Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

"over-linking"

I want to clarify something. Every time I link to Chicago in her template, somebody (in this case, User:EvergreenFir) reverts it. Please, look at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and yes, Donald Trump. New York City is linked in the template of Mr Trump also -- despite being linked in the opening section. Archway (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Archwayh: WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean it's right. Major geographical locations should not be linked. Chicago, LA, NYC, Paris, London, Toranto, Tokyo, Dubai, Beijing... those are major enough cities that the majority of readers do not need links to their articles. Please see WP:OVERLINK. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to edit war on that point either. Linguist111 undid your edits back in July too: [1], [2]. Pincrete also warned you about overlinking at User_talk:Archwayh#Overlinking as did Linguist111 at User_talk:Archwayh#Hillary_Clinton_-_.22Don.27t_corrupt_the_entry.22. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

OVERLINK has long needed clarification as to what a "major geographical location" is. But, per Wikipedia tradition, we must leave the issue to perpetual back-and-forth editing and debate, based on nothing but editor personal opinion and preference. In the absence of any clearer guidance, I would suggest one objective rule-of-thumb: If Wikipedia considers a city major enough to omit the state or country from its title, it's probably major enough to omit the link. And EvergreenFir is correct as to WP:OTHERSTUFF. (Actually it's the widely-accepted essay WP:OTHER, outside the context of article deletion discussion. Same concept.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: "If Wikipedia considers a city major enough to omit the state or country from its title, it's probably major enough to omit the link"... that's a great rule of thumb. I'll use that in the future. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here. We're not talking about similarities. This is something you say should not be allowed in this entry, while ignoring that other prominent entries -- regarding linking [in the template] to major geographical locations like NYC -- do have it. Should we not link the city of Chicago? I don't agree. But right now, this "rule-of-thumb" doesn't apply elsewhere; say, Donald Trump or Nancy Reagan (both NYC). Archway (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I assure you that extremely few readers will notice this inconsistency, and extremely few of those will care about it. I try to stay focused on our reason for being here, Wikipedia's readers, and I suggest you do the same. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we need to be consistent in this area, and that is by design. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

When I delink the names of major locations per the MoS, I delink those with populations of 1 million or more. The birth place isn't of relevance to the context of the article, and Chicago has a population of nearly 3 million and is the 3rd most populated city in the U.S., so I think it counts as a major location and shouldn't be linked. Linguist 111 ^{Who, me?} Who? Me 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You help illustrate my initial point. Thousands of interested editors, probably dozens of pet criteria. The vague "guideline" leaves us no choice but to hammer out a local consensus at each article, or live with the ongoing back-and-forth editing (slow-burn edit warring). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleged reports of Hillary Clinton's Health and #HillaryHealh

This is in response of the Drudge Report using a photo of Hillary Clinton going up the stairs.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/08/media/drudge-report-hillary-clinton-fall/

Also, in response to the #HillaryHealth Tweets:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/08/armed-with-junk-science-and-old-photos-critics-question-hillaryshealth/

Where should I place these articles?

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Where should I place these articles? I can think of multiple possible answers, none of which are suitable for an article talk page. Unless there is substantially more RS coverage, that looks to me like just more election-year tripe, something to feed the gossip-hungry readership. Should be forgotten in a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake.... Drudge (who has no credibility) found a picture of Hillary from February slipping on icy stairs, and are trying to use that to claim she's unfit for office. Given what happened last week, Karl Rove would approve. We should roll our eyes and move on. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a more POV approach that happens to yield the same answer (omit). I think we should stay focused on WP:WEIGHT and avoid personal judgments about political motives. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't view it as a POV approach, so much as rejecting a POV approach. But yes the result is the same. Then again I don't think any number of sources running with this story would produce any weight for inclusion. The WaPo article shows clearly how these sites claiming Hillary is somehow in poor health manipulated a video of her making a purposeful exaggerated head gesture into looking as though it was a seizure. A seizure where she managed to laugh and hold onto her coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion here: omit. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding her health, there are also many references about her concerning coughing fits.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but they generally point out how asinine (and Drudge-reinforced) it is to make a thing about. Key quote from that WaPo article: "But mainstream media outlets haven't made a big deal of Clinton's coughing because, as Dr. Philip Weintraub explained last fall to an inquiring patient — The Fix's Philip Bump — it probably doesn't indicate anything more than a dry throat brought on by prolonged talking." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This looks pretty serious.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a good thing we don't go by mere appearances, which are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton’s mysterious cough is back.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Salon was unabashedly pro-Bernie during the primaries (which were still going on in April). Now that I've actually clicked the link, I see they call it a "cheap shot". This is sourcing you think makes this merit a mention? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No mentioning until reliable sources cover it and find validity in it (no, RS debunking crappy sources is not enough). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post mentions claim about injector, but does NOT say the claim is false

The Washington Post article that is cited above mentions a claim about the injector pen, but does NOT actually say that the claim is false.

If the claim does in fact turn out to be true, then the Washington Post calling the claim "junk science" is going to look pretty bad.

Also, if the claim about the injector pen turns out to be true, then wikipedia needs to have a serious discussion about what does and does not constitute a reliable source.

See these sources:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/oh-hillary-handler-carries-diazepam-pen-seizures/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/is_hillary_constantly_accompanied_by_a_medic_with_an_antiseizure_injection_at_the_ready.html

71.182.250.186 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Unreliable sources speculating about a vaguely shiny object are not a basis for making additions to the biography of any person. I would bet that at some point in your life you have been walking in a hallway near someone holding a vaguely shiny object. bd2412 T 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I can tell you that The Gateway Pundit and "American Thinker" are not and will never be treated as reliable sources. Those two articles you posted show why: they are engaging in the worst form of Drudge-based conspiracy theory-based leaps of WP:OR that push their narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

How would we know if the claim turned out to be true? TFD (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that such a question needs to be asked underscores the unreliable nature of the claim. bd2412 T 23:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to lede

I'd like to discuss some recent edits to the lede here:

• This edit removed the phrase "...and accepted responsibility for security lapses in the 2012 Benghazi attack" with the edit summary: "unsourced and suggestive in the context of the following sentence". The phrase is sourced in the body of the article, which is sufficient and appropriate in the lede, and I disagree that it is somehow suggestive in the context of the following sentence.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This feels very minor and non-notable (which statesman wouldn't "accept responsibility" for when servicemen die in the line of duty?) for a lede, and tries to suggest that she was at fault. During Bush's presidency, 13 embassies were attacked and 60 killed, yet we wouldn't add that to the lede (or probably anywhere in the article). Just because GOP manufactures a scandal with nothing to show after years of investigations doesn't mean it's notorious enough for the lede, especially not some suggestion that she was at fault. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit I believe the first sentence added (At a UN conference on women, Clinton stated, "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights".) is just puffery.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Women's Rights Are Human Rights" is an infamous speech, making global headlines at the time. The NYT described it as "iconic" last year and several sources describe the speech as influential for the women's rights movement over at the "Political positions of Hillary Clinton" article. The speech is one reason why she is considered a particularly proactive First Lady. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be more useful, then, if it was presented in terms of its apparent significance (i.e., if it could be said that "Clinton was widely lauded for saying that 'human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights'".). bd2412 T 19:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that wording but given the number of veto players on this page, I doubt they'd let it fly. Maybe wording it as "Clinton held an influential speech, saying "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights'"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What is a "veto player"? I mean, aside from "an editor who disagrees with me". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I was referring to numerous users on the Trump page (I confused this talk page for that talk page). I'm just saying that based on my previous interactions with CFredkin and several other users across numerous pages that they tend to shoot down content for inconsistent and arbitrary reasons, and that it's unlikely that any material that reflects decently on Clinton and poorly on Trump will be allowed without a challenge. Taking this likely vetoing into account, I proposed a more modest phrasing. Being a veto player refers in this context to arbitrary and inconsistent removal of content that leans in one direction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ffs, we have a freakin' article on the saying: Women's Rights Are Human Rights. It's not "puffery". It's not a "BLP issue". That's ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, until Marek weighed in here, I wouldn't have called this discussion "firm consensus" for inclusion, that's why I removed it.CFredkin (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• The edit in the previous bullet also added: "She took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders." I don't believe that's as notable as her votes on the Bush tax cuts and the Patriot Act, which are also noted in the body of the article. I'd suggest that they should be added in lieu of, or in addition to the edit.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As Senator of NY and widely described as leading on that issue, I think it's strange to not consider it notable. Especially since 9/11 is already mentioned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So would you support adding her votes on the Bush tax cuts and the Patriot Act? They appear to be 2 of the more substantive positions mentioned in the Senate section.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind adding those. IIRC it was dropped in an earlier discussion. My position on the Bush tax cuts mention is to also briefly state her rationale for why (they were "fiscally irresponsible"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think her support for TARP is another significant issue in the body of the article that should be added to the lede.CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine to note that she supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth considering that her votes for the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, TARP (and even the Iraq War!) et al were just "lock step voting" of the kind you see from virtually all Democrats. The 9/11 responders thing, however, is something she personally championed and is noted for it. Perhaps that is why it has been given particular prominence? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand the logic (you don't want to clutter the lede with mundane votes). Whether you want to include a long extensive list of voting (even for mundane things) or limit the lede to signature issues, I'm fine with either of those. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The congressional votes by Democrats were 145-62 ([[Patriot Act}, 139-112 (Bush tax cuts extension), 242-10 (TARP) 82-126 (Iraq Resolution). (Senate Democrats had higher pro-Bush administration voting rates.) That is not exactly virtually all, particularly the Iraq war vote. It's not a good defense either. TFD (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Defense" to what? To voting to keep taxes low during a recession, and to prevent the collapse of the economy? bd2412 T 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey had said that her votes "were just "lock step voting" of the kind you see from virtually all Democrats." That is a defense. ("Well everyone else did the same thing.") Of course all these votes could have been the right ones, which would be another defense. But that of course takes us back to what we were discussing, whether or not to mention these positions. On all the major issues, Clinton voted with the Bush administration, rather than with progressive Democrats. TFD (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think most of this is too much detail for the lede, but if some of the votes are added, I agree with the editor above who stated "My position on the Bush tax cuts mention is to also briefly state her rationale for why". Just lists of votes with no explanation is neither informative nor good writing style. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've added supporting explanation where it exists in the body of the article. ThanksCFredkin (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the way the lede was before your edits is far better and more NPOV. Adding to the body does not address either of the problems with the lede cited above. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Gouncbeatduke; if a vote is cast with an explanation, the reporting is incomplete without the explanation. However, as the sentence is currently written, it seems like these votes are some kind of package deal (as if there is some connection between the Patriot Act and TARP). bd2412 T 17:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Two proposals

TPP Info in Lead

Hillary Clinton does NOT appose the TPP (she can't stray too far away from Obama's failed economic policies). Don't be so damned foolish and naive. She claims she helped "negotiate it" and called it the gold standard of trade for many years. Just because she walked away from that a few months ago because of Bernie and the "socialist" wing of the party doesn't change a thing. At least be honest and outline she has supported the TPP up until last month. Tim Kaine, her lovely Disney character of a running mate, love the TPP as well. Let's keep it real and not biased. Trump has opposed the TPP since he announced his bid for the presidency.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 08:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Try, if you can, to keep your own biases out of the article (as is pretty apparant in this section). The paragraph refers to Clinton's campaign policy platform — not her Sec of State policies. Might I add, @Petergriffin9901: it's quite petty that you are unable to discuss your edits (as opposed to edit warring on a 1RR sanctioned article). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It's hard to give credence to comments about "Obama's failed economic policies" when unemployment is down, the stock market is up, etc. More to the point, TPP is not a significant enough issue to merit a mention in the lead for Hillary Clinton. It's one campaign issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sale of US Uranium to Russia

• [8]
• [9]

Let's not be biased here folks. The media does the job well enough.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Treason has a particular definition in the US constitution. Clinton has neither waged war against the US, not is there any evidence that she adhered to the enemies of the United States. Even ignoring the fact that neither Russia nor Rosatom are "enemies" in the sense of the constitution, your own sources say "So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don't have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise" BI and "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown" NYT. Moreover, and perhaps surprising, Clinton did not sell Uranium One, for the simple reason that she did not own it. Please check WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I use words like treason to be a ballbuster. Fact of the matter is there is a ton of credible evidence on the subject, and you don't want to include *any of it* - Here are other sources for you. Something neutral and truthful to the source can be easily drafted to implicate the very obvious and egregious nature of this deal *as SecState*.

• The New Yorker
• Breitbart
• NPR
• [http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/oregon-shootout-rooted-in-clinton-uranium-trade/ WND]
• New York Post (this one is a real beauty)

If we are going to be fair and impartial, this needs to be in the article. I understand you don't want to use dangerous, alleging language that isn't quoted, but there is definitely sufficient evidence of some form of corruption. (start with the nearly 3 million they even hid from the Obama administration).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 10:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter — you are alleging treason and corruption (whereby, through your heading of this section and your latest comment, respectively) of a BLP subject, who just so happens to have not been charged or convicted of either serious criminal offence. I would suggest you redact those comments, otherwise, some may see fit to discuss such careless conduct over here. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The book "Clinton Cash" has been widely discredited, the New York Post is not neutral when it comes to Hillary, and WND is a conspiracy website. And Breitbart? Maybe this whole section should be removed, as talk pages have to conform to BLP policies as well, and these allegations are out of bounds. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could anyone explain to me why selling uranium to Russia is a "thing"? What, is someone worried Russia might build a nuke? Isn't this kinda like selling snow to Canada? Alsee (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Political Positions section POV

The Political Positions section as currently written is quite POV. I made a number of edits] to try to address this. They were reverted en masse with the edit summary "The old version of this was much better than the new one for many reasons, please bring changes to the talk page". So I'm doing that and also tagging the section.CFredkin (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell us a bit about what the changes are (for those of us who don't maybe have the time to parse the edit summaries) and why they're needed? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. Please no badges of shame on high traffic articles every time an editor's proposals don't gain immediate consensus. That's what the talk page is for. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And someone else wants the POV tag I guess.[10] T\Maybe I'm just not following politics closely enough, but I don't see how agreeing to these changes or not is POV one way or another, or why we can't work it out here rather than tell tens of thousands of non-editor readers per day (down from hundreds, a few days ago) that there's an unresolved dispute about editing the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

1)

Clinton accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, supports cap-and-trade, and opposes the Keystone XL pipeline.

2)

Clinton supports the Affordable Care Act and would add a "public option" which would compete against private insurers and enable people "50 or 55 and up" to buy into Medicare.

3)

Remove as unsourced and debatable: Clinton has focused her 2016 candidacy on several themes, including raising middle class incomes, expanding women's rights, instituting campaign finance reform, and improving the Affordable Care Act.

4)

Clinton holds that allowing undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship "[i]s at its heart a family issue," and has expressed support for Obama's Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, which would allow up to five million undocumented immigrants to gain deferral of deportation and authorization to legally work in the United States.

5)

In addition to being written in POV fashion, this is inaccurate based on the source (same-sex marriage is not yet "enshrined" in the Constitution): On LGBT rights, she supports the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.

CFredkin (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

#3 sounds like it could be deleted. #5 is worded clunky, someone should rephrase her position on LGBT issues. The section should correspond to the 'Political Positions of HRC', as a general rule I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This all sounds reasonable to me. I'd have to dig a little more in the sources as to whether I totally agree with each change and each wording, but they do seem like reasonable improvements if they follow the sources. I don't see the POV issue either way. #1 and #2 are proposed additions? That would go together with #3, which would then be superfluous (in addition to poorly sourced as you note). #4 sounds neutrally worded, and I agree on #5 on two counts: "enshrined" is not something that happens in the constitution as it does not have shrines, and whether or not it same sex marriage is a constitutional issue is an unrelated side issue to whether or not she supports it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm not seeing any objections here, at this point I've restored the edits and removed the tag.CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

David Brock

Why is David Brock, a man widely considered a political hatchetman, used as a source for this article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've done some research, and it looks like a relic of Wikipedia's early days. There was discussion in 2005 regarding a "Further reading" section that used to be in the article , with some sentiment that the list should include books that were both pro- and anti-Clinton for "balance". Brock's 1996 book, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, was one of those books (see Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 2#Reading List). That list was later spun off into a separate article, List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. User:Pethr first added the book as a citation on 5 February, 2007.[11] and, over time, other editors including User:Wasted Time R cited the book for other biographical details. Back in You might want to ask WTR why they did it, perhaps they just owned a copy of the book and found it a convenient source. After writing The Real Anita Hill, parts of which he later retracted and admitted fabricating, Brock was paid an advance to write a take-down of Clinton. He claims that after investigating her for the book he could find no credibility to any of the scandals and accusations about her, so he produced a rather tepid biography. Around that time, he switched sides, from being a Republican booster to a Democrat booster.The rules were just being developed back then, and content standards were a lot looser than now. There was a feeling that neutrality meant balance, including both positive and negative sources, instead of favoring neutral or mainstream ones. The book itself is an odd choice, but somehow it has remained in all these years, even surviving a "Featured Article" review. Perhaps it's just because the statements the book supports are uncontroversial, and the reference does not include a hyperlink to the content for people to check, so nobody has bothered questioning it. I certainly wouldn't mind removing the Brock citations wherever we can find (or already have) a stronger source. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Brock's book was published by Free Press which was a division of Simon & Schuster, and therefore meets rs. The books was reviewed in the New York Times[12] and was not faulted for inaccuracy. So I would leave it as a source unless someone wants to find better ones. TFD (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that being published by a large media organization is not a sufficient criterion for establishing reliability of a source. The Free Press was a conservative advocacy imprint at the time, and also published his Anita Hill nonsense. This particular book may well be reliable for the biographical details it gives, but given Brock's reputation and history, it would give the article more credibility to have sources by less controversial authors. Whether there is an RS concern or not, maybe it's just editor discretion of wanting it to be a solid article. Not a burning issue for me, just that I wouldn't mind seeing stronger sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, he heads a Clinton Super PAC. He's not exactly an unbiased outsider. He's too closely connected to Hillary. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Correct the Record was founded in 2013, six years after first being used as a source on this article. Unless you're talking about American Bridge 21st Century, in which case three years. clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ties between State Deparment and Clinton Foundation

So far, the following links have been widely reported between the State Department, when Hillary was Secretary of State, and the Clinton Foundation.

Prior to assuming the role of Secretary of State, Clinton signed an agreement with the administration which precluded the Clinton Foundation from accepting new donations from foreign governments during her tenure in order to mitigate the potential for inappropriate influence of the State Department. In February 2015, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had accepted $500,000 from Algeria in 2010, in apparent violation of her agreement with the administration. The foundation indicated that the donation was to contribute to relief efforts in Haiti. The Post noted that the donation "coincided with a spike" in lobbying efforts by Algeria of the State Department regarding their human rights record.

From 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition was analyzed by a committee of nine government agencies (in addition to independent federal and state nuclear regulators), including the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton. The voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president. In April 2015, the New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced. According to Factcheck.org, there is "no evidence" that that the donations influenced Clinton's official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal.

And now we have this....

Despite denials that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation had any significant ties to each other while Hillary Clinton served as the nation's chief diplomat, a new batch of emails sheds new light on the seemingly close relationship between the two entities.

The latest email release, obtained by the group Judicial Watch from a State Department Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, included several exchanges between a top foundation worker and State officials working under Clinton.

In one back-and-forth from April 2009, Doug Band, who worked for the Clinton Foundation (including its Clinton Global Initiative) as well as serving as a personal aide to Bill Clinton, appeared to push then-State Department aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mill for "a favor" on behalf of a foundation associate.

Band said in his email that it was "important to take care of [redacted]," and Abedin responded "We have all had him on our radar" and that "Personnel has been sending him options."

Band, in another email to Abedin and Mills in April of that year, asked for the State Department's "substance person" in Lebanon to contact Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire philanthropist who was one of the Clinton Foundation's top donors.

"As you know, he's key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon," Band wrote. He added it was "Very imp."[13]

In the past, the response here has been that there was no evidence that Clinton was directly involved with any of these transactions. First, that hasn't prevented quite a bit of content regarding issues related to the Trump Organization being included in Trump's bio, even when there was no evidence that he was personally involved. Second, with the latest information that surfaced in her emails, it's starting to seem POV that none of this is mentioned in her bio.

I'm not suggesting that all the above content needs to be included, but I think a consolidated version should be.CFredkin (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My concern is WEIGHT. In the decades of political life, and thus the scope of her BLP, how important is this to the readers' understanding? It's it just a case of recentism, or simmering larger? Compared to the Bengazi and email stuff, this currently seems to be quite minor in coverage. Not necessarily saying we should exclude, but I worry this is going to be given too much weight due to recentism. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

These revelations have been going on for well over a year, so I don't see recentism as an issue.CFredkin (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a more specific proposal shortly for discussion.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I too think that weight and recency as issues. In time of course that could change. In the meantime, it is more relevant to the campaign article. TFD (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree this would violate WP:WEIGHT. Also, wouldn't the Clinton Foundation article not be more appropriate? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Hillary Clinton related. Finally, if editors must include references on the talk page, which I would discourage in the strongest terms, please add a talkref template (as I have done above). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My specific proposal is that the following be added to the Email Controversy section of the article. In order to address the concerns about WEIGHT expressed above, I've only referenced the most recent revelation, since it indicates the most direct link to Clinton. (However if RECENTISM is a concern, then I think we could add the previous incidents in order to address that.)

Emails released by Judicial Watch in August 2016 from Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State included dialog between an official at the Clinton Foundation and top aides of Clinton. In one exchange, the Clinton Foundation official lobbied for a job for someone else at the State Department saying it was "important to take care of (redacted)." Clinton's aide responded "Personnel has been sending him options".

[14][15][16][17][18][19]CFredkin (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I don't think any of this is worth including at this time based on these sources, because it is tangential to Clinton herself, recentism with respect to these emails, and as yet of little weight or biographical significance. Further, we have to be careful about POV, sourcing, and distinguishing between coverage of the horse race of politics versus coverage of other subjects, because this accusation is one of many scandals that the opposition has been trying to whip up for some time. We can be open if something further comes of it, if it directly involves Clinton, or if it becomes a major election issue, though in the latter case it's probably better treated in an election-related article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree squared. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination photo

I notice there's no photo for the section on convention nomination...

I suggest the white suit image from the DNC website ... anyone have a better one ? Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now it's gone and I'm not finding one -- the DNC changed the site content, and what I'm finding is either video or a copyrighted photos from AP/Reuters. Anyone know of a source ? Markbassett (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

POV

The article is written like a D-Party convention supplement. There is no objectivity. --Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Editor restores misleading content on Keystone

In a first round of edits, the editor suggested that Clinton supported the Keystone Pipeline and cited a PolitFact article that found no evidence of a flip-flop. I reverted those edits. The editor has now returned and reinserted the suggestion that Clinton flip-flopped, opting not to cite the PolitiFact article showing that she did not. The editor now instead cites a short CNN article that plucks out a few quotes without any context (PolitiFact goes through the and actually provides the context for them, and finds that they are not evidence of Keystone support). Please revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the absence of PolitiFact makes the edit any less reliably sourced.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The CNN source that he cites just plucks out a quote without any context. The PolitiFact explains the context and finds that there was no flip-flop. So you have (i) one source that gives just a quote on Keystone without any context, and (ii) you have another source that extensively goes through Clinton's history of Keystone statements, context and all (including the quote in question) with the specific intention to examine whether she flipped or not. Which source do you use?Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we add the PolitiFact verdict?CFredkin (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Her whole position on Keystone should just read "in September 2015, Clinton announced her opposition to the Keystone pipeline." The rest is just trivial contextfree minutiae that tries to imply that she flip-flopped when the PolitiFact is clear in that she did not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Since it is contentious whether Clinton ever said she supported the pipeline, we should not imply she changed her position. TFD (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't her statements speak for themselves? If commentary about or framing her statements is not supported by reliable sources, then it should be removed or reworded.CFredkin (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As the PolitiFact piece makes clear, the statement doesn't speak for itself. Context, which the paragraph on Keystone in the article lacks, is needed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Snooganssnoogans. You are reading Clinton's comments in the light of what you think about her. She has always supported the pipeline and will allow it to be built after the election, but said she opposed it to win the primaries. But if you take her words at face value, she never expressed an opinion until she came out against it. Whether or not we should read them that way is a matter of judgment which we would need reliable sources in order to report. TFD (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You are a mind reader with a WP:CRYSTALBALL, then? bd2412 T 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

One does not need to be a mind reader in order to make understand the position of other editors. BTW could you please not link to policies that had absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you have an argument then make it. TFD (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Guessing what someone will do in the future, in contravention to their stated position, is the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. bd2412 T 02:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. WP:CRYSTAL is about inserting original research predicting the future into articles, not about talk page discussions. In any case, I was not speculating about the future, merely outlining the view that I assume the editor to whom I replied holds, that Clinton will allow the TPPpipeline to be built. We are by the away allowed to provide opinions from outside sources that speak of future events. For example we are allowed to mention the November election in this article even though it has not happened yet because reliable sources say that it will occur. TFD (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Allow the TPP to be built? bd2412 T 03:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the pipeline. TFD (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016

Time to change the 2009 image in to the campaign image!!!!!!!

99.6.38.229 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Which image would you like to replace it? Topher385 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

New photo in the infobox

Have you considered putting up a more recent photo of her in the infobox? The current one is from 2009, that's 7 years away.Ernio48 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ernio48: Please refer to "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" near the top of this page, question 3. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category

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.

---

Why not categorize her as a conspiracy theorist? She explicitly states there is a Vast right-wing conspiracy. And she repeated the statement this year. This repeated assertion, by Clinton and others, is a defining characteristic of her. – S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) 21:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Was she being sarcastic the whole time? In fairness to her, I think she was. But what do reliable third-party sources suggest? It may be possible to retrieve them on Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Srich, if you tell me there's a zoo does that make you an animial? You are mixing 2 meanings of conspiracy and she doesn't have a theory. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if she was serious about the conspiracy theory, it does not make her a "conspiracy theorist". Category:Conspiracy theorists says not to include anyone unless they engage in one of the theories listed on Category:Conspiracy theories, and VRWC isn't there. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, we have a definition for conspiracy theorist here and she doesn't seem to fit. That is beside the point anyway unless we have some RS that even identifies her with conspiracy theories at all.--Adam in MO Talk 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's thoughts about the vast right wing conspiracy comport with the 4 Young characteristics listed at Conspiracy theory#Conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory. So until her thoughts are proven correct, she is simply theorizing – which puts her into the definition. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Srich, that's not the English meaning of "theorizing". SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If we were defining the term that broadly, every person in Category:United States Attorneys would need to be called a conspiracy theorist, as every one of them brings conspiracy charges against criminal defendants from time to time. bd2412 T 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:, but the VRWC is listed in Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States. @BD2412:, please, there is some nuisance in these categorizations; criminal investigators and prosecutors are looking for "real" conspiracies. (They don't bring their allegations to court unless they have enough proof/evidence to present to a jury.) The VRWC promoted by Clinton was imaginary – she was pushing back with pure allegation (lacking any proof) during the Lewinsky affair. – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, it is in a subcategory of that main category. That being said, I don't believe that category is appropriate for Hillary. When's the last time she referenced the VRWC? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Feb. 3, 2016. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This source also quotes the subject explaining that it's not a "conspiracy" because it's "out in the open", referring to efforts by various wealthy people to support politicians whose policies favor wealthy people. This seems to cut against a proponent of this view being a conspiracy theorist. bd2412 T 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Then to paraphrase her, in the 90s she said "There is a VRWC (but I don't have proof)." And now she says "There is a VRWC (I have proof, but I won't talk about the proof I have because everybody knows I speak truly)." Either way she simply complains about the "conspiracy". Also, compare, she receives support from many wealty persons and wealthy celebrities. Are these people part of the "Vast left-wing conspiracy"? – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing does not line up with the contents of the cited article. Can you find a reliable source that contains such content? bd2412 T 21:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is not just a theory that there is a conspiracy. It is, roughly, is a tinfoil hat fringe belief that the official public version of something is a lie perpetrated by people with bad motivations, in circumstance where that would be wildly improbable or implausible. A conspiracy theorist is not just everybody who believes in a conspiracy theory, but somebody who invents, advances, follows, or promotes one or more conspiracy theories in a big way. By that definition, the notion that American right wing political operatives were coordinating to undermine Bill Clinton is not a conspiracy theory, nor is everybody who believes that there are right wing or left wing conspiracies a conspiracy theorist. If we expanded the definition much beyond that it would be meaningless, and therefore of undue weight and a possible BLP violation to attach to Clinton. That Clinton does not belong in the set of conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia seems pretty obvious. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Conspiracy theory WP:RS does not have any confinement to fringe beliefs. Your logic says "Unless the particular 'conspiracy' is obviously fringe it should not be classified as a 'conspiracy theory'. But it is permissible to allege conspiracy (without evidence or proof) in all other cases." Per our lede in Conspiracy theory Clinton has offered an "explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that ... persons, or an organization, have conspired to cause ... through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as ... harmful." – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, if it's not fringe it is not a conspiracy theory. The lede to that article is wrong, and is not binding on us here or anywhere else. For what it's worth this is a featured article, that one is C-class. Incidentally, RS is not a standard for defining words or categories. But, again, if any allegation of a conspiracy were enough to make somebody a conspiracy theorist, then it would be an inappropriate category to add here and probably anywhere else even if true. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are adding a non-sourced qualification to the CT parameters. (Do you mean to say "if someone says there is any sort of conspiracy out there, they are a conspiracy theorist only if it is about something wacky. But if someone (Hillary) says 'there is a VWRC' against me and my husband" it does not fall within the wacky parameter.) Well, we have RS from a CBS News affiliated TV station that describes Clinton as a "conspiracy theorist". See: Chance, Seales (August 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's affinity for conspiracy theories". WIAT.com. Birmingham, AL: LIN Television Corp. (Media General). ... Clinton holds an affinity for conspiracy theories little known to the American public. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since when is CBS network affiliation a standard of journalism? Srich if your claims were true, you'd be able to cite at least 200 such references. Otherwise you have a fringe theory about a conspiracy theory which sounds a tad too theory. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I mention the affiliation simply to show this is RS. Is it okay for Clinton to tout a conspiracy theory (see: Grant, Philippe R. (2003). Knight, Peter (ed.). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 177. ISBN 978-1576078129. Concerned by the many conspiracy theories involving her husband, [she] claimed ... there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to undermine their credibility.) and not be categorized as a conspiracy theorist herself? – S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's own long-time confidant Sidney Blumenthal used the term "conspiracy theory" in his book The Clinton Wars citing writers from Newsweek. (See my latest edit.) Come on. Since she has expounded a conspiracy theory (per RS), she should be categorized as a conspiracy theorist. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Blumthal's book again. He does not call it a conspiracy theory but says that Isikoff and Thomas called it that. It does not meet rs because there are no expert sources to say it is a conspiracy theory and it is not consistent with the standard definition. Just to be clear, an allegation of a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory. Saying for example that the 9/11 attacks were part of a conspiracy by al Qaeda is not a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Content

I reverted this edit[20] attempting to claim that Clinton was supporting a conspiracy theory by claiming that her husband was the subject of a right-wing conspiracy, both: (1) on BLP grounds as that imply to a typical reader that Clinton was engaging in fringe behavior, and (2) as a discretionary matter, because calling political accusations conspiracy theories is a poor way to describe them and a misuse of the term. The editor has since restored the disputed content.[21] I urge them to self-revert the disputed edit or for somebody else to remove this on BLP/BRD grounds pending any consensus to include. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere, status as a CBS affiliate station in a local market does not on its face make the broadcast news an RS for the assertion cited to it. RS relates to the content it supports, not the entity alone. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis by Wikidemon and SPECIFICO and have removed this (awkwardly written, needlessly contentious) material. Neutrality^talk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC

WRT the discussion above, should the article include the term "Conspiracy theory"? If the answer is yes, should the article be categorized in "Category:Conspiracy theorists"? – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not This appears to me an attempt to discredit the subject of the article entirely based on her comments about the right wing attacks on her she's endured for 25 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Snow close please. RfCs are supposed to be for significant content issues on which there is bona fide disagreement that could benefit from meaningful input from the wider community. They shouldn't be the first resort of a single editor who fails to gain any traction on an odd issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This editor seems to be alone out on a limb on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Possibly. What do reliable third-party sources say?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • See:

• Blumenthal, Sidney (2003). The Clinton Wars. MacMillian. p. 375. ISBN 9780374125028. Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas...compared Hillary's charge to McCarthyism. '...Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo....' [quoting "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek, February 29, 1998.]

• Grant, Philippe R. (2003). Knight, Peter (ed.). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 177. ISBN 978-1576078129. Concerned by the many conspiracy theories involving her husband, [she] claimed ... there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to undermine their credibility.

• Chance, Seales (August 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's affinity for conspiracy theories". WIAT.com. Birmingham, AL: LIN Television Corp. (Media General). ... Clinton holds an affinity for conspiracy theories little known to the American public.

– S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The question asked for Reliable sources, not what the cat dragged in. We've already rejected those above. For an extraordinary claim, you must provide unimpeachable sources, and them ain't those. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Click the links and read about the sources. Moreover, nobody rejected Clinton's confidant (Blumenthal) or Newsweek as RS! – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT - Blumethal is rejected several inches above. Your "nobody" is TFD. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. I saw the RfC notice, and that is what brought me here. No, absolutely not. I cannot imagine a more POV violation of the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No "WRT the discussion above" it's clear that this has no support and in my opinion the ongoing passive-aggressive insertion of anti-Clinton smears on several WP pages should be put to a swift halt before it appears to be standard operating procedure here. Why is this permitted to continue? You'd almost think it's a conspiracy. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• NOPE per everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No – These discussions are starting to not only become tedious, but rather petty. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. Absolutely ridiculous. Neutrality^talk 04:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to the first question and No opinion to the second. Asking more than one question in an RFC is always perilous because it essentially requires two vote tallies; if people only !vote once, it's often impossible to figure out whether they were only !voting on the question they read last, or !voting on both questions at once. Anyway, Wikipedia has an article titled Vast right-wing conspiracy, which documents that the subject has continued to use this description long after the 1990s. That Wikipedia article is categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories. All of that being so, it seems kind of weird to ban the term "conspiracy theory" from this BLP. So I !vote against banning that term from this BLP. I offer no opinion about the other question, regarding whether a corresponding category should be added at the bottom of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes In her own words she believes in a conspiracy theory that she calls a "vast right wing conspiracy". Add the category. TweedVest (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• No There are no reliable sources and it does not meet the criteria of a conspiracy theory. Note that Bill Clinton had actual right-wing political opponents who collected evidence of criminality against him and actually impeached him in the House of Representatives, although he was acquitted. TFD (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, prominent commentators referred to Clinton's discussion of a vast right-wing conspiracy as a"conspiracy theory".[22] I think it would be kind of silly for an RFC (like this one) to decide that this BLP shall not say, for example, that Evan Thomas called her accusation a "conspiracy theory". That's a very very different issue from the question about categories, which is why I answered the two questions differently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me the publication and date where these commentators said that? TFD (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, "Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo...." Isikoff, Michael and Thomas, Evan. "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek (February 29, 1998).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by OP – Merriam Webster says a conspiracy theorist is "a person who holds a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups <Conspiracy theorists believe the government is hiding evidence of UFOs.>" and a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups". (Neither of these definitions contain any hint that the terms are derogatory.) So, wasn't Hillary Clinton explaining on TV that the right wing were conspiring against her and her husband? Without quibbling over whether she was propounding a "theory", she was presenting her allegation without any proof. I encourage editors to look at the definitions, and at the RS (Blumenthal and Newsweek) and accept the fact that she was presenting a conspiracy theory to explain the attacks. Also, we should keep in mind our cornerstone policy of WP:NOTCENSORED even when the WP:NOTEWORTHY material is offensive to our personal beliefs and politics. At least, !voters, providing some analysis to back up the opinions would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's almost always pejorative. Neutral and reliable sources rarely say, for example, that prosecutors are "conspiracy theorists" just because they are prosecuting a criminal conspiracy. At the same time, it's undeniable that there are very notable commentators who have called Clinton a conspiracy theorist, and they meant it in a pejorative way. I don't think this BLP should excise all such characterizations, but the BLP should also not side with them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to refer to an expert source on the subject. We do not for example use the term "Holocaust conspiracy theory" to refer to Nazi crimes, we use it to describe their denial. A priori of course there is no distinction between the two positions, but a posteriori one is the offical version and the other is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• No that seems to be WP:POV pushing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• NO As mentioned above, that would be POV pushing. Iazyges (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• No - This proposal is such a blatant POV push, I'd suggest we consider a temporary topic ban for the nom. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics. This clearly would not be something that falls into that definition anymore than a category for women with a child named Chelsea. Ravensfire (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Snow close please - hard to see this as a good faithed proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't even see what a snow close would mean. Would it mean that no "conspiracy theorist" category can be added (which is fine), or would it also mean that this article cannot include quotes like this: "Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo...." Isikoff, Michael and Thomas, Evan. "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek (February 29, 1998)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Those would be inappropriate for the article too, although the close could be made without prejudice to suggesting that editors consider appropriate, reliably sourced content as they normally are. One problem here is that the proposing editor called a hasty RfC in an apparent editing huff immediately upon their content getting rejected. It's really not a good RfC, and wasting everybody's time here on a trivial suggestion. These sorts of content proposals should go through normal consensus process. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this precipitous and vacuous RfC feels like it was done in a WP:POINTy snit. I'm increasingly concerned that all the American Politics articles are going off the rails. I hope Admins will follow the lead of Arbcom and take a zero-tolerance stance on everything in the WP:TE bag of tricks. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no reason to think this particular one is tendentiousness or POV given the editor's history here, just bad form. However, people have gone trigger happy on the RfCs in the presidential election related articles I've seen, including editors who are repeatedly making POV content proposals. One solution might be to require any RfC on certain articles to be certified by an uninvolved admin, and would proceed only if viable and if other content options had been tried first. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, I did not mean to characterize OP, who has not previously been active in the election-related articles, however the RfC is at best disproportionately formal for so trivial a topic, and at worst does appear POINTy. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• RS provided by OP – Okay, let's consider what a true expert in the field wrote: Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009). "Chapter 6: Trust No One: Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories from the 1970s to the 1990s". Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0195183535. OCLC 221960372. Hillary Clinton invoked a 'vast right-wing' conspiracy to explain the looming impeachment of her husband in 1998.. At the beginning of this chapter she mentions that Bill Clinton wanted Webster Hubbell to conduct Justice Department investigations regarding the JFK killing and on UFOs. (Olmsted is a Professor of History at UC Davis.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Significantly in her chapter about conspiracies and conspiracy theories, Olmsted does not call Clinton's claim a "conspiracy theory." Rather, she quotes another expert saying that conspiracy had become "the default assumption in an age which has learned to distrust everything and everyone." Much of the chapter explains how the revelation of actual conspiracies had heightened people's acceptance of conspiracy as an explanation which in turn made them more accepting of conspiracy theories. Whatever Webb Hubbell (of all people) said Bill Clinton asked him about the JFK murder and UFOs is irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I am concerned that "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, associated with tinfoil hat style conspiracies. Despite certain comments that the English words "conspiracy" and "theory" do not in themselves carry that meaning does not change the fact that the idiom "conspiracy theory" is typically associated with things that are not actually true, and often are rather ridiculous. In the case of Hillary Clinton, there actually have been various conspiracies, in the weakened sense that S. Rich wants us to think is relevant. Gasp! Shock! The political opponents of a politician are conspiring to defeat her in the upcoming election. Stop the presses! I think the suggestion that we call this a "conspiracy theory" is manifestly POV-pushing.
  This having been said, I do think that "vast right-wing conspiracy" belongs in the article, since it's probably one of her more famous catch-phrases, and I think the current article does a reasonable job of presenting that neutrally. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Do not include in a BLP. The term does have a negative connotation and inclusion would be POV. Meatsgains (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment and RS provided by OP – My hope in posting this RFC was to see if and how we could use the dictionary definition of conspiracy theory as the criteria for the category. However, as "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are in many minds such negative terms, their use overlaps into POV. University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster has an interesting observation: "Consider as well ... Clinton's charges that ... Starr's investigation ... was part of a [VRWC]. ...The conspiracy theorists demonizing the president, in other words, were themselves part of a vast conspiracy.... [27 Jan. 1998 quote omitted.] ... Mrs. Clinton's argument demonstrates the equally tenuous [property] right in the status of a conspiracy theorist. ... See: Fenster, Mark (1999). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 103–04. ISBN 0-8166-3242-1. I wonder – if claiming "there is a conspiracy against us" is fair in this era of political diatribe, then isn't equally "fair" to counter the "against us" remark as a CT? Or, wouldn't we be better off to strictly limit the term (and category) "Conspiracy theorist" to those who spawn and develop the theories rather than include all of those (such as Donald Trump) who merely repeat the theories? – S. Rich (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but @Srich32977: Prof Fenster is discussing an arcane point of tort theory, which is not the standard WP editors use to determine content or categories in the encyclopedia.

• No Reliable sources do not exist that call Clinton a "conspiracy theorist" or that suggest that a conspiracy theory was a byproduct of Clinton's speeches. --Proud User (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Just because she once used the term "conspiracy" doesn't necessarily make her a conspiracy theorist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Dr. Drew

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.

---

We now have three reliable sources document that Dr Drew Pinsky has serious concerns about Clinton's brain health Yahoo! News, Fox News, and the Washington Times: [23] [24] [25].

Dr Drew is a board certified doctor. Also Hillary publicly released her medical records, so expert commentary on them is not a BLP violation. Should we have a sentence mentioning this in the article? We have three mainstream RS. TweedVest (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned multiple times by multiple editors about BLP and reliable sources. This section will likely be deleted, but for now not by me. Please cut it out at once, and if you intend to edit politics-related articles find something constructive to do. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You brought this up yesterday, didn't you? I seem to recall that several people pointed out that it is unethical for a physician to comment on the health status of someone they haven't actually examined. But that discussion seems to have disappeared. Anyhow, this is still not suitable for the article. The Washington Times is not a reliable source by any means. Fox News is also not reliable when it comes to this subject (Fox's Sean Hannity, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, spent a whole week promoting "debunked conspiracy theories" about Hillary's health [26]). The "Yahoo" link is actually from The Wrap, an "entertainment news" site - again, not a reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume my response to you yesterday was archived. Nothing about it has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu, maybe you could repeat what you said rather than making people go hunting for it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't like giving more attention to #HealthTruthers than is necessary, how about I meet you halfway? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100% of course. Tvoz/talk 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources: Huffington Post, OregonLive, a different article on Yahoo! News, and KDVR. (Redacted) Shouldn't we, based on these articles, have a section on her current health issues? TweedVest (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

According to that KDVR article, 59% of Americans want HRC's full medical records to be released. Mention in article? TweedVest (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Did you actually read the sources you proposed here? Huffpost says "Dr. Drew’s comments about Hillary Clinton are all kinds of wrong." The Oregonian article quotes the debunking from Snopes. The Yahoo! article says "Astonishingly, the “records” Dr. Pinsky chose to comment on have been making the rounds for months and have been proved to be fake." And KDVR is Fox, which we have already indicated is not a reliable source on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And another source, Politico: [27]. I never said that Dr. Drew's opinion should be given in Wikipedia's voice, just asked if his opinion should be mentioned in the article. By the way, someone named "NeilN" just said that your warning on my talk page was by you as an admin. If you're an uninvolved admin with this article, why are you giving opinions on article content proposals? Is that in line with WP's admin behavioral guidelines? TweedVest (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As I responded to your question on your talk page, I am an involved admin at this article. I do not take admin actions here, except to issue warnings when they are called for. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're an involved editor, that means you have opinions on article content, which means you're not an objective agent when it comes to who should and who should not be given warnings on article content ideas. If you tried to pull this kind of thing in a university debate class, what grade do you think the professor would give you, assuming he wasn't in the same political party as you? TweedVest (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't university debate class, this is Wikipedia where anyone can give appropriate warnings to other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, NeilN, and Melanie. Bd2412 below just clearly violated WP:BLP. So, if I look at his talk page, I'm going to see Melanie giving him a formal warning and Neil giving him a preventative block? Otherwise, the takeaway here is that WP's admins are either: (1) corrupt (2) incompetent, (3) biased, or (4) inconsistent. Which is it? TweedVest (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer is... see tendentious editing which fails the expected standards of behaviour on this page. You're quickly approaching the point where a block will be necessary to minimize disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruption? Wasn't the WP article talk page developed precisely for the purpose of discussing controversial opinions prior to putting in "main space." I haven't personally insulted anyone here. The ACLU has noted that claims of "disruption" are often defenses of censorship. Do you disagree with the ACLU? I'm surprised to see fascism in WP. TweedVest (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to say this simply. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Attempt to introduce unsourced or poorly contentious information on a BLP anywhere on Wikipedia and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess fortunately for me the liberal Huffington Post covered Dr. Drew's comments or I would have been blocked by the "uninvolved" NeiLN. Again, Clinton publicly released her medial records. A non-partisan person, Dr. Drew, reviewed them and gave his expert opinion. His opinion is contrary to an "uninvolved" admins' (NeilN and Melanie) opinion, so they threaten block of newbies who bring it up here. Is WO really an neutral 'pedia? TweedVest (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cute. I warned you and am warning you because of the text you wrote which I redacted up above. And for a "newbie", you're awfully adept at using Wikipedia lingo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Drew Pinsky's publicity agency. bd2412 T 04:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that Drew Pinsky has ulterior motives for his publicly commenting on Clinton's health and treatment, then aren't you, bd2412, violating WP:BLP if you don't have a reliable source to back up your claim? TweedVest (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Hillary Clinton was not the first woman ever nominated by a major party for the presidency.

Although the article sais: 'No woman had ever been nominated by a major party for the presidency.' It is not true. The first women ever nominated was Margaret Chase Smith (GOP) in 1964, and four years later the Democratic Party nominated Shirley Chrisholm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XuanSextilis (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those candidates were the "nominee". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. They were candidates, but they were not "nominated by the party". --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy

Missing from the email controversy section is any mention of whether or not her private server used encryption as I presume that a government server would have. And, whether or not she used S/MIME encryption to send State Dept. business emails.

I noticed that the section mentions concerns about her sending (business) emails while in foreign countries. The question of encryption is quite relevant here since I, as a person with some qualifications in the field, don't think that it would make much difference what server was ultimately receiving the email, but rather what would matter would be if it was 1024 bit RSA encrypted.

All news stories appear to leave out this important information. I do not know where you would look for this information. However, I feel that it should be included if it is possible to obtain it.

Tyrerj (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Main article: Hillary Clinton email controversy, linked at the top of the section, is the full coverage for the email controversy. The image presented on this page should be limited to the most basic details, while the spinoff page can cover it more fully. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

I would just like to add more images of Hillary Clinton to her article. DC27BATMAN (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your request was too vague. If you identify specific images then they could be considered. Alsee (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)