absolutely supported by sources, if you read beyond the headlines and first paragraph; this was reverted again by  saying not supported by the sources. So let's check what the sources say:
 * 1) NPR: The remarks also remind of inflammatory remarks in recent presidential elections on both sides — from Barack Obama's assertion in 2008 that people in small towns are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion," to Mitt Romney's 2012 statement that 47 percent of Americans vote for Democrats because they are "dependent upon government" and believe they are "victims," to his vice presidential pick Paul Ryan's comment that the country is divided between "makers and takers."
 * 2) Bloomberg: Republican pollster Frank Luntz described Clinton’s comments as her “47 percent moment,” a reference to Republican Mitt Romney’s remarks at a private fundraiser in the 2012 campaign.
 * 3) New York Times: Prof. Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University, said in an email that the “deplorable” comment “sounds bad on the face of it” and compared it to Mr. Romney’s 47 percent gaffe. “The comment demonstrates that she (like Romney) lacks empathy for that group,” Professor Mercieca said.
 * 4) Washington Post: On the other hand, it's not clear whether this comment, even if people don't like it, will have anywhere near the effect that Romney's "47 percent" comment was supposed to have. That's especially because Clinton has backed away from saying it applied to half of Trump supporters and, as I noted two weeks ago, the fact that Romney's comment might have alienated people who actually might have voted for him. Clinton's comment was about people already backing her opponent — a key difference.

All the cited sources make distinct comparisons of Clinton's and Romney's comments, or quote political analysts comparing and contrasting the statements, so the reverts arguing bad sourcing were totally unjustified and we must restore the phrase. — JFG talk 00:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See the above subsection, where I refute each of the above sources. All but one are neither primary-sourced examples of political analysts making the comparison nor are they secondary sources stating that political analysts have made the comparison. The one example of a political analyst discussing the Romney quote, the NPR piece, compares and contrasts the two. Saying it compared the two is misleading, because that creates the false impression that the source concluded that the two are similar, when in fact it goes over a bunch of different statements and does not conclude that any of them are particularly similar. By the way, could you point to any consensus reached on this? I don't see it, and the ongoing discussion / reversions by multiple editors suggest there is none. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had not noticed your comments before posting a new section; thanks for consolidating. To the meat of the matter:
 * NPR: You agree with me that this piece makes a comparison, and you note the author is billed as the "lead editor for politics and digital audience" at a major respectable news organization — that fits the definition of "political analyst" in my book. If you disagree with that, we could say "Political analysts and journalists", but frankly that looks heavy and superfluous. You also say that this comparison is not the main point of the piece; I agree, and I didn't claim it was. The proposed text simply states that this source and others do make the comparison.
 * Bloomberg makes a direct quote of Frank Luntz saying that Clinton just had her "47% moment". As a professional pollster, he is unambiguously a political analyst.
 * The New York Times quotes Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University, making her own comparison. She is a political scholar.
 * The Washington Post writer makes a detailed comparison, two weeks after the incident, and remarks that Clinton's statement disparages her opponents' supporters whereas Romney's alienated his own party base. How stupid of Romney! How clever of Clinton! Can we call this journalist a political analyst? Well, he just made a brilliant comparative analysis of Clinton's and Romney's statements for his readers, so that's settled.
 * With these comments, I stand by my determination that all four sources support the statement Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012. We do not say how they compare it or what they find similar or different: the fact is they all noticed a parallel and expressed their view of such parallel, providing ample evidence to document the existence of such parallel in our encyclopedia. I would be happy to say "compared and contrasted" instead of just "compared" if that makes it sound more neutral to you. — JFG talk 06:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * kindly cites three more sources, noting that they emphasize the differences between the Romney and Clinton aspersions. Whether sources notice a similarity or notice a difference, they all compare the statements, by a very literal definition of the verb "to compare": Estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between., so this further reinforces the proposed text. — JFG talk 07:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, one of the biggest differences between Romney's and Clinton's remark is that Romney was talking about 47% of the population, while Clinton was talking about half of Trump's supporters , and that Romney's remark may have alienated voters who might otherwise have voted for him. The voters Clinton's remark might have angered or did anger would not have voted for her with or without those remarks.  In other words, the sources compared the remarks and determined them to be different in both content and effect. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I still support JFG's interpretation of this. The "deplorables" comment and the "47%" comment were frequently mentioned in tandem in mainstream media sources, particularly on cable news. While there are differences, as Space4Time3Continuum2x notes, there are also similarities which are apt. Both statements involved sweeping generalizations, and both individuals apologized for doing that, which is why comparisons were made. The sources presented by JFG seem to support this view, and I think it is notable enough to give the "deplorables" comment a little useful context. And to Wikidemon, I should say that JFG and I were on opposite sides of the issue and we came together to find a text that satisfied our opposing views. Space4Time3Continuum2x objected to language at the beginning of the proposed wording we worked out, but that language came from the RfC discussion and was otherwise not in dispute. The continued silence of others led JFG and I to believe we had a consensus, which is why JFG has claimed such above. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "compare" has two opposite meanings. One is to distinguish the difference between two things, and the other is to claim a similarity. As is, the unadorned verb suggested that political commentators opined, on their own behalf, that the two were similar. One could say more accurately that political commentators distinguished between the two statements and reactions to them by the public and by political operatives. But there is almost zero encyclopedic significance of a commentator saying that the two things were different. It would be like adding to the article about apples that many people have commented that they are not oranges. So what? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that many people were reminded of Romney's gaffe when they heard Clinton's utterances on that day. Human brains are extremely well-tuned to pattern recognition; the conscious explanation of why we sense a pattern comes after the gut feeling. We can't deny the widespread human reaction that prompted various analyses of the similarities and differences. To address the potential ambiguity of the verb "compare" alone, we can use "compare and contrast" as I suggested above. Would you agree to this? — JFG talk 20:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here’s a journalist’s analysis, and here is Romney’s own analysis, both from four months after the election. Maybe this should be revisited in a few weeks or months, after the outcome of this election has been dissected and analyzed.  The excitement was short-lived (2 days?), except in the Trump camp (odd how all of them - including Trump - seem to have claimed the deplorable basket for themselves and not the "decent, hard-working, feeling left behind" half of supporters). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be good to see how this event is pondered after a few months. The fact remains that it triggered a flurry of pushback, and not only among Trump supporters. As to why people appropriated the "Deplorables" epithet, it is precisely as a reaction against feeling disparaged by Clinton's "over-generalistic" remark which she used for effect (and got her audience laughing). What these Twitter nicknames and home-made posters are saying is essentially "Call me what you want, I'm a decent person just like you. The only thing you deplore is that we disagree on which president will do the best job for our country." Compare with the rappers' positive appropriation of the "nigger" label: great way to kill the offensive effect of an insult, and incite shame on the insulting party. — JFG talk 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)