Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 13 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Hillary Rodham Clinton, due to size or style considerations.

A fact from Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign began with a road trip from New York to Iowa in a customized Chevrolet Express van? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/April.

[REDACTED]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

Should this info appear in this article or in the Hillary Clinton article? No one has responded at Talk:Hillary Clinton, so I thought I would ask here. The main problem is, when did she give those speeches? Was it before or after her campaign began? Has she disclosed the transcripts? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The content of the speeches she gave before industry groups were often in venues where no reporters were allowed and no transcripts made or videos published. At the last debate she said she would consider releasing transcripts but control over that may not rest with her but with the group or organization she spoke to. We would not want to take material from any transcript directly but use summaries in reliable sources such as The New York Times. It is doubtful she would release damning statements during a campaign. The fact she said she would consider releasing transcripts might be suitable for the article, but it is rather fine-grained. We have a long journey with this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The speeches weren't "secret", since everybody in the world new about them. As has been documented in numerous places, the speeches happened after she left the State Department and before she announced her campaign. She is under no obligation to "disclose" anything. Nobody raised this issue about Mitt Romney's speeches, or Jeb Bush's speeches, or Carly Fiorina's speeches. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: I think the fair comparison would be to her Democratic competitor, who gave none. The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue about permission from the groups is a red herring. The Harry Walker agency contracts reserve all rights to the speeches for the speaker. I agree that Clinton is unlikely to release anything damning during the election. But the fact that she is unlikely to release anything at all is something to cause speculation about how damning it is. In any case, this issue probably does require coverage in our article, as there are many reliable sources discussing these speeches, her reluctance to release the transcripts, and now the commentary from audience members describing the speeches as "glowing" towards wall street. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a faux issue to me, although this is a campaign article and a large number of campaign events have no real-world relevance. Between the two Clintons, they gave 729 (paid) speeches since Bill left office, usually earning something over $200K each for a total of $153 million. Of those, at least 39 were to big banks, 8 to Goldman-Sachs. Goldman is (one of?) the biggest banks in the world, so although their extremely profitable speech-giving engagements are probably relevant to their bio articles, it's not particularly noteworthy here that just over 1% of their many speeches were given to one client or that, like most such speeches, the transcripts were not released — not unless it becomes a bona fide issue in the campaign. Right now it seems to be news of the day material on the part of her left-leaning detractors and challenger, and perhaps any Republican nominee who is promoting an anti-bank message. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As voters express their preference for a candidate that can be trusted, as was the case in New Hampshire, it becomes an issue in the campaign. Bona fides being established by reliable sources about voter motivation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: I think what you're doing is original research. I agree with User:Gaijin42 that we should stick to the third-party sources on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

All Misplaced Pages editing process is original research. It's article content that cannot contain it. Weighing the sources, there are few sources on the subject, they do not describe it as significant apart from being a current campaign issue, some do describe which Clinton detractors the issue is coming from, and they say that the Goldman speeches are neither secret nor a significant proportion of the Clintons' many speaking engagements. Simply saying that Clinton took money speaking for Goldman Sachs would be inappropriate. Saying that so-and-so criticized Clinton for making such speeches in process of the 2016 campaign and she responded such-and-such, if of due weight, would be a fair thing to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:No original research. User:Gaijin42 provided lots of references. There are many if you google "Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speech". That includes very reliable sources like The Washington Post. Many sources suggest she is hiding something in those speeches, which is why she won't disclose the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:No original research. You have provided exactly zero sources to support your proposition that I am engaging in original research. What were we discussing here? Oh yes, whether the sources are of due weight and relevance to support adding mention of an issue surrounding Clinton's speeches to Goldman as being a campaign issue. I say no, you seem to say yes. Hence, we discuss on the talk page any relevance to the subject. As for whether we suggest that she is "hiding something", I'm afraid that is the realm of political advocacy, not encyclopedias. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: You're the only who brought up OR. In any case, read this article from the Investor's Business Daily and countless other sources you can find on Google. The national media is not advocating for anything; they are simply reporting the news, as this article from The Washington Post also does. They have reported that the speeches were highly paid and that she wants to keep the transcripts secret. Misplaced Pages is not censored; this should not be redacted from her article. This is not a campaign ad. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: You're the only who brought up OR. I agree that Clinton's speeches to Goldman have been one of several campaign issues of the day for the past couple of days of the news cycle, and that sources like the one you mention above are engaging in the usual speculation and coverage of the horse race of politics. That doesn't amount to "countless" sources, or anything approaching due weight for an article like this. All of the Clintons' speeches are highly paid and presumably most of them are gracious to the host, including the slightly over 1% of them made for this particular corporate client. If that turns out to be a significant campaign issue, we'll know soon enough. In the meanwhile, WP:NOT#NEWS as they say. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: No, you did. Read your antepenultimate comment. User:Gaijin42, who said it should be included in the article, gave you ten references. We could find more. It's not a matter of news--it's become a "campaign issue" as The Washington Post reported, and this article is about the campaign. It would be POV to censor it from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: No, you did. Read your comment at 22:23, 9 February 2016, your misapplication of the concept to talk page discussion is the first mention of original research on this page unless you count the talk header. And to spare you the suspense, pulling a "please familiarize yourself with" line in talk page discussion does raise hackles — as does crying censorship and POV. Having perused most of Gaijin42's wall of references and google too, I find exactly what I stated, that this is news of the day not sourced at this point as a substantive campaign issue suitable for inclusion at this time. It pays to be careful with campaign articles not to clutter things up with every last thing that flies in. I can take a look again in a few days or weeks to reevaluate my take on whether this has any lasting importance. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: We disagree. I guess we'll have to see what the other editors think. Btw, she still has not disclosed those secrets transcripts, so she might be hiding something as the press suggests but--who knows.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, they're not "secret". And some of your comments border on libel, and could be considered a serious BLP violation, even if they are mentioned in sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I have zero opinion about this. You are expressing your own opinion when you say they are not secret; I am just sticking to third-party references. Our job as Misplaced Pages editors is to remain neutral and expand articles by using references. Whether you like the content of the references or not is meaningless, when The Washington Post, Investor's Business Daily, etc. have written about it. It is totally POV to have nothing about it in her Misplaced Pages article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How can they be "secret" if everyone knows about them? Just because the Hillary-hating, right-leaning Investors Business Daily refers to them as "secret", that does not make it so. Wikipedians are meant to use judgement in assessing sources, not act as stupid automatons and fall into the trap of parroting right wing crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The transcripts are secret. She won't disclose what she said during those highly paid speeches. Politico has an article about it, where an attendee says, "She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director". But as long as she won't disclose the official transcripts, nobody knows for sure. I agree with you that we should give her the benefit of the doubt as I do, but the fact is those transcripts are indeed secret.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to disclose. There's no there there. As Politico says, Sanders and the Republicans will exploit the issue if she releases the transcripts (although since they are technically owned by the people who paid her, it is not clear if she would need permission to do so) and they will exploit the issue if she doesn't. Anyway, congratulations for buying into the bullshit Beltway media narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: We don't know. She may be hiding something--nobody knows for sure. I think everyone's concern is that her presidential style, were she to get elected, would be secretive and non-transparent. Thus, this is not trivial. It may be axiomatic of her leadership style. In any case, I don't believe this should be censored from her campaign article. It should be added to the "Fundraising" subsection, with her other multi-million dollar donations/speeches. Readers/voters should be smart enough to trust her.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They are not owned by the people who paid her. Her speaking contract specifically says that she retains full ownership and all rights to the speeches. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: Interesting. How do you know? Can you please provide a reference for this?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

While we don't have the specific contract for Sachs (which theoretically could be different) we do have several contracts from her other speaking events, and they all include the same language (which is unsurprising, as it is the standard Harry Walker Agency language, and giving up the rights would mean should couldn't give the same speech to a different audience which would be idiotic). The lecture and all supporting materials remain the intellectual property of the speaker The chance that the sachs speech was different? pretty low. Also of note : The venue is responsible for providing a transcription of the speech, delivered immediately at the conclusion (they have type it up in real time)

• 2014 UNLV contract
• 2014 some random foundation
• 2013 University of Con
• 2013 Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Politico article cites Buzzfeed for this. The Politico article is a good source, not about the content of the speeches, although there is some information, but about hopes of the campaign that the controversy would blow over, fall below the radar of most voters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"I expect Mr. Sanders to press aggressively on Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches before big banks, as he has in the last few days." From a New York Times article on "What to look for" in the Debate tonight. Let's see. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is speculation to that effect. If he does, and if it gets covered extensively, that adds to the argument for mentioning it as a campaign issue. I have a feeling it will be a campaign issue, particularly in the primary. It will probably come out in a line like "Beginning in the Democratic debate, and throughout the primary campaign, Sanders repeated a criticism of Clinton as being too close to Wall Street business interests, and earning $ from making paid speeches to large banks including Goldman Sachs. Sanders called for transcripts of those speeches to be made public, but as of Clinton had not done so." Something like that. But I still think we should give it another few days to see if this sticks around as an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that text similar to that is appropriate as a start, and also that we can hold off for now, but if Sanders doesn't pounce on this, Im not sure that doesn't mean its still not worthy of inclusion (although it would certainly be less worthy of extended WP:WEIGHT). How much is or isn't appropriate obviously depends on how much noise and coverage this gets. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way, given the extensive coverage it's gotten so far, it should definitely be added to the "Fundraising" subsection--not because of voter unease over ethical questions, but because it is a fact that her campaign is partly run on money from the financial services. That's nothing to be ashamed of.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Is she self-funding her campaign? If not, perhaps the Clinton Cash section should be expanded and retitled because it seems to be a similar issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not self-funded, as she is "dead broke". But OpenSecrets.org (a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics) suggests her third largest donor is Paloma Partners, a hedge fund founded by Donald Sussman. Hedge funds are in the financial services industry.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's multimillion-dollar donations from "hedge fund guys" Donald Sussman and George Soros came up in last night's debate; Judy Woodruff mentioned these two names specifically. There was also an article in The Wall Street Journal about her secret speeches today: Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Talks Were Highly Paid, Friendly. Still no official transcripts though. In any case, I'm afraid I don't see a good argument for keeping this campaign issue out of her campaign article. I think it should go in the "Fundraising" subsection.User:Gaijin42: Would you not agree?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bill Maher mentioned those secret Goldman Sachs transcripts again a few days ago. It is still an issue apparently. Should we add more about this to the article?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this should be removed from the article, so I'll do so. Recentism gone stale, with the unencyclopedic verb tense to match ("have become…"). This one fell off the map a few days after it appeared. A comedian mentioning it a month later doesn't count. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not stale at all. It was mentioned again on national television this weekend. Your deletion of referenced info without consensus is not OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to partially agree Zigzig20s on this. I've removed the current sentence because it is inartfully added. It needs to be completely rewritten with more context. But the fact remains that now a little time has passed and the issue has had a chance to mature, this is no longer a recentism matter. It's totally unfair that Clinton should be getting bashed for this perfectly normal thing virtually every politician does, but she is getting bashed (particularly by Sanders) and it even appears to be impacting her "trustworthiness" polling numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is this: "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue".". We should probably add, "She repeatedly refused to release the transcripts." But at the very least, the initial sentence should be reinserted because Misplaced Pages is not censored and there is significant media coverage about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an issue in her campaign. This article is about her campaign. This is not an issue in Sanders's campaign, because he never gave six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. But even if he had, that would appear in his campaign article, not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I had added four references; we could probably find one hundred, but I didn't want to Overcite.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: Did you redact the sentence because you want her to come across as less untrustworthy? It sounds like you are trying to change her polling numbers. I am sorry, but that is not your role as a Misplaced Pages editor. Biased editing is not allowed. Please revert your redaction and try to be a neutral editor.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Borchers, Callum (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speech transcripts are now a campaign issue. Why weren't they before?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
2. Flores, Reena (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton: "I will look into" releasing transcripts of paid speeches". CBS News. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
3. Schroeder, Robert (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton says she'll 'look into' releasing paid-speech transcripts". MarketWatch. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
4. Rappeport, Alan (February 4, 2016). "Questions on Speeches to Goldman Sachs Vex Hillary Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2016.

First of all, please cut it out with the accusations. If Scjessey is right and it's a longer-term issue we can cover it in some way. It's not the fact that her opponent or a political comedian are still talking about it, but whether the press discussion among reliable sources is still covering it. However, saying the speeches "have become" a campaign issue is bad form, and weak substance. Imagine reading this article in a historic context, a year from now. Can you say, as of March 2017 that Clinton's speeches have become an issue? No, it makes no sense. Wrong verb tense. Also, describing this passively is uninformative. They didn't become an issue on their own. In fact, the speeches aren't an issue, it's the making of the speeches, and they are apparently being made an issue by Sanders, and perhaps some other critics with a particular point of view. And what of the context? Something like 8 of her 729 paid speeches since Bill left office, each earning something north of $200K, were to Goldman, and 31 to other big banks. That's the background. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Please stop doing original research! "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, are "a campaign issue"." That is the least we could add, given the extensive media coverage this has received. We could add that she has refused to release the transcripts repeatedly, and that the media has suggested she must be hiding something. But the redacted sentence was utterly factual and neutral.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No. As I said, bad form, bad content. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"I don't like it", is not an argument. This is fact-based content with plenty of references. It should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you keep coming across as a Hillary-hating POV warrior, I'm not going to be predisposed to work with you on doing this right. Right now you are doing the Misplaced Pages equivalent of temper tantrum, shrieking unfounded accusations about censorship and original research. Take a step back. I've got other things to do today, but I am also giving some thought to the best way to approach this. There's no hurry, but I intend to return to this matter in a few hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegates mean everything

Since delegates are more important than anything else in the primaries, I have edited the article to reflect that. I have also added additional and more up-to-date sourcing. Presumably this will satisfy our resident Reversion Warrior, who keeps using "see talk" for an excuse to revert all of my edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We need a section about the superdelegates...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There already is. See Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Delegate count. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we need to add more referenced info about the extensive media coverage about this, including the DNC chair's wavering statements and the anti-superdelegate petition.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. The argument for and against superdelegates is not a matter for this article, which is specifically about Hillary Clinton's campaign. Nor should it be in the equivalent Bernie Sanders article. The place to explore this cycle's Democratic primary process is Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes really, because HRC has an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, even in states where she lost the popular vote like NH, and there's been countless media coverage about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The superdelegate system has been around since the mid '80s, with an ever-reducing share of the final delegate totals. All the candidates were familiar with the system going into the election, so there's no reason for complaint. The minutiae of the primary process should not be addressed in candidate-specific campaign articles. The media fucked up by adding superdelegates to pledged delegate totals, freaking out a few Bernie fans. That's too bad and no fault of Hillary or the Democratic Party. This is the wrong article for such things. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There are countless third-party references about this. It should be in the article. Very DUE indeed.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If super delegates play a role, such as deserting Clinton en masse, it might be relevant. What is happening now is that most Democratic office holders are supporting Clinton. Not news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The media thinks it's news and a campaign issue. Opining about it as a Misplaced Pages editor would be original research.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen or heard any media coverage about superdelegates since Ohio. Maybe it's a big thing in the right-wing nutjob websites or the BernieBro websites? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's everywhere, including on MSNBC.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. I've been watching MSNBC almost continuously for three weeks. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's on youtube. There are lots of third-party references in the written press as well. Google it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's about the Democratic Party's primary processes. It would be undue weight to go into it here unless there's some sort of well-covered revolt where superdelegates suddenly switch or something. Fred said the same thing earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the new structure and I would advise returning it to the previous version. Percentages are weighed a LOT more heavily in public and media perception so they should be given more weight on Misplaced Pages (and they are - on other presidential election articles). I also think readers would be more interested to read the percentages. I will wait for another editor to chime in again, but it appears you are the only one advocating for this change.--ICat Master (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Look at the election coverage in the media, and specifically in the sources we provide, and you will see that delegates are given prominence. Public perception and "what you think" is meaningless, because we go with the sources. As for being "the only one advocating" this version, I refer you to WP:SILENCE. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@ICat Master: Why do you revert every single one of my edits, with little or no talk page discussion and no attempt to gain a consensus for your actions? Could it be because you are single-purpose agenda-driven POV warrior, uncannily like Mouse001 was? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It might seem that way to you. I revert your edits more so than others because they tend to have POV. I do not revert edits without existing consensus. You have repeatedly tried to re-insert material without consensus on the talk page and I have not done so.--ICat Master (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is a falsehood. My edits do not "have POV", as you put it. My edits are all scrupulously neutral. Please explain how selecting the sources that use a single decimal point over sources that use two decimal points is POV? Also, I completely reject your assertion about consensus. Nobody has complained but you, and the views of a single purpose, agenda-driven editor don't count as much as the views of editors who are editing purely for the betterment of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess I was right, and so there likely won't be a response: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mouse001/Archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Super Tuesday results

I've begun adding in Super Tuesday results, but I've limited additions to those results where 100% of precincts are reporting. I'm using NYT's live results page as a guide as to when the final totals are in. Some are close, with only 1 or 2 precincts failing to report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost done with this. Just Colorado to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave up waiting. Colorado had all sorts of problems with caucuses, so I went ahead and put the result in and whacked in a bit of blurb to explain. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Democrats Abroad

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

"Relationship with the LGBT community" (sic)

Should we remove this section? Or at least trim it significantly? She has a history of being opposed to same-sex marriage until very recently, and the section looks like marketing material at the moment.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think some of it could be kept. But the endorsements should be moved to List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and the opinion polls should be removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good material, but I think it should be trimmed to about 25% of its current size. I agree that the endorsements can be moved and the opinion polls removed (or summarized).- MrX 13:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever removes the endorsements from this article needs to make sure they are listed in the appropriate article. So this requires double-checking them one by one--it's a lengthy process. user: MrX: Do you have time to do this please? I am far too busy this weekend.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed the material. If someone thinks the endorsements are worth adding to endorsements article (assuming they are not already there), they can find them in the article history.- MrX 12:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This section should be removed. A sentence somewhere that Clinton strongly supports LGBT rights is enough; her history with respect to this matter is typical of many political leaders: When she observed the major change in public opinion which occurred, she endorsed it. She does not differ from the baseline. Endorsements, of course, can be moved to endorsements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder: I think you're right. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that, "Not until 2013 did she take the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.". But there is more--we had to wait for Joe Biden to become Secretary of State and finally appoint someone like Randy W. Berry. I think the subhead is misleading to begin with--she has no relationship with the LGBT community--perhaps with the Democratic establishment like the Human Rights Campaign, but that is a different matter.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think her views on don't ask don't tell and DOMA are significant as not all political leaders, including Sanders, shared them. But the section is too verbose. She is more popular among openly LGBT voters than Sanders, although they generally see Sanders as more supportive of LGBT rights. But more LGBT people see them as the same and probably the issue is not decisive to them. TFD (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with polls is that they are not reliable and we could find similar polls saying everyone in WeHo is feeling the bern. Should we stick to the facts and add, "HRC supported anti-gay policies like marriage discrimination for the first 65 years of her life. However, three years ago, she changed her mind and decided to support same-sex marriage."?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, that exactly what we should say. Kidding aside, I agree we should omit endorsements and polls. Actually, if we removed the second paragraph of the section, I think we would be getting close.- MrX 17:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s - Wow. Just wow. You don't see anything wrong with what you just wrote? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Point of order. Why the '(sic)' in the talk section header? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP (Zigzig20s) loves Hillary but obviously does not think that she actually has a relationship with the LGBT community.- MrX 21:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just sticking to the sources. The WSJ tells us she promoted marriage discrimination until 2013, three years ago. I like Hillary for her nation-building eagerness, not as a gay man. LGBT people are not single-issue voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. You've taken a Journal opinion piece and contorted it to sound positively horrific. It's such a shocking bastardization of the source that it's probably the most egregious and astonishing example of pure anti-Clinton bias Misplaced Pages is ever likely to see. It's right up there with calling pro-choice people "baby murderers" and the like. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did she not want to prevent me from getting married to someone I loved until 2013? Yes, she did (according to the WSJ). That's homophobic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

She believed in civil unions for same-sex partners, but until 2013 her (erroneous) view was that marriage was a religious thing. Despite what the WSJ blogger said, that is not the same as denying rights. But the problem isn't so much the facts, as the way you presented them. It's troubling that you don't see anything wrong with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil unions are "separate but equal" and thus homophobic. It is troubling that you can't see that. Anyway, I am glad she hasn't held homophobic views for the past three years--as far as we know.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. Don't imply I'm homophobic as a way to deflect from your obvious anti-Clinton bias. There's been dramatic social change in the last few years, and it takes a while for older and/or more religious people to get on the right side of history. Clinton is a fairly religious person who grew up in a time when marriage equality wasn't even something people considered, yet she has still "evolved" quicker than most other politicians have done (I'm looking at you, most Republicans!) and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I don't care about you; I care about improving the article, which is what the talkpage is for (it's not for swearing either, btw). No, she only "evolved" three years ago; that's not quick at all. I love HRC, but she did support anti-gay discrimination for the first 65 years of her life; that's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"It's troubling that you don't see anything wrong with it." - That's your implication that I am homophobic. And your oft-professed "love" for HRC is peculiar given your near constant vigilance in doing whatever you can to make Misplaced Pages portray her in a negative light. Incidentally, my profanity was an exclamation and not directed to anyone in particular, so despite this request I will not be refactoring my comment because it does not violate WP:CIVIL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there was no such implication. Please make sure to be civil and assume good faith. And I simply stick to the sources in a NPOV manner about HRC. She's only supported LGBT equality for the past three years--that's a fact--it took her 65 years but she finally got there.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is just ludicrous. If you could show a source that says she spent the entire first 65 years of her life (from birth!) actively endorsing marriage discrimination and claimed this was for personal reasons, rather than political reasons, then you would have a fair point. But there's no way you are going to find a source that is anywhere close to that, because it simply isn't true. Don't forget that until recently, same-sex marriage has been opposed by a majority of Americans. As an American politician, it would be politically difficult for her to support same-sex marriage, regardless of any personal feelings she had on the matter. I will agree Clinton has taken longer than many other mainstream Democrats to publicly support same-sex marriage (and this is not a good thing), but it is by no means unusual. Certainly her recent evolution isn't really notable when compared to that of other politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment about Reagans and AIDS advocacy

I guess we should add her glowing support for Reagan's record on AIDS.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

She says she misspoke, and tweeted out as much soon after. No big deal. Besides, Reagan's abysmal record has undergone so much revisionism in recent years it's amazing anyone noticed. He's gone from a deficit-ballooning, ray-gun-building seller of arms to Iran to a conservative saint who could do no wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This gaffe should probably be covered very briefly in this section (1 sentence)Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a gaffe because if you watch the interview, she says "the other point I wanted to make too is...". It was intentional; she had prepared this awful historical revisionism prior to the interview. We could add a short paragraph. I am too aghast to look for more sources right now--she has zero understanding of LGBT history!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No. There's no way this is going in the article. Absolutely no way. She misspoke, and released a statement soon after. WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT all apply here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; I agree with User:Gaijin42 that it should be included. She did not misspeak; it was intentional, as the direct quote above shows.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

She says she misspoke. She released an apology soon after. Any attempt to include this would violate WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to your eminent afd at the entire article written about Binders full of womenGaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no comparison. It was a YUGE gaffe by Romney, drawing weeks of ridicule. "Binders full of women" even entered the public lexicon and is still used today. Maybe not as big as the 47% comment, but in the same ballpark. Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no idea if this comment by Clinton will have any effect at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: This was an extremely offensive premeditated remark by HRC. You are making things worse by trying to minimize it, as she did with the tweet. This was not a blooper like Iraq, which she can just write off as a brain freeze. This is extremely offensive to everyone, but especially so to the LGBT community. Many people died because of the "Silence = Death" policy that HRC praised.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be pointless to add every outrage-of-the-day from the outrage industry. At least not until we can confirm it has become the outrage-of-the-month. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a traumatizing remark for the LGBT community. Larry Kramer famously referred to Reagan as "Adolf Reagan" because of his silence=death policy. She has zero understanding of gay culture/history.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Do any sources say that here remark was premeditated? If so, that deserves at least a few sentences. Otherwise, one or two sentences at most should probably be included in this article.- MrX 17:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was premeditated because if you watch the interview, she says "the other point I wanted to make too is...".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(Time index 4:05 for those who don't want to watch the whole interview). I don't see how her comments show premeditation, which I take to mean "intentionally offensive to LGBT people". More likely is that her communications person fed her some bad talking points before the interview.- MrX 18:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing "intentionally offensive", merely that this was not a spontaneous comment, or response to a gotcha question etc. Either she sincerely believed this, and then had to walk it back, or was ignorant. Either one is a legitimate concern to LGBT groups as the great number of sources indicate. NYT, MotherJones, New Yorker, Salon, NPR, Esquire, gawker, huffpo, cnn, politico, and many others have all written in depth articles dedicated to this topic. a sentence or two is not undue. "At the funeral service for Nancy Reagan, Clinton credited the Reagans with starting the national conversation about AIDS. The comments drew heavy criticism from LGBT groups and the media, who said that the Reagans had ignored the issue, causing Clinton to apologize and retract her statement." Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That wording seems fine to me.- MrX 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That is good wording. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and we cannot know what significance if any her comments will have, other than that they are in the news today. So it is likely that what the article says will change, but this is the best way to present it today. TFD (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: Yes, good wording. You have full consensus to add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No no no. Again, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

4 editors have expressed support for the information. 3 of them for that specific wording. You made your argument. Ignoring WP:CON is likely to lead to sanctions for you. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There's more than enough WP:WEIGHT: . WP:NOTNEWS means we are not a newspaper but it plainly advises that article content can be derived from news. WP:RECENT is an essay, and even it does not say to avoid recent events, but to make sure that we write from historical perspective. Specifically, " Misplaced Pages has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks."

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

agreed. Actually for recentism, I would argue it doesn't really apply to this topic at all.If this was clinton's BLP I would agree, but this is the campaign article. The whole campaign will only last a year. the entire article probably fails the WP:10YT. The level of additional restriction on any particular event within the year long campaign is fairly insignificant. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, recentism, NOT:NEWS and weight are doubly important on topics that are in the current news cycle because there is a great tendency of editors to breathlessly add stuff that quickly becomes stale and irrelevant. The amount of useful content proposed every day may be high, but the amount of trivial stuff proposed every day is doubly high. Understandably, people who are attuned to LGBT issues are sensitive to this. On the other hand, Clinton and all the other candidates are making statements every day about this and other important things like history, poverty, race, opportunity, terrorism, gender, families, health, education, on and on. And the nature of politics is that there is always somebody turning everything into an offense or controversy. Every day there will be plenty of sourced coverage of every single candidate saying something that is portrayed as offensive, a gaffe, a misstatement or untruth. We have to be careful to sort out what is truly important and not, and it is often hard to tell in the day or week immediately following an event. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Everyone should be attuned to LGBT issues.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your core logic. when basically every source on the left is calling this out as an issue, its an issue. Even the sources that are typically heavily pro-Hillary slammed her on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the article "Hillary Clinton," the weight issue would probably preclude inclusion of this matter, certainly at this time. Whether Clinton becomes president or not, the campaign will not be the most important part of her career. But this is an article about an event in the news, and we do not have the luxury of reliable tertiary sources and academic literature to establish weight. The best we can do is add stories as they arise, then adjust the weight depending on the degree of ongoing coverage. If in 2 days the issue is forgotten, then we should remove it. The alternative is that we impose an embargo on all new stories, and have a lag between events and when we add them. I think what we are doing is consistent with similar articles. TFD (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a delay of a few days before adding things like this, rather than having a big discussion over adding them, and then another over deleting them — that's if people are paying attention; if they are not paying attention, then the article will collect lots of dust. It's not an embargo, it's the point of notnews and recentivism. Similar articles have similar challenges, and suffer as a result if people lose sight. Misplaced Pages processes don't work well to be the most up-to-date source on everything in the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This should never be deleted. She insulted all those gay martyrs who died because of Reagan's silence = death policy. User:Gaijin42: You have my full support to add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Notnews and recentism should mean that this article does not exist. In the meantime we need to draw a compromise. TFD (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why User:Gaijin42's suggestion is perfect: it is totally neutral. I would want to add it was a homophobic thing for her to say, but perhaps it is difficult for heterosexual editors to see that--I'm happy to let it go for now as long as we add Gaijin42's suggestion. But as a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies for a decade, I had to speak up.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Editors being angry for what Hillary Clinton said" is not a good enough reason to include something. Do not bring your personal feelings (and perhaps just a little mock outrage?) into the editing process. I am sure all of us agree that what Clinton said was wrong, and Clinton herself has said this is so. It seems clear Clinton misremembered what happened 30 years ago and feels appropriately embarrassed by it. But the fact remains that this is problematic for several reasons. It's too recent to judge how important this is, and it is not clear if this will have any effect on her campaign (I'm guessing it will not have any effect on the number of votes she gets). In comparison to other campaign things, this is a minor issue, at least it very much appears so at the moment. So let's do what Wikidemon suggested - give it a few days and see if it becomes A Thing and if it does, we'll take another look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think we need to wait to see if this is important. It already is. I supplied a long list of sources covering it. I can't understand the pushback on this, given that we have a large paragraph about a book tour with four sources, one of which is Mashable; we have a two paragraph Hillary quote under 'Kickoff rally'; We have dedicated section called 'Embracing Obama' which contains all of 20 words; we have a 'Focus on local issues' section that has a single source; and many more such examples of this article looking like an big WP:UNDUE campaign brochure. Yes, we need to include this AIDS gaffe, and the section on 'Relationship with the LGBT community' needs to be promoted to a more prominent position in the article. Fair warning: I'm going to start trimming the campaign cruft from this article since we seem to all agree that following WP:DUEWEIGHT (and presumably, WP:NOTPROMO) is essential.- MrX 13:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This matter needs time to mature. We cannot know how significant this will become (remember this article is about the campaign, and this is not even really a campaign thing). Unless you have a crystal ball telling you this is going to become significant to the campaign, you are simply wrong about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey you are now edit warring against a WP:CON of at least 5-2 I suggest you self-revert before you get sanctioned. People are getting topic banned from Bernie sanders for similar behavior right now. You wouldn't want to join them.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: Please see the end of the thread about the Goldman Sachs speeches above as well. He is relentless. We should be writing a NPOV article, not a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Scjessey is being a bit heavy handed, having now twice reverted this content even though there is rough consensus for including it. The counterargument "you are simply wrong" is not persuasive.- MrX 14:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The cruft, as he puts it, will have to be trimmed sooner or later (or else we leave this, like Misplaced Pages leaves many political articles, hopelessly messy and stale after interest dies down. We don't yet know what is cruft and what is an issue. So it's a matter of editing discipline. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrarily archived talkpage topics should be restored

User:MrX: Why are you suddenly archiving lots of topics of discussion on this talkpage? That is always done by a bot as far as I know.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the archives btw? I don't see them. For example HRC's policy of deporting Hispanic children or her billionaire donors.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Because as activity on this page increases, editing it becomes more cumbersome. It's a pretty common practice. I archived anything that has been stale for a fortnight or more. I have no objection to any of the threads being restored here, if someone thinks a discussion is still ongoing.- MrX 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please restore them all and let the bot do it within a month!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Linked in the box that says 'archive' at the top of the page. Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016/Archive_2#Undocumented Hispanic children. - MrX 14:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If the discussions are stale, and especially if they aren't over something controversial, I aagree that early archiving improves usability of the page. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

They are controversial. user: MrX: Please restore them; I object to their archival prior to a month. I think we should just let the bot do its job in case they really are stale, to avoid suspicions about certain editors who may want to "archive" certain "controversial" topics.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, this not a beauracracy. If you feel that strongly about restoring any of the old threads, then do so. Franky, this is the first time I can recall anyone complaining about archiving old threads. It seems rather nugatory.- MrX 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

user: MrX: You did this. Can you please restore them? I am not sure how to restore them. I don't have rollback.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles