Steve Quinn (talk | contribs) →Cough: reply |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 707: | Line 707: | ||
*'''Exclude''' I agree with Scjessey. Although it may not have been necessary to say "garbage", this appears to have no relevance, and does not significantly contribute to including the content already under discussion above - per [[WP:GOSSIP]], [[WP:TRIVIA]]. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Exclude''' I agree with Scjessey. Although it may not have been necessary to say "garbage", this appears to have no relevance, and does not significantly contribute to including the content already under discussion above - per [[WP:GOSSIP]], [[WP:TRIVIA]]. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Include''' While it could be that the media has wrongly emphasized her health, [[WP:WEIGHT|weight]] requires that we "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Include''' While it could be that the media has wrongly emphasized her health, [[WP:WEIGHT|weight]] requires that we "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Exclude''' - this is ridiculous. It's like we're stuck in some not-particularly-good episode of [[South Park]].[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 05:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|WP:NOTAFORUM - not related to topic of this article}} |
|||
Does anyone have any press coverage about her sneezing yet? I think this is important and would be a significant addition to this article - and her bio on Wikipedia as well. Does any one have any coverage of responses, which her sneezes have engendered, such as "Bless you!" or "gesundheit!" or "need a Kleenex?" [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
Does anyone have any press coverage about her sneezing yet? I think this is important and would be a significant addition to this article - and her bio on Wikipedia as well. Does any one have any coverage of responses, which her sneezes have engendered, such as "Bless you!" or "gesundheit!" or "need a Kleenex?" [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:[[WP:NOTFORUM]] [[WP:SOAPBOX]] [[User:SaintAviator |<b style="color:blue">Saint<span style="color:red">Aviator</span></b>]] [[User talk:SaintAviator|<i style="color:blue">lets talk</i>]] 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
:[[WP:NOTFORUM]] [[WP:SOAPBOX]] [[User:SaintAviator |<b style="color:blue">Saint<span style="color:red">Aviator</span></b>]] [[User talk:SaintAviator|<i style="color:blue">lets talk</i>]] 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Sarcasm is usually not the best way to make the point, but I do agree that if she had a sneezing attack, or a series of burps, or excessive gas, that the health-related conspiracy theories around that would work their way from the alt right press to mainstream coverage, and from there to proponents here on Wikipedia, even if it they turned out to be no more than indigestion or a food allergy. That she exhibited a cough shortly before her pneumonia diagnosis, and that there is speculation about a connection between the two, is no different. There is a lot of speculation here, and a lot of talk of a bodily function, but next to zero substance. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:59, 15 September 2016 |
::Sarcasm is usually not the best way to make the point, but I do agree that if she had a sneezing attack, or a series of burps, or excessive gas, that the health-related conspiracy theories around that would work their way from the alt right press to mainstream coverage, and from there to proponents here on Wikipedia, even if it they turned out to be no more than indigestion or a food allergy. That she exhibited a cough shortly before her pneumonia diagnosis, and that there is speculation about a connection between the two, is no different. There is a lot of speculation here, and a lot of talk of a bodily function, but next to zero substance. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:59, 15 September 2016 |
Revision as of 05:29, 15 September 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Secret Goldman Sachs speeches
Could we please restore this discussion? The article STILL does not mention the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, leading many in the media to wonder if she is hiding anything. The discussion was archived last month, but we really need to discuss this and find a way to make sure Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, it's very clear that you personally dislike Hillary Clinton's campaign, as any sane man can notice by looking at your contributions to this talk page. Please refrain from editing the page until you mature and learn to accept neutrality. Kabahaly (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks. There is nothing personal about editing Wikipedia; we simply relay information found in the public domain. Why are we censoring the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts? There are countless reliable third-party sources about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, Kabahaly is absolutely correct. Your single-minded focus on tarnishing Clinton is not in the spirit of the project. We had the discussion, the consensus was not to include, and there has been nothing new since then. Perhaps we can revisit this again if Trump makes it a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think this material should remain out of the article. It has no relevance to the campaign other than some minor scandal mongering by her opponents. Her speeches to non-government organizations are her personal business, not a matter of public interest.- MrX 13:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, there was no consensus to redact the information, that's why I started an RFC. User:Fred Bauder seemed to agree with me early on, as I recall. This should be restored. It includes the RFC, which was closed by User:BU Rob13 as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that. ". Besides, there has been extensive media coverage about the fact that she will not release the transcripts, with headlines like The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts? in the Investor's Business Daily for example. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored; it's also not supposed to be a campaign ad for HRC. As I said before, I LOVE HRC, but given the extent of the media coverage about this, and the result of the RFC, it should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which closure of mine is being invoked? ~ Rob13Talk 14:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wikilinked to it above. (I also quoted your closing statement.) The RFC and relevant threads should be restored here because we are not done.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- That close was clear that there was consensus to have the info in the article. If someone is reverting you continuously, I'd take it to ANI. ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to ANI then, because this article has been stable for months without that crap in it. Also, Investor's Business Daily is a poor quality source, notable for saying Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in the UK. And the speeches are not "secret" if everyone knows about them, for goodness sake. This is just more right wing crap, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I explained this to you several times: please read secrecy. The transcripts meet the definition of secrecy, since she has repeatedly refused to release them. She is hiding them from the American public. I have neither the time nor the energy for an ANI, but User:BU Rob13 suggests your side lost the RFC and since you don't own this article, you should let other editors add referenced information as per consensus. Why are you so afraid of saying she does not want to release the transcripts and she wants them to remain secrets instead? It's the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, please assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to ANI then, because this article has been stable for months without that crap in it. Also, Investor's Business Daily is a poor quality source, notable for saying Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in the UK. And the speeches are not "secret" if everyone knows about them, for goodness sake. This is just more right wing crap, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- That close was clear that there was consensus to have the info in the article. If someone is reverting you continuously, I'd take it to ANI. ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wikilinked to it above. (I also quoted your closing statement.) The RFC and relevant threads should be restored here because we are not done.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which closure of mine is being invoked? ~ Rob13Talk 14:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, there was no consensus to redact the information, that's why I started an RFC. User:Fred Bauder seemed to agree with me early on, as I recall. This should be restored. It includes the RFC, which was closed by User:BU Rob13 as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that. ". Besides, there has been extensive media coverage about the fact that she will not release the transcripts, with headlines like The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts? in the Investor's Business Daily for example. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored; it's also not supposed to be a campaign ad for HRC. As I said before, I LOVE HRC, but given the extent of the media coverage about this, and the result of the RFC, it should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think this material should remain out of the article. It has no relevance to the campaign other than some minor scandal mongering by her opponents. Her speeches to non-government organizations are her personal business, not a matter of public interest.- MrX 13:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, Kabahaly is absolutely correct. Your single-minded focus on tarnishing Clinton is not in the spirit of the project. We had the discussion, the consensus was not to include, and there has been nothing new since then. Perhaps we can revisit this again if Trump makes it a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks. There is nothing personal about editing Wikipedia; we simply relay information found in the public domain. Why are we censoring the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts? There are countless reliable third-party sources about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article itself to determine if it seems to be complying with the consensus of that RfC. In my opinion as the closer of the RfC, the existing text in Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Post-2008_election as of the writing of this comment satisfies the community consensus that information about the speeches should be included and should be identified as something that was an issue in the primary. If further additions are desired, another RfC might be appropriate, and one would certainly be required to remove that information given the existing consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 17:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:BU Rob13: The current text says, "Her paid speeches to Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs in particular, would later draw criticism from campaign opponent Bernie Sanders.". That is incorrect. It was not just Bernie, but most of the media. Moreover, the sentence fails to say that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. Do we need another RFC to include this widely reported fact?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- She has them apparently, because "Clinton also requires a flat fee of $1,000 to pay for an onsite stenographer to record everything she says. However, Clinton is not required to provide the host with a copy, according to the memo.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would consider a neutral addition that she was asked to release the transcripts by Sanders and has so far declined to do so to be within the consensus of the RfC, but the media stuff wasn't really touched there. ~ Rob13Talk 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- But it wasn't just Bernie. Journalists would ask her and she would dodge the question each time. That's why there are so many articles about the secrecy of those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: I'm not saying whether it was just Bernie. I'm saying the discussion focused on whether it was a campaign issue, not whether the media widely pressured her to release the speeches. What you're saying may be true, but it wasn't determined by the RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 13:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- But it wasn't just Bernie. Journalists would ask her and she would dodge the question each time. That's why there are so many articles about the secrecy of those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would consider a neutral addition that she was asked to release the transcripts by Sanders and has so far declined to do so to be within the consensus of the RfC, but the media stuff wasn't really touched there. ~ Rob13Talk 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- It seems the issue had sufficient significance to mention it in the article. I would point out too that giving speeches to Wall Street banks has been Clinton's main source of income. TFD (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's already in the article, which has been stable for months. This is just about Zigzig20s wanted to add a healthy dose of right wing bias to make it sound worse than it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Scjessey: Again, please assume good faith, and don't make personal attacks. No, the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts is not currently in the article. Neither are the six-figure amounts. That should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- How can I assume good faith when you are so blatantly editing with a biased point of view? It's not a "fact" she has repeatedly refused to release the not secret transcripts, because as I said umpteen times the last time you brought this up, the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs. The amounts she was paid for these perfectly normal speeches are already public record, and they have been published by a number of news outlets (including the NYT). And it is not "censorship" when we decided to exclude non-salient details that are of no interest to anyone unless they are conducting agenda-driven editing. The only reason you have brought this up again is because you were unhappy with the consensus wording that has been in the article for months, and presumably your interest has been renewed with her confirmation as the Democratic Nominee. This sort of disruption is harmful to the project, so please stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I couldn't find it. However, it might be there. To bring the matter up to date, the situation has changed over the last few weeks. Clinton has adopted many of Saunder's positions, including close regulation of the financial sector. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is, while I might post in a forum that Clinton is only posing when she adopts Saunder's political positions, I don't feel comfortable incorporating that suspicion in a Wikipedia article. Until she pulls a double cross there is no evidence. We went through the same thing with Venezuela, it's not a dictatorship until the mass murder starts. Until then they are a democracy that holds regular elections. Assuming hypocrisy, wisely or foolishly, is not based on evidence. Whatever she said in those speeches is superceded by her contemporary position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The media believe the transcripts are secrets: known by HRC and Goldman Sachs, hidden from the American public. She could release them to end the suspicion. We know she hired a stenographer to transcribe the speeches, so surely she has them? I have not seen a reliable source suggesting they are the property of Goldman Sachs. In any case, the salient fact is that she has repeatedly refused to release them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is, while I might post in a forum that Clinton is only posing when she adopts Saunder's political positions, I don't feel comfortable incorporating that suspicion in a Wikipedia article. Until she pulls a double cross there is no evidence. We went through the same thing with Venezuela, it's not a dictatorship until the mass murder starts. Until then they are a democracy that holds regular elections. Assuming hypocrisy, wisely or foolishly, is not based on evidence. Whatever she said in those speeches is superceded by her contemporary position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I couldn't find it. However, it might be there. To bring the matter up to date, the situation has changed over the last few weeks. Clinton has adopted many of Saunder's positions, including close regulation of the financial sector. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- How can I assume good faith when you are so blatantly editing with a biased point of view? It's not a "fact" she has repeatedly refused to release the not secret transcripts, because as I said umpteen times the last time you brought this up, the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs. The amounts she was paid for these perfectly normal speeches are already public record, and they have been published by a number of news outlets (including the NYT). And it is not "censorship" when we decided to exclude non-salient details that are of no interest to anyone unless they are conducting agenda-driven editing. The only reason you have brought this up again is because you were unhappy with the consensus wording that has been in the article for months, and presumably your interest has been renewed with her confirmation as the Democratic Nominee. This sort of disruption is harmful to the project, so please stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Scjessey: Again, please assume good faith, and don't make personal attacks. No, the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts is not currently in the article. Neither are the six-figure amounts. That should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's already in the article, which has been stable for months. This is just about Zigzig20s wanted to add a healthy dose of right wing bias to make it sound worse than it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No one has said the speeches belong to Goldman Sachs. BTW her Canadian speeches are mostly on Youtube. She was paid USD215,500 for speaking at Canada 2020 which was also posted on their website.[1] TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, User:Scjessey wrote earlier, "the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs". How does he know that? The issue with Goldman Sachs (wonderful company which has been besmirched by this whole scandal btw) is that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. It's become an issue because the press has published so many articles about it, suggesting she may be hiding something from voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I mean no one quoted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. She has no excuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- What is currently in the article is more than sufficient. Phrases like "she has no excuse" make it clear where you are coming from. Please stop disrupting the project to further an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. You are censoring referenced information. I'm sorry but since you post your Twitter account on your userpage, anyone can see you are an HRC superfan in your tweets. One may even wonder if you work for her campaign? In any case, User:The Four Deuces seems to agree with me that we ought to add that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches--that's all widely reported in the public domain--it should appear here too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike you, I am capable from separating my personal political leanings from my Wikipedia editing. And you would do well to remember I don't even have a vote in this election, as a British citizen. Since you are attempting to overturn a longstanding consensus that has given us months of a stable article, you are going to need more than a 24-hour eye-bulging rantfest of anti-Clinton venom to win approval for the absurd changes you are seeking. And will you please stop suggesting Wikipedians you don't agree with are working for the Clinton campaign! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have zero "anti-Clinton venom", none whatsoever. I love HRC, if you will. But, I also love the freedom of the press, and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Or should not be censored. And we should not censor the widely reported fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts of her six-figure speeches to big banks. The bottom line is, your side lost the RFC, and we didn't update the article after the end of the RFC. This has to be done, or we need another RFC about this--but I am not sure why you are so afraid of the truth. User:Fred Bauder: Do you think we need another RFC to include this content, or can we simply ignore Scjessey?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't about "censorship" or whatever (which is a different way of saying "I get to put anything I want into an article", which is just not how an encyclopedia works, especially on BLPs). It's actually about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Start putting up sources or there's no point to this discussion. Until then it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not undue or fringe at all. It partly explains why the American public thinks she is dishonest. The media don't think it is undue. I provided references in the long discussion, which was archived and should be restored to this talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, the American public thinks Clinton is dishonest because of 25 years of lies and attacks from Republicans, and the gullible masses believe them. I personally don't like Clinton because (a) she lied out of her ass on the "running from gunfire" story, and (b) her "as far as I know" response to the Obama-is-a-Muslim bullshit was in stark contrast the statesman-like response from John McCain to that whack job lady who called Obama an Arab. But most of what the Republicans throw at her is completely fabricated garbage, and she's one of the most honest politicians running for office. And as a private citizen, there was absolutely nothing wrong with giving speeches to corporations and she was free to make as much money as she liked. There's simply no justification for your continued attempt to shoehorn anti-Clinton stuff into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's just the truth. She has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. That is a fact. Facts, by definition, are unbiased. And widely reported in the press. This should not be censored. I guess we may need another RFC...but there should be no need for it, since it's not questionable in any way, shape or form--it is, quite simply, the truth, nothing but the truth...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're not getting the point. Why the fuck does it matter? Nobody cares. Nobody is talking about it. The election circus has moved on. It turns out that from the historical perspective we write Wikipedia articles in, it didn't make the grade. It was a one-week wonder. Nothing to see here. Move along. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's just the truth. She has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. That is a fact. Facts, by definition, are unbiased. And widely reported in the press. This should not be censored. I guess we may need another RFC...but there should be no need for it, since it's not questionable in any way, shape or form--it is, quite simply, the truth, nothing but the truth...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, the American public thinks Clinton is dishonest because of 25 years of lies and attacks from Republicans, and the gullible masses believe them. I personally don't like Clinton because (a) she lied out of her ass on the "running from gunfire" story, and (b) her "as far as I know" response to the Obama-is-a-Muslim bullshit was in stark contrast the statesman-like response from John McCain to that whack job lady who called Obama an Arab. But most of what the Republicans throw at her is completely fabricated garbage, and she's one of the most honest politicians running for office. And as a private citizen, there was absolutely nothing wrong with giving speeches to corporations and she was free to make as much money as she liked. There's simply no justification for your continued attempt to shoehorn anti-Clinton stuff into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not undue or fringe at all. It partly explains why the American public thinks she is dishonest. The media don't think it is undue. I provided references in the long discussion, which was archived and should be restored to this talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't about "censorship" or whatever (which is a different way of saying "I get to put anything I want into an article", which is just not how an encyclopedia works, especially on BLPs). It's actually about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Start putting up sources or there's no point to this discussion. Until then it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have zero "anti-Clinton venom", none whatsoever. I love HRC, if you will. But, I also love the freedom of the press, and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Or should not be censored. And we should not censor the widely reported fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts of her six-figure speeches to big banks. The bottom line is, your side lost the RFC, and we didn't update the article after the end of the RFC. This has to be done, or we need another RFC about this--but I am not sure why you are so afraid of the truth. User:Fred Bauder: Do you think we need another RFC to include this content, or can we simply ignore Scjessey?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike you, I am capable from separating my personal political leanings from my Wikipedia editing. And you would do well to remember I don't even have a vote in this election, as a British citizen. Since you are attempting to overturn a longstanding consensus that has given us months of a stable article, you are going to need more than a 24-hour eye-bulging rantfest of anti-Clinton venom to win approval for the absurd changes you are seeking. And will you please stop suggesting Wikipedians you don't agree with are working for the Clinton campaign! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. You are censoring referenced information. I'm sorry but since you post your Twitter account on your userpage, anyone can see you are an HRC superfan in your tweets. One may even wonder if you work for her campaign? In any case, User:The Four Deuces seems to agree with me that we ought to add that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches--that's all widely reported in the public domain--it should appear here too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- What is currently in the article is more than sufficient. Phrases like "she has no excuse" make it clear where you are coming from. Please stop disrupting the project to further an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. She has no excuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I mean no one quoted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, User:Scjessey wrote earlier, "the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs". How does he know that? The issue with Goldman Sachs (wonderful company which has been besmirched by this whole scandal btw) is that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. It's become an issue because the press has published so many articles about it, suggesting she may be hiding something from voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey, it does not matter if Clinton is in fact honest, we are merely reporting public perception. Polls consistently show that most voters consider her dishonest and a June 1 poll showed that only 15% of voters consider her more honest than most politicians.[2] And indeed the paid Wall St speeches attracted a lot of attention during the primaries and hence should be mentioned unless you think that we should delete mention of the primaries since they are now over and Sanders has endorsed her. TFD (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- If we have stuff in the article talking about the "dishonesty" perception, we must also include the sourced information that shows that is not the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Since this article is about the entire campaign, the information about the primaries should not be deleted. We won't delete this article once the campaign is over. The fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, thus making certain they remain secrets, should appear in this article, due to the extensive media coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody cares. Please stop beating the dead horse. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are many third-party references. I know you don't like it; that's why we had an RFC. It's referenced content; we should add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant stuff is already in the article, and the article has remained stable for months. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, we had an RFC to add more content about this. The article needs to tell the truth: she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are wrong. The conclusion of the RfC did not support additional content. Read the comments from the contributors and the closer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- So do you object to this fact to the extent that I need to start another RFC to include it?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, we don't need another RfC, for goodness sake. RfCs are for requesting comment when discussion is deadlocked. Why is everyone suddenly abusing the hell out of RfCs? And for the record, nothing you want to include in the article is a "fact" in the way people normally understand the meaning of the word. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- So do you object to this fact to the extent that I need to start another RFC to include it?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are wrong. The conclusion of the RfC did not support additional content. Read the comments from the contributors and the closer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, we had an RFC to add more content about this. The article needs to tell the truth: she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant stuff is already in the article, and the article has remained stable for months. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are many third-party references. I know you don't like it; that's why we had an RFC. It's referenced content; we should add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody cares. Please stop beating the dead horse. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It was an unnecessary RfC to begin with that resulted in an inconclusive close because it was premature and badly worded. The last thing we need is yet another concurrent Hillary Clinton RfC just because one editor wants to change the wording. The material is already in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede, and calling the speeches "secret" is POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's what the press has called it, and it looks like we need another RFC to add referenced content because of the "deadlocks"/gatekeepers. It is tedious, but the material is NOT in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The current article text is: "In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." Do you have any proposed text for expanding or changing that? If you do I'm sure people will give it a listen. I don't think calling them "secret" is likely to fly, but being more descriptive about what actually happened like "including 8(?) speeches to Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions. She was later criticized during the primary campaign by Sanders, X, and Y for refusing to release transcripts of those speeches." Not exact wording, but something like that would probably gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- What's really missing is her refusal to release the transcripts (as I've repeated many times in this thread!). Would you like us to mention every single newspaper and politician who brought this up? We would need to add how many times she refused to release them, as well as the fact that some journalists have suggested she may be hiding something. We can also make a list of all the newspapers that used the word "secret" to describe them. It would be less work for us if she just released the transcripts, but we need to make sure this Wikipedia article is not censored, so this is very important content to add as long as she keeps hiding the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, my rough verbiage mentions the criticism around her refusal to release transcripts. Sources dictate substance, not word choice. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on the word "secret", that doesn't really clarify or add to anything pro or con. As a guess, there may or may not be consensus for adding to the statement "for refusing to release" a statement like "and suggested that she had her she had refused because she did not want to disclose what she had said in those speeches." That's a more factual way of saying the same thing, as opposed to calling them "secret". - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- What's really missing is her refusal to release the transcripts (as I've repeated many times in this thread!). Would you like us to mention every single newspaper and politician who brought this up? We would need to add how many times she refused to release them, as well as the fact that some journalists have suggested she may be hiding something. We can also make a list of all the newspapers that used the word "secret" to describe them. It would be less work for us if she just released the transcripts, but we need to make sure this Wikipedia article is not censored, so this is very important content to add as long as she keeps hiding the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The current article text is: "In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." Do you have any proposed text for expanding or changing that? If you do I'm sure people will give it a listen. I don't think calling them "secret" is likely to fly, but being more descriptive about what actually happened like "including 8(?) speeches to Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions. She was later criticized during the primary campaign by Sanders, X, and Y for refusing to release transcripts of those speeches." Not exact wording, but something like that would probably gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's what the press has called it, and it looks like we need another RFC to add referenced content because of the "deadlocks"/gatekeepers. It is tedious, but the material is NOT in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Disclosure, I voted for Bernie, so I can't be accused of "right-wing bias", though maybe someone will accuse me of anti-Clintonn bias. The speeches controversy seemed to me one of the major issues in the primary campaign, Sanders made a big issue of it in at least one debate [3] (and IIRC other debates, but the top results on Google appear to mostly be about that one debate). Seems like that clearly belongs in the "Controversies" section. Clinton defended herself in the above-linked debate by saying other candidates had given similar speeches, and she'd release her transcripts when they released theirs. Sanders responded that whatever the Republicans had done, he had no speeches to release. If we can find a source saying Goldman Sachs has copyright over the speech transcripts, we can include that point too (honestly kind of surprised I never heard Clinton make that point—don't know if it's true, but wouldn't surprise me if it were). Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- After more Googling, Sanders may have only brought up the issue in the one debate. But Anderson Cooper had previously brought up the speeches during a Democratic town hall. Vox has other coverage ([4][5]), though my perspective may be getting skewed as an avid Vox reader. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's all academic. The issue here is that one editor wants to make a big deal out of the speeches being "secret" (even though everyone knows about them) because the word is provocative, but most editors are satisfied with the existing text, or something with slightly expanded detail. And on a related note, I absolutely detest "controversies" sections in articles. They are examples of very poor writing and invariably act as shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have a responsibility to assume good faith. The transcripts are secret (as described by third-party sources) because she has repeatedly refused to release them. As I said, we may need an RFC to include this, even though there are countless sources relaying this fact. I have no personal opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Scjessey Fair points. Maybe it should be worked into the section on the primaries? Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Chris Hallquist: No, these were not "fair points". They were totally out of line comments about another editor (instead of addressing content!).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Chris Hallquist: The only way to find out would be to start an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's all academic. The issue here is that one editor wants to make a big deal out of the speeches being "secret" (even though everyone knows about them) because the word is provocative, but most editors are satisfied with the existing text, or something with slightly expanded detail. And on a related note, I absolutely detest "controversies" sections in articles. They are examples of very poor writing and invariably act as shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- After more Googling, Sanders may have only brought up the issue in the one debate. But Anderson Cooper had previously brought up the speeches during a Democratic town hall. Vox has other coverage ([4][5]), though my perspective may be getting skewed as an avid Vox reader. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Goldman Sachs Bans Employees from Donating to Trump but "At the same time, the rules do not restrict donations to Clinton-Kaine.". It's been reported by Fortune (Goldman Sachs Bans Employees from Donating to Trump), The Independent (Goldman Sachs tells employees they cannot donate to Trump campaign - but no restriction on Clinton's), CNN (Goldman Sachs' top 1% employees can't donate to Trump), etc. User:CFredkin, User:Anythingyouwant, User:The Four Deuces, and others on this page: this campaign issue is hard to ignore, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Clinton's ties to Goldman Sachs have been widely covered by reliable sources during her campaign. Trump's refusal to release his taxes is mentioned in both his bio and his campaign article. I'm not sure why Clinton's refusal to release the transcript of her speeches wouldn't be mentioned here.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing here. Typical POV bullshit, quite frankly. When are you going to let this garbage go? I recommend this crap be archived, since the only person keeping it "active" is the originator, who posts from time to time to fend off the bot. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that Goldman Sachs partners are not authorized to donate to Trump's campaign but welcome to donate to Clinton's campaign is definitely "something" according to The Independent, CNN, Fortune, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- FALSE. Goldman Sachs partners (less than 500 people) are not authorized to donate to any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official. That includes Mike Pence, who is a current state official, but does not specifically include Trump, Clinton or Kaine. This is to comply with federal law. Since Trump has allied himself with Pence, it's just bad luck for him, basically. The right wing organs like CNN Money (CNN Money is to CNN what CNBC is to MSNBC - a right wing offshoot), The Independent and Fortune have noted the coincidental timing and used it to rehash the false controversy you like to talk up, but that is all. There's still absolutely nothing wrong or illegal, so this is just more of the same bullshit you are trying to use to smear the Clinton campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I took a quick look through WP:RS just to make sure, and it turns out that using all caps and calling things bullshit doesn't count as a source. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's your opinion, but opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Instead, we rely on third-party sources like CNN, The Independent, Fortune, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, forget it. You guys will always use Wikipedia to further your agenda, no matter how hard reasonable people argue with you. I give up. Just know that this garbage isn't making it into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's an easy step-by-step guide: 1) Carefully read WP:CIVIL, 2) Carefully read WP:CIVIL again, 3) Provide a source for your claim that partners are not allowed to donate to either campaign. I honestly don't give a crap if it's in the article or not, but if one side has sources, and the other doesn't, the side with the sources wins. TimothyJosephWood 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, WP:UNCENSORED.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, that policy usually applies to material opposed on moral grounds, not on political ones, and invoking it on political issues is seen as a sign of a newish user unfamiliar with its application. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a new user and I've just re-read it. It does not say that UNCENSORED does not apply to politics. Ergo, Wikipedia does not censor politics, even if the content is seen as "objectionable" by some.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:UNCENSORED means we don't censor nudity or profanity. It does not mean that inappropriate content has to be added because otherwise it's "censorship". Read: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) " – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but this violates nothing. The Clinton campaign can sue CNN, The Independent, Fortune, MarketWatch, etc., if they want, but they are simply reporting facts relevant to the campaign and we should relay that information, based on the aforementioned reliable third-party sources and more.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm tardy to this party and tl;dr but what's the issue? She gave speeches, like everyone else in her position does. WP:UNDUE seems to apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The speech transcripts got way too much media coverage, were mentioned in debates and by Sanders (and Trump I think?) for Undue; it is totally Due. But read above. Now Goldman Sachs won't let their highest paid employees donate to Trump's campaign, but they can donate to Clinton's.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- It does seem odd that, as a major point of contention in the primaries, the GS speeches don't seem to be covered at all in the article. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Read above and also this archived RfC and discussion. I guess we may need a second RfC, as the editor who closed the first one, User:BU Rob13, wrote "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". But now there is also a second issue, Goldman Sachs top employees only being authorized to donate to Clinton's campaign, not Trump's.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- RfC is a second resort after attempts at achieving local consensus have failed. If one dissenting user is the only blockade to a local consensus, then there is a local consensus and no RfC is necessary. It seems the appropriate response here is to propose the addition of wording that is strongly supported by sources. See my own personal essay here for doing that. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Taking another look at the article, it doesn't mention Sanders much (mostly regarding fundraising) and barely mentions Trump at all. It would seem that Goldman Sachs could be fit in somewhere that discusses her race against Sanders, but what we have is WP:PROSELINE statements about who won what primary/caucus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The main thing about the Goldman Sachs speeches, for most reliable third-party sources, is that she has repeatedly refused to release them. Some sources suggest she may be hiding something. Now top employees are not allowed to donate to her rival's campaign, but they can donate to hers.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Taking another look at the article, it doesn't mention Sanders much (mostly regarding fundraising) and barely mentions Trump at all. It would seem that Goldman Sachs could be fit in somewhere that discusses her race against Sanders, but what we have is WP:PROSELINE statements about who won what primary/caucus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- RfC is a second resort after attempts at achieving local consensus have failed. If one dissenting user is the only blockade to a local consensus, then there is a local consensus and no RfC is necessary. It seems the appropriate response here is to propose the addition of wording that is strongly supported by sources. See my own personal essay here for doing that. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Read above and also this archived RfC and discussion. I guess we may need a second RfC, as the editor who closed the first one, User:BU Rob13, wrote "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". But now there is also a second issue, Goldman Sachs top employees only being authorized to donate to Clinton's campaign, not Trump's.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- It does seem odd that, as a major point of contention in the primaries, the GS speeches don't seem to be covered at all in the article. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The speech transcripts got way too much media coverage, were mentioned in debates and by Sanders (and Trump I think?) for Undue; it is totally Due. But read above. Now Goldman Sachs won't let their highest paid employees donate to Trump's campaign, but they can donate to Clinton's.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm tardy to this party and tl;dr but what's the issue? She gave speeches, like everyone else in her position does. WP:UNDUE seems to apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but this violates nothing. The Clinton campaign can sue CNN, The Independent, Fortune, MarketWatch, etc., if they want, but they are simply reporting facts relevant to the campaign and we should relay that information, based on the aforementioned reliable third-party sources and more.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:UNCENSORED means we don't censor nudity or profanity. It does not mean that inappropriate content has to be added because otherwise it's "censorship". Read: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) " – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a new user and I've just re-read it. It does not say that UNCENSORED does not apply to politics. Ergo, Wikipedia does not censor politics, even if the content is seen as "objectionable" by some.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, that policy usually applies to material opposed on moral grounds, not on political ones, and invoking it on political issues is seen as a sign of a newish user unfamiliar with its application. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, forget it. You guys will always use Wikipedia to further your agenda, no matter how hard reasonable people argue with you. I give up. Just know that this garbage isn't making it into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- FALSE. Goldman Sachs partners (less than 500 people) are not authorized to donate to any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official. That includes Mike Pence, who is a current state official, but does not specifically include Trump, Clinton or Kaine. This is to comply with federal law. Since Trump has allied himself with Pence, it's just bad luck for him, basically. The right wing organs like CNN Money (CNN Money is to CNN what CNBC is to MSNBC - a right wing offshoot), The Independent and Fortune have noted the coincidental timing and used it to rehash the false controversy you like to talk up, but that is all. There's still absolutely nothing wrong or illegal, so this is just more of the same bullshit you are trying to use to smear the Clinton campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that Goldman Sachs partners are not authorized to donate to Trump's campaign but welcome to donate to Clinton's campaign is definitely "something" according to The Independent, CNN, Fortune, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing here. Typical POV bullshit, quite frankly. When are you going to let this garbage go? I recommend this crap be archived, since the only person keeping it "active" is the originator, who posts from time to time to fend off the bot. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The difference is that all previous recent presidential candidates have always released their tax statements. Trump's refusal is unprecedented. On the other hand, the "transcripts of speeches" ... that's more or less just made up as a political attack. An encyclopedia really does NOT need to include every single political attack during an election. Coverage in sources is vastly different in scope as well. So no, we don't need another WP:AGENDA POV edit to this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- We should also ask ourselves if the speeches had any effect on the campaign. The answer is no - she won the primary with ease. It was a non factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Chronologically, as far as I can remember, Clinton brought up Trump's tax returns after she had repeatedly refused to release her Goldman Sachs transcripts. Now, those transcripts have received a lot of media coverage; and now Goldman Sachs top employees are only allowed to donate Clinton's campaign, which has also received a lot of media coverage. I think we should stick to reliable third-party sources and write about Clinton's own campaign here--namely, the Goldman Sachs transcripts and Goldman Sachs donations. Again, reliable third-party sources make this overdue for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, I seem to remember she struggled a little bit to win the primary, and even the DNC and "ease" don't go well together, given the Bernie Bros' booing, etc.. Besides, we should not try to draw our own conclusions about content from reliable third-party sources. That would be WP:OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The transcripts have received more attention from you personally than all of the mainstream media combined. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have you heard of this thing called google? TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am unfazed by what sounds like a personal attack. I only care about improving this article with reliable third-party sources, as User:Timothyjosephwood suggests. It's not about me or you; it's about reliable third-party sources. It's also about Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The speech thing was one of the core issues of the primaries, has been covered in a multitude of reliable sources, and was a major topic in, I believe, two of the primary debates at length. I don't see a good argument for including Benghazi (voted #1 cringe worthy political farce of 2016), and not including something about the socialism vs. corporatism narrative of the primaries.
- As a side note, if you can't discuss something without making personal attacks and indiscriminately spewing bile at anyone who disagrees with you, while at the same time adding nothing of substance to either the conversation or the article, then you should probably consider editing in a different topic area. TimothyJosephWood 16:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was already discussed, the decision was NOT to include. All this latest stuff is just because Zigzig20s did not accept the consensus. At the time, we decided to revisit the matter if Trump brought it up after the primaries. He hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. (Is this an "artful smear"?) There was an RfC, closed by User:BU Rob13, who said, "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.".Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- As for the fact that Goldman Sachs top employees are banned from donating to Trump's campaign but welcome to donate to Clinton, we don't need to wait for Trump to bring it up. Reliable third-party sources already have.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moving on to something potentially productive, I suppose my question is where did this issue originate? If I remember correctly, Sanders just jumped on the wagon and it was already a story when he brought it up on the stump and at the debates. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- We're not going to add the Goldman stuff at this point, and this isn't the right time to rehash a consensus discussion based on false claims. Let's put a nail on this please. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Timothyjosephwood: You are correct. It came from the media (not sure which newspaper first broke the story), and they kept asking Clinton if she would release those transcripts. She kept refusing to release them. Then it was mentioned in the debates, and Sanders mentioned it too.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Wikidemon: Why? The last RfC concluded that we should. You don't WP:OWN this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is the discussion regarding specific wording. That was the result of the RfC. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think a good starting place, since you seem motivated do dig, would be to leave the breaking news stuff to the side for the time being, and look back in the ancient history of...say...February or March, and find out where the story came from originally. What I mean is, find a specific, high quality, mainstream, reliable source from when this started. TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we absolutely need to find out who asked her about those transcripts first. It would be nice to find the detail, but that sounds like another potential distraction. We can always add this detail later, if it resurfaces. The point is the RfC concluded that her consistent refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid Goldman Sachs speeches should be mentioned in the article. Now reliable third-party sources have highlighted that Goldman Sachs top employees are only allowed to donate to her campaign. Let's add this.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think a good starting place, since you seem motivated do dig, would be to leave the breaking news stuff to the side for the time being, and look back in the ancient history of...say...February or March, and find out where the story came from originally. What I mean is, find a specific, high quality, mainstream, reliable source from when this started. TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- We're not going to add the Goldman stuff at this point, and this isn't the right time to rehash a consensus discussion based on false claims. Let's put a nail on this please. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moving on to something potentially productive, I suppose my question is where did this issue originate? If I remember correctly, Sanders just jumped on the wagon and it was already a story when he brought it up on the stump and at the debates. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was already discussed, the decision was NOT to include. All this latest stuff is just because Zigzig20s did not accept the consensus. At the time, we decided to revisit the matter if Trump brought it up after the primaries. He hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The transcripts have received more attention from you personally than all of the mainstream media combined. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The current issues about employees, even if there was a consensus for adding it in particular, would make no sense without the context of the speech...issue...thing... generally. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, they both make sense. But by "this", I mean let's add both.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- And again, it shouldn't be seen as our decision. It's the decision of reliable third-party sources...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- So...take my advice, and go get the most comprehensive and reliable source you can find for the topic generally, and we can work off that to propose specific wording. I'm going back to my cave for the time being, because 19th Century politics is much simpler. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no issue with Goldman employees, and no connection between a preexisting federal law about political donations and Clinton's speaking engagements. Can we just cut this constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense and move to something productive? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. I consider gathering high quality sources for content overwhelmingly supported by an RfC fairly productive. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable third-party sources have made the Clinton-only donations from Goldman Sachs partners an issue. We can't (and shouldn't try to) control that. The same goes for her consistent refusal to release those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then reconsider, Timothyjosephwood. You are promoting unproductive and borderline disruptive behavior on this talk page. I trust that is not your mission here editing the encyclopedia, so please be a little more thoughtful before jumping into talk page disputes to offer encouragement to editors that are having trouble with the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive to do what the RfC concluded. It's exactly what we ought to be doing. If you don't like it, please don't try to disrupt other editors's hard work.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, your actions here, specifically, are at issue. If you can reign in the stream of fringe, conspiracy, trivial, and POV stuff, your substantive contributions are welcome. This was the wrong time to resurrect the old discussion of Clinton's speech-making, which is more or less a dead issue at this point. The Goldman contribution stuff is blatant nonsense, and has been dismissed as such by the sources. If you need some perspective about the importance and relevance of various political talking points and news of the day, please propose them in a way that is collaborative instead of advocating them, and listen to what the other editors around here have to say. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, clearly User:Timothyjosephwood agrees that this should be included. So did the majority of the respondents to the RfC. If you disagree, who cares? The consensus for inclusion is with us. Now please let us do some serious work with reliable third-party sources. That's all that matters.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, my position is: 1) the RfC clearly supports the WP:DUE weight of the topic, broadly and in principle; 2) the employee donation question is moot until there is something to add it to, which currently there isn't, so the debate is tabled for the time being; and 3) continuing to debate hypothetical content in the abstract is a waste of time, so we can continue this when Zigs provides a quality source, or better, two of three, that comprehensively cover the topic of the speeches in the broadest sense possible. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- (after ec, addressed to Zigzig20s) Who cares is you, if you intend to work with others on improving these articles. My last comment to you is a pretty good summary of what you can do to be useful and get along with the community. A defiant attitude is not going to help your case, as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT generally doesn't work. If you have any serious proposals with real sources, you are welcome to bring them up in a reasonable way. Harping on "secret" Goldman speeches, and discredited nonsense about Goldman employees not being allowed to donate to Clinton, is pointless and wears out other editors' patience. Timothyjosephwood is correct that bringing quality sources to the table (and I will add, relevant sources, fairly presented and of due weight, minus any POV advocacy) is the way to support a content proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why I started this subsection (from 'arbitrary break' onwards) with multiple reliable third-party sources about the donation restrictions for Goldman Sachs partners. I can do the same with HRC's consistent refusal to release the transcripts (thus meeting the very definition of secret: known to HRC and Goldman Sachs, but hidden from the media and the American public/voters). I did present third-party sources in the past; there are many; as User:Timothyjosephwood said earlier, you too could Google it if you are in doubt. (By the way, the community agrees with me as per the RfC conclusion.) Now, I will start a draft, but no need to pressure me.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- (after ec, addressed to Zigzig20s) Who cares is you, if you intend to work with others on improving these articles. My last comment to you is a pretty good summary of what you can do to be useful and get along with the community. A defiant attitude is not going to help your case, as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT generally doesn't work. If you have any serious proposals with real sources, you are welcome to bring them up in a reasonable way. Harping on "secret" Goldman speeches, and discredited nonsense about Goldman employees not being allowed to donate to Clinton, is pointless and wears out other editors' patience. Timothyjosephwood is correct that bringing quality sources to the table (and I will add, relevant sources, fairly presented and of due weight, minus any POV advocacy) is the way to support a content proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, my position is: 1) the RfC clearly supports the WP:DUE weight of the topic, broadly and in principle; 2) the employee donation question is moot until there is something to add it to, which currently there isn't, so the debate is tabled for the time being; and 3) continuing to debate hypothetical content in the abstract is a waste of time, so we can continue this when Zigs provides a quality source, or better, two of three, that comprehensively cover the topic of the speeches in the broadest sense possible. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, clearly User:Timothyjosephwood agrees that this should be included. So did the majority of the respondents to the RfC. If you disagree, who cares? The consensus for inclusion is with us. Now please let us do some serious work with reliable third-party sources. That's all that matters.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, your actions here, specifically, are at issue. If you can reign in the stream of fringe, conspiracy, trivial, and POV stuff, your substantive contributions are welcome. This was the wrong time to resurrect the old discussion of Clinton's speech-making, which is more or less a dead issue at this point. The Goldman contribution stuff is blatant nonsense, and has been dismissed as such by the sources. If you need some perspective about the importance and relevance of various political talking points and news of the day, please propose them in a way that is collaborative instead of advocating them, and listen to what the other editors around here have to say. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive to do what the RfC concluded. It's exactly what we ought to be doing. If you don't like it, please don't try to disrupt other editors's hard work.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then reconsider, Timothyjosephwood. You are promoting unproductive and borderline disruptive behavior on this talk page. I trust that is not your mission here editing the encyclopedia, so please be a little more thoughtful before jumping into talk page disputes to offer encouragement to editors that are having trouble with the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no issue with Goldman employees, and no connection between a preexisting federal law about political donations and Clinton's speaking engagements. Can we just cut this constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense and move to something productive? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- So...take my advice, and go get the most comprehensive and reliable source you can find for the topic generally, and we can work off that to propose specific wording. I'm going back to my cave for the time being, because 19th Century politics is much simpler. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC: "dishonest" in lede
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.
Should the following statement be included in the lede to this article?
In addition, polling throughout the campaign has indicated that she is perceived as being “dishonest” by a significant proportion of the public.[1]
References
- ^ See:
- Cillizza, Chris (February 24, 2016). "1 in 5 Americans say Hillary Clinton is "dishonest" or a "liar." Here's why that's a big problem". Washington Post.
- Agiesta, Jennifer (June 2, 2015). "Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton". CNN.
- Edelman, Adam (February 23, 2016). "Voters use words like 'dishonest' and 'liar' to describe Hillary Clinton in poll". NY Daily News.
- Blanton, Dana (October 14, 2015). "Fox News Poll: 60 percent say Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi". Fox News.
- Merica, Dan (June 17, 2015). "Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states". CNN.
- Glass, Nick (February 23, 2016). "Poll: 'Dishonest,' 'socialist' top word lists for Clinton, Sanders". Politico.
- Exclude unless reworked with additions/context. If it is included, it needs to be balanced, otherwise it's classic cherry-picking. Polls show that Clinton has indeed struggled on voter perceptions of honesty and trustworthiness, but she also consistently rates highly on questions related to "strong leadership qualities" and "the right experience to be president" (see, e.g., NPR, Washington Post). To include the "honesty/trustworthiness" struggles in the lead in isolation, without also including the equally important or more important "leadership/experience" metrics, would not be a fair characterization of the totality of polling over the course of the campaign.
- Note that the experience perception has been an important figure in polling data...
- Mark Hensch, Poll: Clinton has experience edge over Trump, The Hill (June 3, 2016).
- Nick Gass, Poll: Clinton's biggest asset is Trump's biggest liability, Politico (June 3, 2016).
- Frank Newport & Jim Harter, Presidential Candidates as Leaders: The Public's View, Gallup (April 29, 2016).
- Justin McCarthy, Clinton's Best Asset, Trump's Biggest Liability: Experience, Gallup (June 3, 2016).
- Carrie Dann, Poll: 61% Percent Concerned about Trump's Experience, NBC News (May 23, 2016).
- And has been a key theme of Clinton's campaign, as she has emphasized experience:
- Steve Benen, After Brexit, Clinton stresses 'steady, experienced leadership', MSNBC (June 24, 2016).
- Julie Pace & Robert Furlow, Hillary Clinton promises 'steady leadership' at 'moment of reckoning', Associated Press (June 24, 2016).
- Nick Corasaniti, Hillary Clinton Emphasizes Her Time on the World Stage, New York Times (July 9, 2016).
- Evan Halper & Chris Megerian, Sanders turns confrontational and Clinton emphasizes her record in Iowa town hall, Los Angles Times (January 26, 2016).
- So no, we shouldn't add the honesty/trustworthiness perception issues to the lead unless we're also going to add content related to the experience/leadership issue. Neutralitytalk 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- By itself, definitely not. It might be possible to include it with proper context and other attributes however. But I'd have to see the actual text to have an opinion on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- By all means, include. Perhaps add some context: dishonest because of the secret transcripts and fake Benghazi video. This can all go in the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include It is a significant aspect of how the public sees her. Her major opponent has even called her "Crooked Hillary" and Republicans chanted "Lock her up!" None of that makes sense unless it is explained that she is perceived as dishonest. TFD (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not. Wikipedia absolutely should not make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest, and if we're going to include "public perceptions" of the candidates, them we would have to include "bat-shit crazy" in the lede for her opponent. Let's not do either. Ground Zero | t 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The RfC question is not whether we should "make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest" but whether "she is perceived as being “dishonest.”" If Trump is perceived as "bat-shit crazy," then we can consider that in his article. "Neutrality" "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In fairness, Clinton is the most distrusted and least liked person ever to receive the Democratic nomination. TFD (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. This is a matter of undue weight. This should absolutely be discussed in the article, but in the lead? Where exactly would that go? "She declared her candidacy. She faced Sanders in the primaries. She's now in the general against Trump. Oh, wait, yeah, she's also super dishonest." It just doesn't fit at all in a neutral summary of the topic. ~ Rob13Talk 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do Not Include. Firstly because the comment is not neutral and hard to quantify, and secondly - and more importantly - the campaign is not yet over, so such a judgement (if it is even possible to make one) cannot yet be made. Tonyinman (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nopey McNopeFace. And frankly, was an RfC necessary? Could this not have been a normal, consensus-building discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes If we're going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Massive difference between the two things. Clinton is not at all dishonest. That's just a perception created by repeated attacks from the right over 25 years. Besides, stuff happening somewhere else is not a good justification to do anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: He's not. Ask Dr Ben Carson. He treats everyone the same. HRC is perceived as dishonest because of a self-fulfilling prophecy re: secret speech transcripts, deleted e-mails, recurring lies, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Should we add to the lede that HRC is seen as appealing to Pinocchio lovers?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There's a [parallel RfC] at the corresponding article for Trump on whether to include a reference to his being "racist" in the lede. It's interesting to note the editors who are in favor of one, but at the same time not the other.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude – Campaign is not over, and when it is: then we can add such judgement provided such judgement exists. Also, in order to be neutral as Neutrality discussed above, we would need to mention polling on 'leadership qualities' etc which rate her favourably. Notwithstanding this, I'm not willing to add anything into the lede that isn't discussed in length in the body of the article. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As currently framed, the statement is absent any context, and not appropriate. The perception of honesty is linked, in the sources I have read, to specific issues: the email controversy, flip-flopping on gay marriage, or the TPP, or something along those lines. If we used the perception of these issues to add context, the statement might be acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude – For lead material? Absolutely not. It's out of context, and it's just one piece of data gleaned from the extensive polling that has taken place and will continue to take place. There are lots of other public perceptions. Why single this one out of the lineup?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include in lede and include section in the body of the article on reasons and sources for it. Multiple reliable sources. It is the polling result that is well established, not her underlying character. That needs to be clear in any extended section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- No way, not in a million years. Just because the political opposition attacks somebody's character, and gets some traction with that attack, does not justify that we as an encyclopedia do the bidding of the political operatives. Even if it were not a BLP-magnet, a single political attack point is very rarely such a defining issue that it would belong in a politician's lede. Nixon resigning, yes. Dean screaming, maybe. But Hillary Clinton's supposed dishonesty? No way. By the way, since when do we have at least one RfC a week on the presidential election articles. An RfC is supposed to be the near-final stop on a content dispute, not a tool for writing articles, nor a single editor's resort for not gaining fast consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude. Without context and balance (e.g. presidential qualities Clinton does well in), this should not be in the lede. If there's an appropriate body section, it could go there, with context of course, but there doesn't seem to be one.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include - The only question here should be whether the perception of Clinton as "dishonest" is notable or non-notable. A number of RS's on all sides of the political spectrum have reported on Clinton's perception problem. The sources say it, and so should we. That's regardless of what our own personal opinions of her honesty are. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No chance per Kerdooskis, among others. "[S]ignificant proportion" are weasel words and is so vague that I don't even think it appropriate for the lede exception to WP:WEASEL. I'm also inclined to think it's not sufficiently notable for the lede. Whether it could be worked into something suitable for the lede (as it plainly isn't in its present state), I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rule it out. Graham (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- From the NYT's: "...a weak candidate with a muddled message who faces an electorate in which a majority of voters do not trust or like her." [6] User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No Not in its current form and not at all in the lead. This may be appropriate in the general context of polling. This could include, for example, a Pew poll, and an overview of the results they obtained. You are therefore deferring to Pew on the matter of what the important results are, not deciding them yourself. Otherwise it's a clear POV by selective inclusion.
- VM was correct in removing this from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, this was not even mentioned in the article...at all, and these grounds alone justify removal. Further, this AfC should probably not have started at all without some prior attempt at consensus building showing the need for broader opinion. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely do not include This is classic WP:SYNTHESIS. First, significant is an vague interpretation given in Wikipedia voice. Second, this is a polling based point, which would required (1) current polling aggregation data and (2) reliable sources interpreting current poll aggregation data.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do not include - The lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no discussion of the perception issues in the article. I recommend a discussion of the public perceptions in the body in an WP:NPOV way and then summarise it in the lead in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not, for reasons already given, including problems with WP:SYNTHESIS and not fitting guidelines for a good lede. Including something like this in a "public perceptions" section of the article, in a way that avoids synthesis and respects WP:NPOV by discussing positive aspects of her public image would be acceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)- Only if reworked Immediately after posting my comment, I thought better of it and decided maybe my initial reaction was too strong. I can see something like this being included in the lede if the proposal is reworked to respect WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEDE, but the proposal in its current form doesn't do those things. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. Sadly, yes. The bot sent me. It is well sourced, it doesn't violate BLP, and it is has wide coverage in the reliable media sources. The public does perceive her like this because she's done it on television. There's video evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email bits. It's not WP:synth, it doesn't violate WP:NPOV and it meets WP:LEDE. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely include - Whether she is or isn't is not the question. This election season is plagued with ethical choices and Hillary is certainly fighting the perception of her being dishonest. It is such an influential issue that she has had to address it many times; at one recent point she said one of her answers was a "short-circuited" response. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is battling the reputation of being dishonest and that is a major focal point in this election season. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact - again, not that she is a liar, but that she is faced with correcting that perception. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Juda S. Engelmayer So you would support the statement proposed without context or editing? You don't make that clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need context, it is a factual statement. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but did you actually read the statement and its supporting sources? Are you not bothered by the word "significant", which is arbitrary? Even if you just read the quotes from the sources, and not the sources themselves, you can see that "significant" is a problem, based on the wildly differing polling data. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need context, it is a factual statement. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Juda S. Engelmayer So you would support the statement proposed without context or editing? You don't make that clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do Not Include -- This is not consistent with WP:BLP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include - incomplete otherwise And revise lead. The lead is a bit dated, being overly focused on the primaries. The first para seems fine, but seems less than complete without mentions of the actual campaign highlights - anti-Trumpism and qualifications versus fighting the dishonesty and finance topics ? Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - This should definitely be left out per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV. -- Dane2007 talk 03:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, the lack of trust appears to be international: "many ordinary Cubans don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The quote speaks for itself.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The quote is about Cuba, and has nothing to do with honesty. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension, or being deliberately disingenuous? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even people in Cuba think she is dishonest, as they "don't entirely trust Mrs Clinton". The key notion here is dishonesty, lack of trust, suspicion, which is what this RFC is about.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The quote is about Cuba, and has nothing to do with honesty. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension, or being deliberately disingenuous? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The quote speaks for itself.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the outdent - see edit history for rationale. I am trying to comment here and I have to contend with an outdent about one article? Other people are involved in this RFC and this should be respected. It appears someone wants to be a comic throughout this thread. I can understand one or two jokes at the beginning, but not the whole thread. Please go find a comedy club somewhere. This is ridiculous. My comment is this RFC should not be happening because it undermines the chance for editors to fine tune the material, obtain the data behind it, and add other polls about her strengths such as leadership. It undermines the whole process for a keep or delete solution. IMHO - this is not good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do not include This is a totally one sided proposal and would contradict WP:NPOV and is a BLP issue. And as mentioned above data behind the polling needs to be provided or else these "dishonest" polls are of no value. And even with the polling data it would still be emphasizing one attribute when there are other attributes to consider. Also, the following two sources seem to contradict a lead sentence promoting a "dishonest" view [7], [8]. These sources indicate this is not a black and white issue, and the proposed lead seeks to present this as a black and white issue. Additionally, I agree that this "dishonest" perception is from repeated hammering over 25 or more years by the right, and mostly has no basis in fact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Further comment I have not worked on articles related to Hilary too much so I was not familiar with which editors
whopromote WP:UNDUE and try to get that into these articles. So, what I mistook for a comic's humor was actually repeated right wing mantras such as Benghazi materials and so on (including one misrepresented Cuban article) throughout the thread. I have to apologize to thread participants for not realizing this editor was serious. But hopefully it can be understood why I laughed at such unsubstantial assertions, thinking this person must be joking. Also, I was really tired and did not have the energy to play catch up until now. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC) - Include - Take a look at the lead on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and then the lead on Clinton's campaign page... The lead on Trump's campaign page includes significantly more coverage of controversies, negative descriptors, etc. For example, "Many of his remarks have been controversial", "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism", and "Trump's campaign rallies have attracted... public controversy" while the lead on Mrs. Clinton's page has been whitewashed of any negative information. We should maintain consistency and address the public's view of Clinton as being “dishonest”. Meatsgains (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- What goes on at another article has no bearing on what goes on at this article. Besides, Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton, so there's really no comparison you can make. For example, Trump openly calls for an entire religion to be banned from entering the country, whereas Clinton is criticized for propping herself with cushions, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Trump is orders of magnitude more controversial than Clinton" is your own opinion, which you are more than entitled to but Clinton is no saint either. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude, in the form proposed. There is no denying that Clinton is perceived as dishonest by some, but that statement should not exist in isolation in the lead. The word "significant" is problematic especially when one source says "1 in 5 Americans". Whatever version of this sentence is appropriate for the lead should include some qualification and quantification of the perceived dishonesty, relative to previous and current presidential candidates. Sources like this one: [9] offer better context than some of the sources proposed in this RfC.- MrX 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude as it lacks context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Rfc: Is father of Orlando gay club murderer relevant to the campaign?
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.
Seddique Mateen is the father of the mass murderer in the June 2016 massacre at a gay club in Orlando. He attended a rally for the Clinton campaign and endorsed Clinton. He has publicly commented that while he disapproves of the murders, he is against homosexuality (or maybe not). These facts were reported by media outlets as something of interest to the campaign (presumably, something that could influence voters to vote for or against Clinton), but public commentary on the matter died out after a few days.
Should this incident be mentioned in the article?
I request that people not comment here on details of what the article should say about the incident, but focus on the simpler threshold issue of whether it is even worth mentioning, as there is already controversy over even that. If consensus is that the matter is appropriate for the article, further discussion can determine details. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. He says he was invited to the campaign rally, and VP candidate Mike Pence has talked about him at another campaign rally, regarding national security. It was also mentioned by Donald Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- So now I have to point out (the above thread was closed before I could) that there's no evidence he was "invited". Did he see a flyer and take that as an invitation? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says he was invited. Don't twist my words--or his.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He never said "who" invited him, certainly not anyone in the Hillary campaign or DNC. Read the Snopes link I shared. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The first point in my response was that he was invited. That was it. Apparently by the Florida Democratic Party, but that was not my point (though that appears to have been Saddique's). I then proceeded to make two more points. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because the Florida Democratic Party "invited" everybody in the general population. I'll respond to any points you make when I can find them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The RFC asks, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he was invited to and attended a campaign rally; plus mentioned by Pence and Trump during the campaign. Enough!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, "he" was not invited, any more than you or I were. And not everything that comes out of the mouth of a POTUS or VP nominee is going to be included (WP:NOTNEWS). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says he was invited. But in any case, the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? For the aforementioned reasons, yes, it is, no need to ask me again.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do you not understand that "He says he was invited" and "he was invited" (both direct quotations from you) do not mean the same thing? You have provided no evidence of the latter. Graham (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) From Snopes: "Both Mateen and the Clinton campaign explained his appearance at the rally as a function of the event's being 'open to the public,' and neither party stated or implied that any invitation had been extended to him or accepted." – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says, "I was invited.". We have no reason to believe that he lied. This is veering off topic. The RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? Yes it is, because the rally was a campaign rally. Enough already!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Um, we absolutely have "reason to believe" that what he said is untrue. Did you not read the article Muboshgu posted? And deconstructing your argument is definitely on topic – unless you're suggesting that your argument is itself irrelevant…? Graham (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please re-read my first response after "Include". It includes the word "campaign" several times. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- And what's your point…? Graham (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I responded to the RFC, as requested by User:Giraffedata. Sorry I won't have time to repeat this endlessly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- And what's your point…? Graham (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please re-read my first response after "Include". It includes the word "campaign" several times. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Um, we absolutely have "reason to believe" that what he said is untrue. Did you not read the article Muboshgu posted? And deconstructing your argument is definitely on topic – unless you're suggesting that your argument is itself irrelevant…? Graham (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says, "I was invited.". We have no reason to believe that he lied. This is veering off topic. The RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? Yes it is, because the rally was a campaign rally. Enough already!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says he was invited. But in any case, the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? For the aforementioned reasons, yes, it is, no need to ask me again.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, "he" was not invited, any more than you or I were. And not everything that comes out of the mouth of a POTUS or VP nominee is going to be included (WP:NOTNEWS). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The RFC asks, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he was invited to and attended a campaign rally; plus mentioned by Pence and Trump during the campaign. Enough!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because the Florida Democratic Party "invited" everybody in the general population. I'll respond to any points you make when I can find them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The first point in my response was that he was invited. That was it. Apparently by the Florida Democratic Party, but that was not my point (though that appears to have been Saddique's). I then proceeded to make two more points. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He never said "who" invited him, certainly not anyone in the Hillary campaign or DNC. Read the Snopes link I shared. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- He says he was invited. Don't twist my words--or his.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, and don't be ridiculous. We are trying to make an encyclopedia here. A good question to ask about stuff like this is "will future generations, people 30 or 40 years from now, find this useful information". Lots of people attend rallies and lots of people are sent to sit behind the candidate. No reasonable person thinks this means anything. IIRC Donald Trump had some unpleasant person sit behind him at one of his rallies and that also meant nothing. BTW Hillary Clinton had waffles for breakfast that day, shall we report that for future generations. Campaign reporters have to write about something every day. We don't. I know it's silly season but let's not get sucked into this. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include What makes the story significant is that S. Mateen was seated behind Clinton by her staff. It gained further notice when Trump commented on it and ironically his staff placed a disgraced former congressman behind him. To answer Herostratus, yes people interested in Clinton's 2016 campaign and wanting to know more beyond one or two paragraphs will find it interesting. If she loses the election, she will only be remembered for being First Lady and first female candidate for a major party. TFD (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. I think it would be biased and left-wing favoritism, not to include it.--Broter (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the Right is backing Hillary. TFD (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I felt the Bern.- MrX 13:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend ointment. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I felt the Bern.- MrX 13:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the Right is backing Hillary. TFD (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude per WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Articles of this nature must be written from with the historical perspective in mind. If nobody is talking about this mere days after the event, why would anyone think this would be of significance a year, two years or two decades from now? If we included every 24-hour news story into campaign articles, this article would be 12 times larger and the equivalent Trump article would be eleventy-billion times larger. Also, why was this RFC even necessary? The matter was discussed at length in the previous section with a clear consensus for exclusion. Now it appears that a certain RFC-happy editor has managed to convince someone to open this RFC by whining about it at WT:RFC. That really doesn't look good. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude This has as much bearing on the Hillary campaign as Mark Foley's presence at a Trump rally has on Trump's campaign. And for all the other reasons we've gone over, WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't replicate everything from every 24 hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: According to your reasoning, the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article could be significantly reduced in size because it is full with WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. To include the David Duke story in his article and at the same time exclude this story in the Hillary article is biased without end. Omar Mateen has even an article. So it is relevant.--Broter (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apples and oranges. David Duke has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far, while Seddique Mateen went to one rally, and hasn't been mentioned since ending its turn in the 24 hour news cycle. If you care to make any particular proposals about RECENTISM on the Trump page, make them on the appropriate talk page. (Oh and Seddique Mateen doesn't have his own page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- As User:Broter correctly explained--apples and apples. One could say both Pence and Trump believe Seddique Mateen "has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far". Besides, at least Mateen went to a rally--as far as we know, Duke never did.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe Trump and Pence want people to think that. It's a ridiculous notion, which is why it died after it went through a 24 hour news cycle. Duke just works to stoke the relationship between Trump and the alt-right through his radio show (read some of those transcripts if you like). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mentioning Duke is equally "ridiculous", if not more. I won't read his transcripts--not interested in what he has to say. Trump has disavowed him, just like Hillary has disavowed Mateen. It's apples and apples--except Mateen went to a rally.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, HRC campaign disavowed Seddique Mateen when they heard he was there. Trump's first chance to distance himself from Duke didn't go so well. Apples to apples is Mateen and Foley. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mentioning Duke is equally "ridiculous", if not more. I won't read his transcripts--not interested in what he has to say. Trump has disavowed him, just like Hillary has disavowed Mateen. It's apples and apples--except Mateen went to a rally.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe Trump and Pence want people to think that. It's a ridiculous notion, which is why it died after it went through a 24 hour news cycle. Duke just works to stoke the relationship between Trump and the alt-right through his radio show (read some of those transcripts if you like). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- As User:Broter correctly explained--apples and apples. One could say both Pence and Trump believe Seddique Mateen "has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far". Besides, at least Mateen went to a rally--as far as we know, Duke never did.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apples and oranges. David Duke has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far, while Seddique Mateen went to one rally, and hasn't been mentioned since ending its turn in the 24 hour news cycle. If you care to make any particular proposals about RECENTISM on the Trump page, make them on the appropriate talk page. (Oh and Seddique Mateen doesn't have his own page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: According to your reasoning, the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article could be significantly reduced in size because it is full with WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. To include the David Duke story in his article and at the same time exclude this story in the Hillary article is biased without end. Omar Mateen has even an article. So it is relevant.--Broter (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude. This was a two-day story with no apparent enduring significance. As Herostratus and Muboshgu said, including this here would be analogous to including the Mark Foley thing on the article about the Trump campaign; both would be equally inappropriate. Neutralitytalk 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - This embarrassing incident received a brief burst of coverage after it happened and then quickly faded from interest. It would violate WP:NPOV to include this because it has not enjoyed sustained media coverage; it's only tangentially relevant to the campaign; and it would tend to unfairly associate the campaign and the candidate with a mass murderer.- MrX 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude I studied the Google News hits and timeline on it. The story broke on Aug 9, reporting that Clinton's campaign didn't invite him. Within a day the news reported Clinton disavowed him. The story rapidly died, with later coverage repeating that there was no connection. A second-hand connection of a relative of a murderer supporting of a random candidate may make a flash in the 24-hour news cycle, but it has no lasting significance in this article. It has already failed WP:RECENTISM. We are WP:NOTNEWS. This is WP:UNDUE. We can't and don't include every blip in the 24-news-cyle, especially when most coverage is deflating this blip as an irrelevant unwanted-endorsement. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude. This proposal is not viable, and a poor reason to create yet another RfC — a process that typically takes one month — on a trivial content matter two months before the campaign in question is finished. This is not a substantive issue in the campaign, and even on the scale of "gotcha" politics it is no more than the opposition's talking point of the day. Filling campaign articles with these fake outrages would create a weight / POV problem, and would also veer into a covering of politics that is more tabloid than encyclopedic. I note that those advocating the importance of this non-event both on and off the encyclopedia seem to be conspiratorially minded, claiming that Clinton is somehow sympathetic or in cahoots with the terrorists. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't follow the relevance of the fact that the campaign will be almost over before all the comments are in. As many of the anti-inclusion people have pointed out, we don't write Wikipedia articles for short-term interest. This article presumably exists because there is consensus that the campaign will be of interest long into the future. So what does this near-term election have to do with anything? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The relevance is that conducting an RfC on a current event of great interest that will culminate shortly after the RfC is done makes no sense, and is horrible editing process. The election article talk pages are being swamped with RfCs on trivial, POV-ish proposals like this. One of them managed to dupe you into starting this as his proxy by forum-shopping a complaint that he was being harassed on this page, after he was cautioned that his ongoing proposals were growing tendentious. Indeed, if we're writing the article for the longer term, anything that's actually worth having an RfC about can wait until after the election so as not to disrupt the business of productive article editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't follow the relevance of the fact that the campaign will be almost over before all the comments are in. As many of the anti-inclusion people have pointed out, we don't write Wikipedia articles for short-term interest. This article presumably exists because there is consensus that the campaign will be of interest long into the future. So what does this near-term election have to do with anything? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my God, exclude already, per Alsee and Wikidemon. This was already decided in the above discussion and WP:RFC tells us that "If you are able to come to a consensus… [on the talk page] then there is no need to start an RfC." As discussed above, the story already died and as Wikipedia is not a news source, we don't cover the minute-to-minute of the 24-hour news cycle. This is blatant recentism. Graham (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see anything like consensus in the discussion above, which I read thoroughly before deciding to request comments. I see a small number of people solidly on each side of the issue. The question of whether something is notable and worth recording for history is something best answered by a wide audience giving their opinions, not by a few invested people bickering. Hence the RfC. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude – WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. In a month's time, a year's time, a decade's time — I doubt, based on current discourse, this will be relevant to the campaign. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude, per MelbourneStar. This is a guilt-by-association smear that does not need repeating. -- The Anome (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why? This article is not about HRC. It's about the campaign. It's happening during the campaign. He went to a campaign rally and her campaign rivals have talked about it. So the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The story has failed to get legs, so it's irrelevant. We keep things like Michael Dukakis' tank photo, the Dean Scream and Ed Miliband's sandwich because they achieved notability; not every single thing said in a campaign achieves lasting notability in this way. If it did, both campaign articles would fill up with every accusation and counter-accusation made by anyone in either campaign. If the story had taken on a life of its own, it would of course be appropriate to include here. But it hasn't, so it isn't. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why? This article is not about HRC. It's about the campaign. It's happening during the campaign. He went to a campaign rally and her campaign rivals have talked about it. So the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This RfC is a great candidate for a WP:SNOWCLOSE, with a trouting for the editor who filed it for being taken in by a POV warrior so easily, and a topic ban for Zigzig20s for tendentiously editing, forum shopping, and wasting everyone's time again. This has got to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Scjessey: Why can't you answer the question that User:Giraffedata asked--is Mateen relevant to the campaign, for attending a campaign rally during the campaign and being mentioned by her campaign rivals? This appears to be a campaign issue--that's why there is an RFC. Please stop trying to personalize Wikipedia editors--it is not "tendentious" to ask if this article should relay information from reliable third-party sources. This article is not supposed to be advertising for HRC. Please try to be constructive by taking this RFC seriously, as it should be. Besides, I am not alone: both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter want to include it. Again, please stop personalizing this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I already answered this question in full. I was the first "exclude" response. I also answered in full in the previous consensus discussion which you lost. By repeatedly bringing up the same thing on the same page, and then shopping it to other forums, you are absolutely being tendentious. RfC's are not intended to be used as a POV-pushing tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Giraffedata explained he did not see a consensus in the closed discussion. This is a serious RFC--your attempt to personalize this is fruitless.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I already answered this question in full. I was the first "exclude" response. I also answered in full in the previous consensus discussion which you lost. By repeatedly bringing up the same thing on the same page, and then shopping it to other forums, you are absolutely being tendentious. RfC's are not intended to be used as a POV-pushing tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The forum for trying to obtain a topic ban would be WP:AN/I, I believe. Neutralitytalk 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am only trying to give the full picture of the campaign, based on reliable third-party sources. Remember, Duke is mentioned in Trump's campaign article. That is why we think Mateen should be mentioned here.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth time, what goes on in some other article has no bearing on what goes on in this one. I don't edit any Trump articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia is not about you. It's about improving content. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, but neither is Wikipedia meant to be your propaganda organ. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- We simply relay factual information from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- LOL you don't. There's no "we" about it. You are trying to shoehorn stuff into the article that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, you are trying to do this all the time because you aren't apparently capable of abiding by a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- And you apparently don't know how to let someone else have the last word and let the RfC take its course. TimothyJosephWood 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- LOL you don't. There's no "we" about it. You are trying to shoehorn stuff into the article that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, you are trying to do this all the time because you aren't apparently capable of abiding by a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- We simply relay factual information from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, but neither is Wikipedia meant to be your propaganda organ. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia is not about you. It's about improving content. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth time, what goes on in some other article has no bearing on what goes on in this one. I don't edit any Trump articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Scjessey: Why can't you answer the question that User:Giraffedata asked--is Mateen relevant to the campaign, for attending a campaign rally during the campaign and being mentioned by her campaign rivals? This appears to be a campaign issue--that's why there is an RFC. Please stop trying to personalize Wikipedia editors--it is not "tendentious" to ask if this article should relay information from reliable third-party sources. This article is not supposed to be advertising for HRC. Please try to be constructive by taking this RFC seriously, as it should be. Besides, I am not alone: both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter want to include it. Again, please stop personalizing this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude and support snow close. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you afraid of letting this RFC run its course? Let editors decide! By the way, you have not answered User:Giraffedata's question about relevance.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1. The purpose of a SNOW close is to stop wasting everyone's time. 2. Obviously, since I think it should be excluded, I do not think it is relevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am frankly hurt if you think I don't value my time or other editors'. Both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter think this should be included, and with the RFC, more editors may want to include it as well. I am not alone. We are trying to improve the article in a constructive manner here.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus is clearly against including this, and it's not worth wasting any more time in telling you why it won't be included. You have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes constructive dialogue difficult. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have a major case of listening to other people, like User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- But not the people who you disagree with. Do you need me to count them? Because there are a lot more than three people saying "exclude". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No because the RFC has just started and we'll see how many want to include it for its relevance. That's the whole point of RFCs. Please be patient and respect User:Giraffedata. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- But not the people who you disagree with. Do you need me to count them? Because there are a lot more than three people saying "exclude". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have a major case of listening to other people, like User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus is clearly against including this, and it's not worth wasting any more time in telling you why it won't be included. You have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes constructive dialogue difficult. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am frankly hurt if you think I don't value my time or other editors'. Both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter think this should be included, and with the RFC, more editors may want to include it as well. I am not alone. We are trying to improve the article in a constructive manner here.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1. The purpose of a SNOW close is to stop wasting everyone's time. 2. Obviously, since I think it should be excluded, I do not think it is relevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you afraid of letting this RFC run its course? Let editors decide! By the way, you have not answered User:Giraffedata's question about relevance.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude – WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. This is tabloid stuff and this RfC should never have been started in the first place. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude WP:NOTNEWS and it's damn sure not a tabloid. Seddique Mateen, father of Omar Mateen the Orlando Night club shooter endorses Hillary Clinton. He may or may not be homophobic. Oh pardon, the request was to focus on the details later.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include The RfC is misleading because it does not explain the relevance to the campaign. In Orlando, where the killings took place, Clinton's campaign staff chose to seat Mateen close behind her. That's why the media gave it extensive coverage which continued after Trump drew attention to it and his staff placed a congressman who was forced to resign behind him. Who Mateen endorses is of course of no relevance, but what the Clinton campaign does is, at least in this article. As for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, this article is about a recent news event. Take out the recent news and there's no article. TFD (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - I hereby endorse Gary Johnson for President of the United States. Who cares? Whilst, of course, Mateen's endorsement is much more significant than mine, the principle is the same: as Herostratus points out, the aim of encyclopedias is to preserve knowledge for future generations -- future generations are not going to be terribly interested in how his endorsement impacted the race, and nor will they care how my endorsement impacted the race. This story lasted for one brief news cycle, and has not had any lasting effect on the campaign (opinion polling has not suggested any shift in voting intention based on the endorsement). Perhaps his endorsement could be mentioned on List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 but it is not worthy to go on this page -- and it is certainly unworthy to go on this page whilst the endorsements of far more notable people (e.g Warren Buffett) are not mentioned. Specto73 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - Notnews, Recentism, Undue weight - Mateen has not been shown or reported to be relevant to Hilary's campaign. His attending the rally was about him, and had nothing to with Hilary's campaign. Her campaign rivals mentioned this incident hoping to cast Hilary in a negative light, which is what her political rivals have been doing since the 1990s. So this is not encyclopedic material. Rather, it turns out to be more fodder for the news cycle and is a trivial detail that won't matter once the president-elect has been elected in November. In fact, it is already well of the media radar anyway. I was just thinking, the media must love presidential election years - there is so much drama available. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Health
This is WP:FRINGE stuff that has largely degenerated into a pointless argument, again. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi! I came here looking for information on the health of Clinton.
Is this not relevant? The 'Health' section of this article seems laughably short given the almighty speculation and only gives the 'official line'. Now, whilst I understand Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation, the sheer volume of discussion surround her health surely merits at least a few sentences? 46.18.172.210 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Not fringe anymore, Shes had a medical event, at an event. 'Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days' [10] SaintAviator lets talk 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
For those considering whether to include or not include health information on Clinton following her health event I note Wed Sept 14 2016 News Reports on Clinton's Health: Clinton's doctor says the candidate is recovering well and fit to serve as President of the United States.
Today, Wed Sept 14, 2016 The washington Post reported WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Hillary Clinton is “recovering well” from pneumonia and remains “fit to serve as President of the United States,” her doctor said in a letter released Wednesday by her campaign. The health details made public by the Democratic presidential nominee included a description of the pneumonia diagnosis Clinton received last week Friday.
Also on the same subject today NPR reported Hillary Clinton's campaign released additional medical information on the Democratic nominee's health Wednesday, a day before she is set to resume campaigning after being diagnosed with pneumonia. A two-page letter from the 68-year-old's personal physician, Lisa Bardack, chair of Internal Medicine at CareMount Medical in Mount Kisco, N.Y., says she is "recovering well with antibiotics and rest" and that Clinton "continues to remain healthy and fit to serve as President of the United States." The rest of her "complete physical exam was normal and she is in excellent mental condition," according to Bardack. Tomandzeke (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. The problem I have with this assessment is that it says it comes from HRC's personal doctor. In the same way that we use third-party, not first-party sources, I think only an external doctor (whose bill was not paid for by HRC) would be a reliable source. I actually find it odd that the US government does not conduct their own medical assessments of presidential candidates? Or if they do, why don't they release those records?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, WaPo is the third-party source. The exam itself could only come from her doctor. And I do not believe there is any government doctor performing exams on presidential candidates. Though that could make some level of sense, there's all of the standard patient's rights stuff that would complicate an idea like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the government should look into this for the next election. I feel sorry for her--she might be healthy--but so many people genuinely don't believe it. I don't think her personal doctor is a reliable source, but if that's all we have, it might make sense to include this info by citing the Washington Post. It still does not mean that what her doctor said is necessarily true, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, WaPo is the third-party source. The exam itself could only come from her doctor. And I do not believe there is any government doctor performing exams on presidential candidates. Though that could make some level of sense, there's all of the standard patient's rights stuff that would complicate an idea like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Pneumonia treatment
Hillary Clinton's Doctor confirmed that she had pneumonia, mirroring both the prior concerns of Clinton's health by her opponents and her coughing fits days ago. It is covered by reliable sources such as New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and BBC News. I would like to add this to the article because these concerns have been ongoing for a while. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include. Reliable third-party sources and it's been confirmed. Nothing "fringe" about the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't even be having this discussion at this point. It's just not appropriate. Let's hold off for a day or two at the very minimum per WP:NOT#NEWS. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you find reliable third-party sources that suggest it is 'inappropriate' to tell the truth, that she has pneumonia, or is that an opinion? The campaign is by definition a series of news events by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that since we are not a newspaper (we are an encyclopedia), we take a larger view and do not report every development. After all, a pneumonia diagnosis puts today's events in perspective, and we would've been inappropriate by adding anything before the diagnosis came out. Now, we don't know yet if this is it and what it means, or if there's more developments around the corner. That is why we wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- But this article is about an ongoing campaign. And I happened to agree with User:The Four Deuces's point before the last topic was closed. If it's in reliable third-party sources, we have to relay the information. Reliable third-party sources highlighted the fact that she had multiple coughing attacks; we should add it. Reliable third-party sources highlighted that she has pneumonia; we should add it. By the way, have other presidential candidates had pneumonia, or is this unprecedented?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that since we are not a newspaper (we are an encyclopedia), we take a larger view and do not report every development. After all, a pneumonia diagnosis puts today's events in perspective, and we would've been inappropriate by adding anything before the diagnosis came out. Now, we don't know yet if this is it and what it means, or if there's more developments around the corner. That is why we wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you find reliable third-party sources that suggest it is 'inappropriate' to tell the truth, that she has pneumonia, or is that an opinion? The campaign is by definition a series of news events by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't even be having this discussion at this point. It's just not appropriate. Let's hold off for a day or two at the very minimum per WP:NOT#NEWS. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Well now shes had a medical event at the 9/11 memorial. Include. SaintAviator lets talk 00:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've added the information in the article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-leaves-911-ceremony-early-after-feeling-overheated-20160911-grdylq.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ [11] Hillary Clinton Leaves 9/11 Memorial Early After Feeling 'Overheated,' [12]
"Washington: Hillary Clinton's health became a genuinely dominant issue in Election 2016 with the release on Sunday of an extraordinary video – of the Democratic candidate seemingly disoriented and collapsing after an unscheduled and hasty departure from a solemn September 11 memorial service in New York." [13] SaintAviator lets talk 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-leaves-911-ceremony-early-after-feeling-overheated-20160911-grdylq.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ [14] Hillary Clinton Leaves 9/11 Memorial Early After Feeling 'Overheated,' [15]
"Washington: Hillary Clinton's health became a genuinely dominant issue in Election 2016 with the release on Sunday of an extraordinary video of the Democratic candidate seemingly disoriented and collapsing after an unscheduled and hasty departure from a solemn September 11 memorial service in New York. [16] SaintAviator lets talk 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)"
- No. Per above discussion, WP:NOT#NEWS. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop comment deletion Wikidemon, its not on. Last warning SaintAviator lets talk 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Take a hint, SaintAviator. Other editors and I can and will delete copyright violations. I've gone ahead and fixed your clumsy attempt to quote passages from news articles without proper attribution, something you failed to before per my warning on your talk page. Take a clue, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since we have a "health" subsection now, we need to mention her multiple coughing attacks. Also the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release her extended medical records.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Coughs don't attack. She has allergies, walking pneumonia, and that's pretty much it. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the fringe theories of the increasingly desperate alt right. Unless Clinton's doctor says she has serious health problems, and the mainstream press covers it in sustained fashion, this content has very little value to an article about the campaign. Campaigns are about speeches, primaries, polls, debates and policy, not tabloidesque trivia. - MrX 11:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable third-party sources have certainly covered it. Her doctor has confirmed her pneumonia. There is nothing "fringe" about the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:ONUS and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS.- MrX 11:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that applies. Do you deny that reliable third-party sources mention her health extensively?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- See [17]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- What would happen in the unlikely event that most editors should have a pro-HRC bias? That is silly. We ought to reflect the breadth of content from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps take it up here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- What would happen in the unlikely event that most editors should have a pro-HRC bias? That is silly. We ought to reflect the breadth of content from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- See [17]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that applies. Do you deny that reliable third-party sources mention her health extensively?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:ONUS and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS.- MrX 11:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't that Clinton was coughing, the issue was that Clinton was coughing extensively. Also, "coughing" is one of the symptoms of pneumonia. It would be a bit silly not to include that in the article, especially when a criticism long perceived by the media to be a "conspiracy theory" has some basis in fact. The fact that she has pneumonia contradicts earlier reports regarding her health. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
""coughing" is one of the sitcoms of pnenomia."
← You said a mouthful there.- MrX 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)- I fixed my typo. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable third-party sources have certainly covered it. Her doctor has confirmed her pneumonia. There is nothing "fringe" about the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Coughs don't attack. She has allergies, walking pneumonia, and that's pretty much it. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the fringe theories of the increasingly desperate alt right. Unless Clinton's doctor says she has serious health problems, and the mainstream press covers it in sustained fashion, this content has very little value to an article about the campaign. Campaigns are about speeches, primaries, polls, debates and policy, not tabloidesque trivia. - MrX 11:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump recently released a statement that he hopes Clinton gets well soon. Politico Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Consensus required
A reminder re a DS instruction that appears at the top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Here then are a couple of recent edits that violate that instruction: SaintAviator [18], Yoshiman6464, [19], Yoshiman6464 [20] (so, also a 1RR violation). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mine was reverting a 1RR violation, editor now on 3 day article ban. SaintAviator lets talk 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's no excuse, and not an exception to the discretionary sanctions. You were reverting in support of another editor's 3RR attempt to post disputed content. The bottom line is that the edits were challenged via reversion. The proposing editor made 2 more reverts, the disputing editor made two more reverts, and you joined in with the sixth revert. That's edit warring in anybody's book. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Im in the clear plus I dont delete comments. SaintAviator lets talk 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've lost your case already around here. Best give it up with the political advocacy and get with the program of creating an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not a Forum WP:NOTFORUM SaintAviator lets talk 22:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've lost your case already around here. Best give it up with the political advocacy and get with the program of creating an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Im in the clear plus I dont delete comments. SaintAviator lets talk 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's no excuse, and not an exception to the discretionary sanctions. You were reverting in support of another editor's 3RR attempt to post disputed content. The bottom line is that the edits were challenged via reversion. The proposing editor made 2 more reverts, the disputing editor made two more reverts, and you joined in with the sixth revert. That's edit warring in anybody's book. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC: 'Deplorables' comment
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- See George Stephanopoulos#Clinton Administration: "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)
- 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)
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.[21] SaintAviator 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 SaintAviator 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 [22].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)
- 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)
- This is the Trump comment I'm referring to.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 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."[1] 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."[2][3][4]CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign". NPR. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ "Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables,' and GOP Pounces". New York Times. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ "Conservatives, progressives battle over 'deplorables,' leaving quote itself behind". Washington Post. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
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)
- 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)
- 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 [23]) 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [[24]]. 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)
- Note Piers Morgan:"This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency [[24]]. 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)
- 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. SaintAviator 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)
- 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)
- 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. TimothyJosephWood 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)
- We don't "move" to close discussions, we let RfCs run their course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 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 ([25][26]), and Clinton's walking-back of the remark attests to the controversy's notability. It was deemed significant enough to use in an ad: [27]. It's even spawned sub-controversies, such as Pence's refusal to call David Duke "deplorable": [28][29][30]. 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. TimothyJosephWood 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)
- Include: 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)
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. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
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."[1] 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.[1]
References
- ^ a b Danner, Chris (11 September 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says Half of Trump Supporters Are 'Deplorable'". New York Magazine. Retrieved 12 September 2016.
Pinging include votes: @CFredkin: @Zigzig20s: @The Four Deuces: @Sir Joseph: @Yoshiman6464: @ProfessorTofty: @SaintAviator: @MrX: @JFG: @Kierzek: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - How is this comment from @Timothyjosephwood: 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. TimothyJosephWood 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. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 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)
- 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? @Muboshgu:j @Brianga: @E.M.Gregory: @Nomoskedasticity: @Steve Quinn: @Scjessey: @Volunteer Marek: @My very best wishes: @Snooganssnoogans: @FallingGravity: @Clpo13: @Heterodidact: - Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- Wikidemon (talk) 14:15, 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. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 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. TimothyJosephWood 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. TimothyJosephWood 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. TimothyJosephWood 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Bit Lame Agree with Zig Zag. It was a hugely Foolish thing to say. SaintAviator lets talk 22:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – I approve the RFC wording by CFredkin: 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)
Tim Kaine RFC
Some editors here may be interested in an RFC at Talk:Kaine (disambiguation) on whether "Kaine" should direct to comic book character Kaine, to the disambig page, or to the Democratic nominee for VP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"Collapsed"
@The Four Deuces:, please revert your edit. She didn't collapse, and it's not "paraphrasing" to say she did. It's a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a BLP violation, although it would be better to explicitly add a source that said this. She was dragged with her feet not moving nor supporting her own weight after being supported by leaning against a pole while someone was bracing her arms for balance. Collapsed is a perfectly valid description of this situation. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- She was helped to the car. She did not collapse. Piers Morgan's inanity notwithstanding. It's a BLP violation to say she "collapsed" when she didn't collapse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- If "helped" is a euphamism for "dragged" with 3 people supporting her weight, sure. There are multiple angles of video of this. You can see her feet. They are drug along the ground with her toes pointed down. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- She was helped to the car. She did not collapse. Piers Morgan's inanity notwithstanding. It's a BLP violation to say she "collapsed" when she didn't collapse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see how RS describe it. It could range from 'knees buckled' to 'collapsed'. 'Knees buckled' sounds more accurate based on the existing information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can look at the sources in the article. "video showed her being supported by aides as they put her into her van", "abrupt, stumbling departure", and "legs buckling". Nothing about "collapsing", which suggests actually losing consciousness. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sources seem to favor "legs buckled" and "was carried" with "stumbled" and "was helped" in second place. I see no widespread use of "collapsed" or "was dragged". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. We can say something about how her aids helped her into the car, but we can't say some of the things that have been added, like that she "collapsed" or that this is "due to her declining health". Seriously, WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sources seem to favor "legs buckled" and "was carried" with "stumbled" and "was helped" in second place. I see no widespread use of "collapsed" or "was dragged". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The NYT article says, "A video of Mrs. Clinton taken by an attendee at the ceremony captured what appeared to be her legs buckling as she struggled to steady herself and walk to her van. She required assistance from two Secret Service agents, who held her on either side, to move off a curb and into the van. Close-up images revealed that her feet were dragging as she was hoisted into the vehicle."[31]
- Muboshgu disingenously writes, "the word "collapsed" does not appear in either source." Merriam-Webster defines "to collapse": "to break apart and fall down suddenly; to fall down or become unconscious because you are sick or exhausted; or to completely relax the muscles of your body because you are very tired, upset, etc." We are allowed to paraphrase, but as a compromise, I am willing to instead insert the entire NYT quote instead. Would add too that her shoe fell off.
- TFD (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was pretty genuine; assume good faith. No source says she fell down, so you're contradicting yourself with your own definition. That's not a paraphrase; that's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. We don't need the whole quote, or the shoe. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of which details the sources choose to convey, and the choice of colorful language they use to convey those details, going into the specific physical manifestations of her illness, and motions of her body in response to the illness, are WP:UNDUE, unencyclopedic, and violate the spirit and possibly letter of BLP. All of these sources are journalistic commentary based on a single video that has emerged. She left a public appearance and cancelled some later campaign appearances due to a bout of pneumonia, that's what's relevant, if anything. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that while there are RS using "collapsed" [32], a better phrasing might be "near collapse," not merely because it is what it looks like in the video our readers will have seen, but because we have RS like Reuters here: [33] which also uses "nearly fainted".E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those don't appear to be reliable sources. The Daily Mail sure isn't, and a bunch of the rest were listed as opinion pieces. "Nearly fainted" is better than "collapsed". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no it's not. They consider it a tabloid. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- It publishes in "tabloid format," so do the traditional broadsheets, and the Manchester Guardian published in tabloid format in the 1970s. English newspapers are categorized as "broadsheets," "middle market," and "tabloid." The middle market papers are actually tabloid format too - Daily Mail, Express, and The Standard. But English tabloids are not to be confused with U.S. supermarket tabloids, which are not really newspapers, they are magazines. In intellectual quality, the Daily Mail would rate higher than the Post. TFD (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no it's not. They consider it a tabloid. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those don't appear to be reliable sources. The Daily Mail sure isn't, and a bunch of the rest were listed as opinion pieces. "Nearly fainted" is better than "collapsed". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It sure is. These are too. Hillary Clinton appears to collapse. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared to collapse as she became 'overheated' and had to leave early from a September 11 memorial ceremony in New York City. [34]. Australia / NZ biggest media..........its collapsed [35] SaintAviator lets talk 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only sources that say she "collapsed" are from halfway across the world. Local sources receive more weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No they dont. SaintAviator lets talk 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's been a lot of descriptive terms used, including collapsing - Google searches for “Hillary Clinton collapsing” spiked after 11 am ET, Clinton collapsing, nearly collapsing, Clinton collapsed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is an embarrassment to wikipedia that this is all there is reported about the early exit - On September 11, 2016, Clinton abruptly left an event at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. - globally there are thousands of reports of her collapse, feint, need to be assisted into her vehicle, that there is no mention here is a bit sad really. Users need to be aware that not reporting any issue neutrally at wikipedia does not remove or have any affect on its reality in the global reporting, all that happens is wikipedia is embarrassed and that readers accepted reliability of wikipedia content is diminished beyond your belief. If you refuse to report what the world is reporting you become a joke. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the section should mention the coughing episode, at least briefly. According to Reuters that was what led to her being diagnosed with pneumonia. FallingGravity 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "buckling and stumbling" is accurate and well supported [36].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly agree that some mention of stumble/fall/collapse is mandatory. Its very well attested, and agree that if she had merely "left" this would not be a story. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Mrs Clinton plainly collapsed - the video is the source. To describe the incident otherwise is to try and spin what happened. Media sources are secondary, as none gives a first hand account. Also the UK Guardian uses the term. Shtove (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, you're making a conclusion based on a WP:PRIMARY source. Secondary sources don't say she "collapsed". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- He's just given you one that does. Or are you saying that newspaper articles are no longer acceptable sources? In which case, we might as well delete this whole article. – Smyth\talk 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the link to be honest. I find it interesting that U.S. sources don't use the word "collapsed"; the only ones that do are from the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- (cough)Clinton News Network(/cough). Yes, the more objective sources that don't have a stake in the results of the election say collapsed. I agree :) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Collapsed" is an absurd word to use. She never hit the ground, and we don't care about what foreign sources say because this article is about an American in America ("fuck, yeah!") -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The term "collapse" has been used by various American sources, such as Boston Globe, International Journal Review, and New York Times (as "apparent collapse"). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're not "more objective", they're "more removed". And suggesting CNN has pro-Clinton bias... the network that pays Lewandowski while Trump still pays him... – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Collapsed" is an absurd word to use. She never hit the ground, and we don't care about what foreign sources say because this article is about an American in America ("fuck, yeah!") -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- (cough)Clinton News Network(/cough). Yes, the more objective sources that don't have a stake in the results of the election say collapsed. I agree :) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the link to be honest. I find it interesting that U.S. sources don't use the word "collapsed"; the only ones that do are from the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- He's just given you one that does. Or are you saying that newspaper articles are no longer acceptable sources? In which case, we might as well delete this whole article. – Smyth\talk 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice
- notifying editors here of a new article, Basket of deplorables, which I will return to expand & source when I get a chance. imho, we could probably also use an article on health issues, clarifying that she is in excellent health despite persistent rumors, detailing the cuncussion thing (healthy people recover from concussions, as Clinton did) and the pneumonia episode (healthy people recover form pneumonia, as Clinton is now doing. But we should have reliable , NPOV information on these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- You should've known better than to create that WP:POVFORK because discussion here isn't moving as quickly as you'd like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Leap to conclusions much? I have been entirely open. I have created a series of articles about incidents during this campaign season (America (advertisement); Balanced Rebellion; Act of Love (political statement and advertisement)) I created this because the incident is notable; it can and I confidently expect that it inevitably will eventually be linked ot a short statement on this page; including more here would be WP:UNDUE. In addition, as I often argue on other pages, article are far more efficiently created as notable events unfold, because there are so many editors helping out at such moments and because the sources are so easily accessed in the immediate aftermath of impactful events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm shaking my head in disapproval. Bad, bad idea, E.M.G. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Creating this article was silly, and from the looks of it, will likely be deleted as such. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- You should've known better than to create that WP:POVFORK because discussion here isn't moving as quickly as you'd like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Straw poll: health
So, I see discussion that's petered out, but no actual means of achieving consensus. There's been content added and removed from the page. Should this be included or not? Should any changes be made to it before it's to be included? (I replaced the Newsmax source with CNN, because Newsmax is garbage.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
On September 11, 2016, Clinton abruptly left an event at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. A statement from her campaign said she had been suffering from pneumonia, dehydration, and overheating.[1][2][3] After the incident, Clinton stated in a phone interview with Anderson Cooper that her doctor advised to her rest for 5 days before returning on the campaign-trail.[4]
References
- ^ Martin, Jonathan; Chozick, Amy (September 11, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event". The New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ Tribune, Chicago (September 11, 2016). "Doctor says Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, 'recovering nicely' after 9/11 event". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ "Hillary Clinton Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia - BBC News". BBC News. September 12, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/hillary-clinton-health-transparency/
- include with some mention of collapse/faint/stumble being mandatory. Also the canceling of subsequent campaign events is probably needed. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctantly, for the moment, this seems to have enough lasting public interest for a brief mention. We can consider removing it or expanding it a week, month, or year from now depending on what if anything comes of it. As an account the first two sentences are mostly fine, except that we don't need to mention dehydration or overheating to tell the reader everything they need to know. Also, as a list, "pneumonia, dehydrating, and overheating" mixes apples and oranges. Pneumonia is a primary symptom of a bacterial infection, whereas dehydrating and overheating are secondary symptoms of pneumonia. Going into the specific physical manifestations of pneumonia and the nature of her doctor's rest advice are all TMI and not particularly relevant. Every time your or I get sick we don't expect to see a Wikipedia account of every ache, pain, or sweat. Politics doesn't play fair, but that doesn't mean we have to be unfair to living individuals. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Wikidemon that, if this is to be included, we should omit mention of "dehydration and overheating" - pneumonia covers all of these symptoms. It's like saying someone suffers from "a common cold, runny nose, and sore throat" - common cold covers all of this. Neutralitytalk 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- At 55, Jimmy Carter collapsed after running 6 miles[37] and it was seen as a defining moment of his presidency. And it actually was heat exhaustion and dehydration, caused by running rather than an underlying condition. TFD (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that was a defining moment or a low point. For that you have to go to the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Can you imagine the fireworks around here if that happened today? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include as being major current news story. Of course we can always increase, decrease or remove mention, depending on changing perception in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include Far too major an event (not the minor deal pneumonia, the cover-up, and the coverage of the cover-up) to ignore.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- This "cover-up" exists only in your (and certain online outlets) imagination. You're sort of making a good case for exclusion. Unintentionally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Coverup"? She should've said something sooner but this is not a "coverup". And how you know the severity of her pneumonia, I don't know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here are some articles that report that her health problems might have been a cover-up, such as The Atlantic and The Washington Times. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Coverup"? She should've said something sooner but this is not a "coverup". And how you know the severity of her pneumonia, I don't know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include For the record, I think this should be included, though without the word "collapsed" as I've made clear in above talk sections. We can say she was helped. More than that gets sketchy at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include with reference to the facts that she required assistance to enter the vehicle when she departed the event and that her campaign initially stated that she was "overheated" before disclosing that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia previously ([38],[39],[40],[41]).CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WHOFRANKLYCARES. Again, we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or a tabloid. Will this matter in a ten years? In one year? In one week? People seem to have gotten over this already. Please stop trying to use the article as a means of political WP:ADVOCACY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking by the book, this is classic WP:RECENTISM case. Yes, this incident may be significant and should be included later if this is a serious, long-lasting illness. However, we do not know this right now, and it looks like nothing really serious at the moment. Hence exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include - it is noteworthy and has independent RS coverage; it is not a rumor, surmise, trivia for this article. As TFD states, "...we can always increase, decrease or remove mention, depending on changing perception in mainstream sources". Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include as obviously notable and widely-covered issue. — JFG talk 21:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include - This does not violate WP:NOTNEWS since concerns of Hillary Clinton's health have been part of her campaign for a while. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Here are some recent news stories regarding Clinton's Health Wall Street Journal (9/13/16), Politico (9/13/16), CBS News (9/13/16). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note 2: The Guardian has reported that many voters doubt that Clinton has pneumonia. CBS has also reported on these doubts. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note 3 Here is a Fortune article about voter reactions towards Clinton's health, [42]. Also, in an article published by Washington Times, Colin Powell was concerned about Hillary's health in a series of leaked emails back in 2015; around the same year where Clinton published her Health records. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include but stronger. This poll is an attempt to water down her medical event. Shameful day for Wikipedia that a few editors are so pro Clinton they forget what an encyclopedia is. The Anti world media RS views are deplorably swamp dwelling isolationist provincial. Amazing. SaintAviator lets talk 21:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe give a reason why you think this should be included and not excluded per the various legitimate reasons to not include various news items, rather than accuse bias and whatever "deplorably swamp dwelling isolationist provincial" is supposed to mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its a no brainer, should not be even straw polled. Its so notable, has secondary source RS, like I said, no brainer, she collapsed whether you like it or not SaintAviator lets talk 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe give a reason why you think this should be included and not excluded per the various legitimate reasons to not include various news items, rather than accuse bias and whatever "deplorably swamp dwelling isolationist provincial" is supposed to mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include Unlike previous attempts as casting aspersions on her health, this one is widely supported by mainstream sources. TimothyJosephWood 22:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include The fact that the overall inclusion of this incident has been contested when there's so much media attention surrounding it is a testament to the laughable amount of bias over this election. It's a great barometer though. Zaostao (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Omit pending further information. Could happen to a healthy person. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include with some mention of, had to be assisted into the vehicle - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude per RECENTISM, UNDUE, 10YT. I don't see how this is noteworthy in the long term, where people will care in a year or ten years. Nor do I see how this affects the course of her campaign.
- The only way to see if this has any effects on the the campaign is to wait, I am guessing at least six months - "...editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." [43].---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has already had multiple documented effects on the campaign. She cancelled multiple campaign events due to her health. She is releasing additional health information. Her numbers in the polls (perhaps coincidentally) took a dive. Poll questions specifically about her health also swung significantly ResultingConstant (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another effect: Its also bought up her untrustworthiness again [44] SaintAviator lets talk 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Bill Clinton accidently stated that Hillary Clinton has the flu, as covered by Politico and The Hill. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its a big deal now. [45] SaintAviator lets talk 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate all this being pointed out, including the sources. However, to begin with, it looks as though she didn't actually cancel campaign events, it is more like her husband is filling in while she takes a week off to recover [46]. . I'm not seeing any sources that say her numbers in the polls took a dive. And I don't know what does her "releasing health information" mean? That seems rather general and inconsequential. Are there any sources about this - to see if this is consequential?
- Its a big deal now. [45] SaintAviator lets talk 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has already had multiple documented effects on the campaign. She cancelled multiple campaign events due to her health. She is releasing additional health information. Her numbers in the polls (perhaps coincidentally) took a dive. Poll questions specifically about her health also swung significantly ResultingConstant (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- What do "poll questions specifically about her health" mean? And how does this affect the campaign? Untrustworhiness is covered by an opinion piece - and it this is usually a sentiment generated by those who oppose her candidacy. There are obviously a lot of people who do trust her. In any case, her trustworthiness, is just fodder for the news cycle. This as a "secrecy" issue is a matter of opinion, and let the voters decide in November. Also, Saint Aviator your article (or source) also pointed out its significance in comparison to the following:'
The turn of events might "force her to release more detailed medical records than the short (though longer than Trump) report she has already released — an ironic outcome". And if that is the only result, then I am not sure releasing those medical records will have an impact. Unless there is something debilitating that shows up. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Here’s what that does not mean: It doesn’t mean that the bogus speculation that Clinton was having seizures, based on goofy interpretations of videos, are or were valid. Nor does it mean that there’s any equivalence between Clinton’s excessive secrecy about her health and, say, Trump flirting with white-supremacist backers, praising Vladimir Putin, lying repeatedly, or joking about Clinton being assassinated, to pick a few recent examples at random. Nor does it excuse Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, or the fact that the only thing voters know about the Republican nominee’s health is the farcical letter his doctor released last year.
- What do "poll questions specifically about her health" mean? And how does this affect the campaign? Untrustworhiness is covered by an opinion piece - and it this is usually a sentiment generated by those who oppose her candidacy. There are obviously a lot of people who do trust her. In any case, her trustworthiness, is just fodder for the news cycle. This as a "secrecy" issue is a matter of opinion, and let the voters decide in November. Also, Saint Aviator your article (or source) also pointed out its significance in comparison to the following:'
Cough
Scjessey removed the cough content as "garbage". I assert that it is notable, as is amply demonstrated by the sources. The cough attacks is why she knew she had pneumonia And we should WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE
- NYT : The episode thrust questions about Mrs. Clinton’s health and the transparency of her campaign squarely into the last two months of the race, which many polls show has grown tighter. For months Republicans have, with scarce evidence, questioned the stamina of Mrs. Clinton, 68, and claimed she is ill, often pointing to her repeated coughing bouts.
- CNN : Clinton had a cough last week, and chalked it up to allergies -- joking at an event that she was allergic to Trump. She said Monday night she'd thought at the time it was allergies, because she experienced a similar cough in the spring and fall due to seasonal allergies.
- CNN [47] Hillary Clinton coughs and a nation listens. Apparently, it takes a village to explain a cough. Hillary Clinton's coughing spells along the campaign trail have drawn attention from supporters and opponents alike.
- Trib : Hillary Clinton had a cough - a nasty, recurring cough that she could not kick after a week of trying.
- Wapo : Whether Clinton likes it or not, her "overheating" episode comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of her health had been bubbling over the past week — triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally.
- Atlantic [48]: Headline It's Not the Cough, It's the Cover-Up. (body) This weekend’s revelation that Hillary Clinton has pneumonia helps explain quite a bit. It explains her persistent cough, and it explains why she had to leave a September 11 commemoration on Sunday.
- Atlantic [49] When Hillary Clinton Coughs.A coughing spell is fueling right-wing attempts to portray the candidate as weak and frail. Her history suggests otherwise.At a rally in Cleveland on Monday, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton coughed several times. She reached under the podium and grabbed a glass of water, excusing the cough as a consequence of having talked so much. When the cough didn’t immediately go away, she laughed it off as an allergy to thinking about Donald Trump. The episode lasted around 20 seconds.
- ABC [50] Clinton had a coughing fit while campaigning in Cleveland, and she made a joke about how it was a reaction to Donald Trump."Every time I think of Trump, I get allergic," she said between coughs.Clinton and her aides attributed the cough to seasonal allergies. She told reporters she "upped my antihistamine" and was doing "better." ...It wasn't announced at the time, but Clinton was evaluated by her doctor "during [a] follow-up evaluation of her prolonged cough" and was diagnosed with pneumonia, Clinton's doctor said in a statement on late Sunday afternoon....5:16 p.m. Clinton's longtime doctor, Lisa Bardack, released a statement saying Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday after an examination for her "prolonged cough," which last week the campaign attributed to allergies.
- NBC [51]
- NBC [52] The pneumonia diagnosis was made two days ago, according to her doctor, following a widely reported "coughing fit" days earlier, which her team had blamed on "allergies."
- NBC [53] (Entire article dedicated to cough attack)
- NPR [54] This comes less than a week after Clinton had a coughing fit at a rally in Cleveland. She said she was suffering from seasonal allergies
- WAPO [55]
- LAT [56] Clinton’s personal physician examined her at her home and announced that she was recovering but had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days prior during an evaluation for a prolonged cough.
ResultingConstant (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude individual symptoms. It's trivia and redundant (and thus undue). Saying "pneumonia" is enough because the average reader will know that pneumonia includes the standard symptoms such as coughing, fever, etc.—and if they don't, they can always read our article on pneumonia. If a reader wants to know all of the details relating to Clinton, then he or she can easily go to the references to learn more. We are an encyclopedia, not CNN.
- I'll also note that just because something is reported doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. For example, I could list an impressive array of sources that cover, in substantial detail, the fact that John Kasich ate a slice of pizza with a knife and fork on the campaign trail. (Newsweek, Politico, CNN, Daily News, Daily News Again, ABC News, The Hill, Fox News). Yet this pizza affair, quite properly, does not appear in John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016, nor should it. The same is true in this case. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eating a slice of pizza does not equal a series of coughing fits. Unlike the prior incident, Clinton's coughing fits were connected to a major, controversial event (eg. reports of pneumonia). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- A common illness is not a "major, controversial event." Please. Neutralitytalk 03:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is not just about Clinton's pneumonia, the issue is also about trust towards the Clinton campaign and the media. For a while, even suggesting that Clinton is not perfectly well was labeled as a "conspiracy theory", as seen in these news articles prior to this event. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Even if everything that you just wrote was accepted as true (I don't accept your ipse dixit at all), it's entirely irrelevant to what's encyclopedic or not. Despite what a vocal minority of users may wish, we are not going to simply shove anything and everything into the article. Neutralitytalk 04:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I find Neutrality's logic very convincing. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is not just about Clinton's pneumonia, the issue is also about trust towards the Clinton campaign and the media. For a while, even suggesting that Clinton is not perfectly well was labeled as a "conspiracy theory", as seen in these news articles prior to this event. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- A common illness is not a "major, controversial event." Please. Neutralitytalk 03:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eating a slice of pizza does not equal a series of coughing fits. Unlike the prior incident, Clinton's coughing fits were connected to a major, controversial event (eg. reports of pneumonia). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include. She has been having coughing fits for months. At this point, it has become an undeniably major campaign issue as per weight of RS. It seems overdue to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include Stick to huge number of RS wording. Plus revert all Scjesseys 'garbage' edit SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include Clinton's coughing fits are connected to her illness, and the sources above strengthen that argument. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: New York Times had published an article regarding the views of "Pneumonia Experts" in regards to Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial service. Her coughing was connected towards the end of the article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is garbage. We don't discuss people's bodily functions around here, or conspiracy theories and political attacks about them. That's ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and a POV / BLP issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude this silly, hackneyed, off-topic trivia per WP:NOTSCANDAL. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.- MrX 00:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except it's not ours. See the reliable third-party sources above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:ONUS, WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:REPETITION, and WP:TE.- MrX 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except it's not ours. See the reliable third-party sources above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude, obviously. Are we going to do this again? There's no need to discuss individual symptoms. COUGHING is a symptom of PNEUMONIA. We don't need to give specifics, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FORFUCK'SSAKE (okay, I made that last one up). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude I agree with Scjessey. Although it may not have been necessary to say "garbage", this appears to have no relevance, and does not significantly contribute to including the content already under discussion above - per WP:GOSSIP, WP:TRIVIA. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Include While it could be that the media has wrongly emphasized her health, weight requires that we "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - this is ridiculous. It's like we're stuck in some not-particularly-good episode of South Park.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have any press coverage about her sneezing yet? I think this is important and would be a significant addition to this article - and her bio on Wikipedia as well. Does any one have any coverage of responses, which her sneezes have engendered, such as "Bless you!" or "gesundheit!" or "need a Kleenex?" Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAPBOX SaintAviator lets talk 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sarcasm is usually not the best way to make the point, but I do agree that if she had a sneezing attack, or a series of burps, or excessive gas, that the health-related conspiracy theories around that would work their way from the alt right press to mainstream coverage, and from there to proponents here on Wikipedia, even if it they turned out to be no more than indigestion or a food allergy. That she exhibited a cough shortly before her pneumonia diagnosis, and that there is speculation about a connection between the two, is no different. There is a lot of speculation here, and a lot of talk of a bodily function, but next to zero substance. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2016