Talk:List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign endorsements

George Bush 41

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus met, endorsement added.Nicholas.buckingham (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As this page currently indicates, George HW Bush has apparently told a private gathering that he will vote for HRC- but this page states this is for people who have "publicly supported" her.(which I take to mean issuing a press release, holding a press conference, appearing with her, etc.) Bush's spokesperson has specifically said Bush is not yet commenting on the presidential race. His support is certainly notable and maybe it should go here simply because there isn't a better place- but I thought I would throw this out there. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "public" hasn't got a specific definition here; should we know that Bush Sr is endorsing X candidate - wherein at a campaign or in his living room, this is information being reported to the public and therefore a 'public' endorsement. I believe it ought to be mentioned in this list, but would be happy to wait if other people have better ideas. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 03:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious from the Bush spokesperson that the endorsement is still private (i.e. the opposite of public): "The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim." Thus, I think it should be excluded. FallingGravity 17:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take Bush's endorsement/words uttered to a crowd of 40 people -- over a spokesperson for Bush - any day of the week. Sources are going further than him making such endorsement, but already collating reactions; Hell, even Trump's campaign manager has reflected on this endorsement. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 04:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that the remarks were never made, but that they were supposed to be private remarks, not public. FallingGravity 04:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they were supposed to be. Yet, that is precisely what did not occur -- hence it being in the media. —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I might then suggest that we change the wording of the opening from "publicly supported" to "whose support has been made public". That better fits with the inclusion of GHWB, who did not want his comments being made public. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm for GHWB to be included. Bush announced the support himself, and folks at the private event later disclosed the information to the public/media. Source 1 Source 2 -- MrVenaCava (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the inclusion of H.W. Bush. I personally look at this as a case of an endorsement being made and withdrawn. In the brief space of time between his announcing to a large private gathering that he supported Clinton and his spokesperson putting out a formal statement that his vote was private, I would have included him in this list, but not once the spokesperson has given the statement. It is my feeling that if a person has a spokesperson on staff, that spokesperson's comments should be accepted as their own. We have always removed people who walked back their public support.PotvinSux (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. GHWB can speak for himself, because apparantly - according to those sources - he already did. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He can speak for himself, but he also has a spokesperson who can speak on his behalf. FallingGravity 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A spokesperson isn't equal to or more than the person in question. Bush did speak, contrary to his spokesperson's remarks. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of having a spokesperson if he can't speak for you?PotvinSux (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Here's another question: what's the point in speaking your own views, if your spokesperson is going to contradict them (as case in point)? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the post since it seems that more people in this talk support the addition than not. George H.W. Bush is now listed with a [contested] in front since he never confirmed to the press his endorsement. This is possibly due to his age. If there are any objections please send me a message before editing. Nicholas.buckingham (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in total agreement that he ought to be listed – however, per procedure, I've hidden your inclusion of him; this is still an active discussion, and needs to be finished before we add him. Best, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which procedure do you refer to? This discussion is unnecessary since editorial boards at many of the major news outlets have said the exact same thing.  The press has consensus, so why not we?Nicholas.buckingham (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added.Nicholas.buckingham (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not seeing consensus here or in the press. Considering this is a potential BLP issue, I'm opening an RfC. Feel free to !vote/comment. FallingGravity 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Bush 41
Should George H. W. Bush be included or excluded from the list of endorsements? An include vote means adding his name to the list of former presidents along with a source such as: Yahoo, CNN, Politico, CNN. FallingGravity 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

!Votes and comments

 * Include on the condition that the wording of the opening of this article be changed from "publicly supported" to "whose support has been made public". If that is not done, then he should be excluded, as his comments were not public support and he is on record(through his spokesperson) as specifically stating that he did not want them public. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude An endorsement is, by definition, intentional public support - it is "made public" by the action of the person in question; private support inadvertently made public (such as by a hack) is not an endorsement. In this given case, people could reasonably disagree whether Bush's comments at a large private luncheon were or were not "public." I would lean toward their having been public, but it is a gray area and, apparently, Bush disagreed with this assessment (via his spokesperson), clearly signaling that he did not intentionally give support that he considered public. As to the attempts to disqualify the statement by the spokesperson: A spokesperson exists for the sole purpose of speaking for a given individual and is very commonly tasked with massaging/walking-back comments per the principal's wishes. That's clearly what happened here. If Bush is unhappy with the state of the situation, he can presumably call up Tom Brokaw and make an endorsement. On the other hand, if the Bush family is hiding the phones from the elder Bush and keeping him away from cameras in order to avoid this, then we would hypothetically be dealing with elder abuse, which we simply do not have the information to properly adjudicate here.PotvinSux (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Include with attribution per 331 dot. Had this been a misrepresentation of G H's position, there would certainly have been a public statement refuting his endorsement by now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But there was. The spokesman said his vote was private. If he wishes his voting intention to be private (i.e., not shared with the public at large), then it is not an endorsement.PotvinSux (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude per PotvinSux. I might be brought around to 331dot's position, but I will not make a provisional vote to include; exclude simply makes sense based on the bare wording of the RfC. Heterodidact (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I respect your position based on the current wording of the RfC. I would suggest that should elaborate on what it is that should be included (and why) ASAP while it's still early days. Otherwise, it's essentially a malformed RfC, and any !votes are meaningless. To be honest, my !vote was based on prior knowledge as to the content issue under discussion, hence I didn't pay attention to the wording. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what more needs to be elaborated. Does it need more wording? For include it's probably adding something like "George H. W. Bush,* 41st President (1989-1993)" with a reference. For exclude, it would be left out. FallingGravity 02:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Expand it slightly with a brief description of the content to be included or excluded: that is, regarding the unofficial statement of his nominating to vote for Hillary Clinton as reported via reliable sources such as this, this, this, etc. Keep it terse, but the exact content in question needs to be outlined for editors summoned by bots, or who follow the Village Pump. (On a separate note, you may be concerned that it's BLPVIO, but it's been out there in the media - not just the social media - for weeks with no refutation. The final report I've pointed to attests to CNN having checked the veracity of the report. If it were a potential BLPVIO, you can rest assured that the media would have been sued, and a refutation would have been posted very quickly if it were not true.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a BLPVIO issue. The issue is that the person Bush designated to speak on his behalf stated that his voting intention is private. This amounts to rescinding a public endorsement unless you are arguing that an endorsement cannot be rescinded once it is 'out there.'PotvinSux (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Include: with attribution. Spokesperson for Bush makes a statement saying that Bush won't be commenting. Only problem? Bush already did comment, to one person – or to a group of 40 people as stipulated in other media reports; regardless, It's public now. A little too late of us and the spokesperson to put the lid back onto that genie bottle. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on now, the spokesperson did not just say he would not be commenting; the spokesperson explicitly said his vote was private. The spokesperson (i.e. the person authorized by Bush to speak on his behalf) can put his genie back into the bottle whenever he wants. We have always removed endorsers who became reluctant or got cold feet (e.g. Alan Grayson once he decided to pretend that being part of Clinton's Florida Leadership Council wasn't an endorsement).PotvinSux (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not play a game of semantics here: if Bush's vote was private it would have been just that: private, not repeated to one person, let alone 40 people. Bush has a spokesperson -- we get it. But Bush can speak for himself, and he did. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If Bush wasn't unhappy with it getting out, I would agree, but he clearly did not want it to get out. Googling "endorsement" brings up the definition "an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something". Bush did not publicly state his approval or ask others to(and has specifically said the opposite) That's not semantics, that matters. That's why I've suggested a wording change above. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He didn't want it to get out? well that's a bit strange... telling someone on the opposite side of politics + another 40 people that you'll be voting for Hillary is a form of keeping it private?I don't think so. I recommend attribution also, as my initial comment says above. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, I disagree with you that comments at a a private luncheon of several dozen people are public. My initial reaction when this happened several weeks ago was "oh, that was kind of inappropriate for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend to share," and it seems that at least a few others here agree with that general perception, which suggests it is within the realm of reason (which is sufficient). Intent matters in the making of an endorsement. The events as they unfolded indicate that Bush did not intend to make a statement on the public stage in support of Clinton's candidacy.PotvinSux (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have always removed endorsers who became reluctant or got cold feet..." Who's 'we'? How many elections have you been involved with editing content on for Wikipedia? I'd be fascinated to know when this unwritten law came into being, as I've never encountered it. Anyone listed is in a position to rescind their endorsement at any time, plus it's out in the public arena in spades. If his position changes, so does any entry. The roomful of friends and family he announced it to gave up his right to keep his vote private the moment they started tweeting. If he intended to keep his vote private, he wouldn't have announced it. He may be a geriatric, but he most certainly far from senile... and your objections as laid out here are essentially based on WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your fascination is appreciated. "We" is those who have edited this page since its inception, well over a year ago. At no point have folks who walked back their endorsement been kept on this list because they somehow "gave up [their] right to keep [their] vote private;" at no point was this controversial. I do not see how WP:CRYSTAL is remotely relevant.PotvinSux (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not a registered Wikipedia user, and will not express my stand. However, I think I should mention that Jeb Bush confirmed that his father (although not in a direct manner) had endorsed Clinton, privately. You may wish to see:, and I urge everyone to assess accordingly based on new evidence. 118.201.204.70 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information but it doesn't change my position; Jeb was simply confirming that the expression of support was not intended as an endorsement(a public statement of support). 331dot (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, 118.201.204.70. In essence, the point of contention is that he has not publicly endorsed the candidate. His personal choice has been publicised by others, therefore the endorsement cannot be presented in the article without attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude as he has made no public endorsement and has repeatedly stated his vote will be private. KingAntenor (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude There has been no official endorsement so he shouldn't be included in this list of endorsements. He's probably a better fit at List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on Exclude after reviewing sources. This would also not merit inclusion in List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, which is currently only for those who "announced their opposition to the election of Donald Trump" (emphasis added). Could be included in GWB's Wikipedia BLP. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude I would not list Bush as an endorser of Clinton unless he publicly comes out and endorses her. As someone who's been in politics, voting for someone and endorsing them are two completely different things. Much like if there was an election between Droopy and Scrappy-Doo, who are both far from my favorite cartoon characters, and I vote for Droopy because I can't stand Scrappy, and someone I've told it to tells others I'm voting for Droopy, that doesn't mean I necessarily endorse Droopy. If I were a notable individual who wanted to endorse Droopy, I'd hold a press conference or issue a press release stating so.--Guiletheme (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Fails verification, plain and simple. A private statement that you'll vote for someone isn't an endorsement. Even the CNN source says Bush hasn't endorsed Clinton. Including this non-endorsement without consensus would be a BLP violation against Bush. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude - the bar seems set pretty low here (Barbara Bush for attending a Paris party ... I'm more interested in foreign donations to the campaign by that) ... but in this case we have a clear counter-position stated in response to the story to say NOT endorsing (and voting no comment) so should not list him. Markbassett (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Barbara Bush, it's my understanding that she attended a Clinton fundraiser and contributed to the campaign. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * MrVenaCava - just "attending" the Paris party is all I've seen, so the bar here seems lower than contributing or having any statement from her or the folks she was with. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look on the campaign's website, it's abundantly clear the event was not simply a "party," but a fundraiser: LINK. To attend the fundraiser, attendees needed to have payed for a ticket. Since Bush attended the fundraiser, that means she bought a ticket. Since she bought a ticket, she contributed to the campaign. That's what a fundraiser is. You shouldn't find a single person on this lists that hasn't publicly stated support for Clinton/her campaign and/or hasn't given money to the campaign, so the bar is not low. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude per definition of the word "endorsement". Instaurare (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per . Summoned by bot. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  11:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per PotvinSux and the dictionary under my desk. Found this RFC via Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split article Suggestion
At >500 kb, this article is well past proper WP:SIZE. So, it is time to WP:SPLIT the article. I suggest we divide between Political endorsements for Hillary Clinton, 2016 and Endorsements (non-political) for Hillary Clinton, 2016. While the article will be moot in November, I hope a spit at this time would be useful to readers. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless the practice is to split it that way, I think splitting it alphabetically would be better, as every endorsement is political(unless we are splitting it up by current/former officeholders and non officeholders). 331dot (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree since both articles will eventualy be used to compile the full scope of a homosexual child rapist bacha bazi heroin cartel who're responsible for upwards of 85% of the world's heroin production. they'd eventualy be re-combined anyway. 50.105.218.128 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the purpose of these endorsement lists?
I don't dispute that these endorsements pass WP:RS, but many of them are WP:PRIMARY or are sourced to advocacy sites, which means there needs to be an argument for why Wikipedia is going through the effort and pain of moderating these enormous lists if no weighty secondary source is bothering to even report on some of the endorsements in the first place. Why would any of our readers care who, say, Scott Bakula endorses for president? Is there a better way we can do this in 2020? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this endorsement page is to use more electrical energy while overloading your computer's hardware, with the possibility of crashing your computer's software with these extra long web pages. So far, Hillary's winning this battle with my Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz having four to eight cores and 32 Gigabytes of RAM.  (But with the majority of endorsement's being mainly media related, hence I just subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for unbiased news versus continuing to read biased sold-out news via Google News.) Anybody else notice the strange resemblance of Trump's accusers compared to the photos published on this Hillary's Endorsement page?  (I'm also pretty sure, if one looks hard enough, you'll also possibly find Weiner's photo someplace on this page as well.) --roger (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting article
I have started the split process, as mentioned above. The two articles are List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016 and List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016. But what to do about this article though? I see a two possibilities: Any comments? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Summary of only the most notable endorsements
 * Disambiguation page
 * I don't really see how we could determine which endorsements are most notable, so I'm leaning disambiguation page. FallingGravity 00:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, incoming links taken care of too. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 03:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)