Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Request for comments

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.

---

In an effort to end the Wikidrama about this issue: should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Sanders is regularly citing these speeches and the 6 figure fees paid. Saw that on PBS Weekend Edition last night. There are a large number of links to this issue being used by political opponents and being in the consciousness of voters who distrust Clinton. The problem is of long standing Here is what I consider a rather sophisticated analysis from June 2014 in Mother Jones. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• no. Yes to issue, no to exact wording and location. Although the wording is inapt, and the issue is typical campaign fodder, it seems to be part of a longstanding primary campaign narrative of Sanders and some Clinton detractors about her cozying up to Wall Street. If it amounts to anything more lasting we can consider how to expand it, with due context and appropriate weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) (!vote updated upon further consideration, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))
• No - "a campaign issue"? Everything is a campaign issue. Poorly worded. - Cwobeel (talk)
• Yes, but expand to few sentences and reword as necessary to include context. This has obviously received quite a bit of coverage in highly reputable sources. No way is it trivial (unlike coughing and barking). "That Hillary Clinton accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches in 2013 probably did more damage to her battle for the Democratic nomination than any other single issue." says it all. Also [1][2][3][4][5]. WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we include material that, although unpleasant for the subject, is widely covered in sources.- MrX 17:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• yes support both immediate inclusion of the text proposed, as well as expansion into a reasonable subsection. One can argue if this issue is "fair", or should be a campaign issue, but it is irrefutable that it is an issue, and its removal from the article, and the removal of the RFC are gross violations of multiple policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The extant article is about a campaign for President, and the Wall Street funding of this particular politician has become one of the major issues about the candidate's allegiance to voters, or allegiance to Wall Street "persons." The current front-runner in the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders (by popular vote polling nationally) has been hammering the candidate on the issue, it's absolutely as aspect of the extant candidate's campaign. Damotclese (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes If it has extensive media coverage, it should be included here. Its validity otherwise as a campaign issue is not germane. Edwardx (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Not in current form - It would need to be expanded for context and neutrality, and it would need to be moved to another section because it has nothing whatsoever to do with fundraising. This should be scrapped and reintroduced as part of a reworking of the article that takes into account the "back and forth" between the Democratic candidates, including woefully undercovered events like debates and town halls. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Rewrite There has to be a better way to write it than quoting some source calling it "a campaign issue". But it should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes-No-Maybe-I-don't-know-Can-you-repeat-the-question: The paid speeches should be mentioned somehow, but this RfC is confusing and I don't know why this asks only about Goldman Sachs. Maybe rather than continue this poll, we can work on how to address the whole issue. Jonathunder (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Yes. And we should also mention why critics think she was wrong and her defense, which would address Scjessey's neutrality concerns. Should also add that she is refusing to release transcripts of the speeches. TFD (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - " And the RFC isn't viable. It is improperly worded and not neutral. It gives a false second choice and more than implies the material should be inserted no matter what. This RFC does not conform to the standards of neutrality and is invalid. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The article is about a campaign for President; I don't live in the US (the other side of the pond) and I am aware that the Clintons were broke and had debts from the previous tilt at the Presidency. That the candidate is being paid for talks is relevant. Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Although there's probably a better way to word it than "campaign issue".JamesRoberts (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes though I think it should be expanded upon to give more of the context mentioned above of Sanders and others, and may be appropriate to add a section for 'Ties to Walt Street' down among the Benghazi and email server and superpredator sections. Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Obviously so. Her Wall Street payments are overwhelmingly part of the Hillary campaign's difficulties, so absolutely they are relevant to the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes But Drop the amount of money. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes but needs to be reworded. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Her history and funding from Wall Street is most certainly worth noting. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Apparently, it is important to remind people !voting here that the suggested language and location of this inclusion is horribly flawed, insofar as it lacks neutrality and context, and it is proposed to be in completely the wrong section (fundraising). !voters should also make some effort to see from associated discussions that we have moved beyond this flawed approach, so any !votes here are essentially a waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently it is important to remind you that your opinion that something is horribly flawed does not make it so, and the purpose of an RFC is to establish consensus on that very point. That people are disagreeing with you is more likely a sign that you are wrong, than all of them are wrong. Clearly there is support for inclusion in some fashion. The exact wording and placement are always up for collaboration, but since this RFC was in response to the content being summarily excised from the article, establishing that there is a firm consensus that the material be included is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are muddying the waters again. I agreed to the inclusion of the material, but disagreed with the way it was being included. It is not an opinion that Clinton's speeches to Wall Street were nothing to do with fundraising, but a fact. It is not opinion that the statement as written is gloriously out of context and misleadingly specific to Goldman Sachs, but a fact. I suggested a way forward, which many editors embraced and endorsed for inclusion. I then proposed we create a section that would be more appropriate to talk about Clinton's paid speeches, but it was completely ignored while this epic wrongness continued. I have made every effort to accommodate this very content in a more appropriate way that would satisfy everyone. Working collaboratively forward is better than an arbitrary vote on something that isn't going to happen because it is spectacularly wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: I agree with you and I think this new "Comment" should be moved to the "discussion" sub-section below, as it may look like a deterrent for editors who want to participate in the RFC if it stays here. (We already have an issue with User:Elmmapleoakpine, who was confused and responded to the RFC in the discussion below.) Needless to say, I started the RFC to hear from external editors, not those who redacted the info from the article and tried to archive the relevant discussions about this topic from the talkpage. The RFC is also meant to end the Wikidrama about this topic--my advice is to ignore those who try to start Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Following a bunch of poor edits, accusations of bad faith, and behavior that came close to a block or topic ban with a declaration that you want to avoid drama is pretty rich. You don't get to set ground rules about what you do and do not want to hear about. This illl-formed RFC was improper from the start, and a distraction from meaningful work on the article. Because of its poor setup it's not generating any meaningful result. A brief talk page discussion, minus all that nonsense, would have been a lot more productive. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been very popular among external editors so far. The RFC begins with "In an effort to end the Wikidrama", so please respect my wishes. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm free to comment however I please, including in this RfC. It is important that editors are informed about how totally stupid this RfC is. If you truly wish to avoid wikidrama (which I think we all know is nonsense), try not commenting at all. Almost everything you say generates controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: I am sorry; I was only trying to respond to you since I agree with you about the significance of this RFC and input from external editors. Hopefully you were able to read this, and external editors will still want to respond to the ongoing RFC despite the distractions above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC seems to have ground to a halt, but I still think despite the fact the original text was (to borrow a word from Clinton) inartfully added, there is at least a consensus her speaking engagements have become a talking point in the campaign. How about adding something to the first paragraph of the "Post-2008 election" section? After a slight rewrite of the previous sentence (in italics), we could add something like this (in bold):

"As soon as Clinton ended her 2008 campaign there was talk of her running again in 2012 or 2016. After she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013, speculation picked up sharply, particularly when she listed her occupation on social media as "TBD". In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations. Her paid speeches to Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs in particular, would later draw criticism from campaign opponent Bernie Sanders.

References

This sort of thing would seem like the right direction to go, I feel, although I'm not wedded to the text. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying its "sanders criticism" is downplaying it too much. Yes, he brought it up in some of the debates, that doesn't mean it should be attributed to just him. Its widespread criticism at this point. The NYT wrote a full editorial on it. Every major source discusses it in its own right, not as criticism from her opponent. If its going to be put in a sanders context, it would need to be something more like comparisons between her and sanders being drawn, and that these speeches are seen as some as an indication she might be too cozy with wall street, especially in the context of sanders wanting to topple them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not wedded to the text. I only suggested it to get discussion chugging along again. Sanders is where the criticism began, and that is key; however, I agree it has grown beyond that and I would welcome further discussion on how to incorporate that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Another thing I would think about is that the section "Post-2008 election" fits well for introducing this matter of the paid speeches, because it matches the timeline; however, the later politicization of those speeches occurs much later on (once the campaign is humming along). The text I proposed could, in its current form, act as a sort of pointer for a later section that focuses more on that politicization. Then we would be able to properly explore things like Sanders bringing it up in the debates, and how the media picked it up and ran with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I will publicise the RFC to attract more views, as that is allowed. I asked for an RFC partly to hear from other editors... Your re-writing of history is wrong because it did not attract controversy just from Sanders, but also from the national press. It has also attracted a lot of controversy because she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts; she's been doing this to herself. Anyway, I don't want any more Wikidrama, so please let us wait it out and see if we can get more neutral editors to vote on this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think publicizing the RfC is appropriate. The idea is to bring in new people who peruse the RfCs, not WP:CANVASS. And accusing me of "re-writing history" is another disgraceful bit of bad faith, guaranteed to attract just the sort of Wikidrama you claim you are trying to avoid, and yet another example of the sort of disruptive influence you have been on this group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the Wikidrama right now. The RFC starts with, "In an effort to end the Wikidrama". Take a hint. Yes, publicising is allowed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing_an_RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about publicizing (as long as you don't canvass) and I have struck that out; however, claiming I'm rewriting history and then saying you don't want wikidrama is passive aggressive crap that nobody is going to fall for. In stark contrast to Gaijin42's reply, you had nothing useful to say about my proposal and just came at me with negativity and accusations. That is not the way to conduct yourself on this project and it is why editors are saying you are disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in wasting my time on Wikidrama with you. I started the RFC to avoid that. Please take a hint.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't lay this all at Bernie's feet. The criticism was more widespread. We should also mention Elizabeth Warren's artful dodging when pressed on the issue.- MrX 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to Gaijin42, I agree; however, it was definitely Sanders who first brought this into the public eye as a way to contrast his campaign with that of Clinton's. I'm not sure about the Warren thing because I didn't hear about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I did hear it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable proposal, and way to say it. Because this is an article about the campaign, criticism from opponents is more relevant. If it goes significantly beyond Sanders then we can just say "and others" or maybe even mention one or two. That brings up the inevitable {{who?}} problem, but that's a universal manual of style issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I should go ahead and put my proposed text into the article? Obviously this would be with the understanding that the wording can (and probably will) change as discussion continues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you can add it. The information is useful, even if imperfect.- MrX 14:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. As I said before, my feeling is that this sets up an additional section later in the article that goes into the specifics about how Sanders raised the issue in the debate and challenged Clinton to release transcripts, then the media piled on, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't say she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, you are not telling the whole truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

But that is not relevant to this particular addition, which is specific to the period between the end of her tenure as Secretary of State and the moment she announced her campaign. I've proposed an additional section, to be included later in the timeline, which covers these campaign-specific issues. You need only read my last few comments on this matter to see that. By the way, comments to editors like "you are not telling the whole truth" are needlessly antagonistic. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who removed it from the "Fundraising" section and subsequently added your new text to the "Post-2008 election" section. We could create a "Goldman Sachs speeches" section perhaps. But frankly I think we should let the RFC run its course first. I posted the RFC partly to avoid having to deal with your Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed it from the "fundraising" section because it wasn't fundraising. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That is highly debatable. Did any of the attendees donate to her campaign and affiliated Super PACs? The Center for Responsive Politics (which runs opensecret.org) gives some clues but the rest in an unknown known. If we let the RFC run its course, more outside editors will be able to bring a new perspective. The RFC starts with "In an effort to end the Wikidrama" for a good reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fact: The paid speeches were for her own personal gain and had nothing whatsoever to do with fundraising for her (future) campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is a complete nonsense, and not supported by any credible source. Fundraising did not (and could not, from a legal perspective) begin until after she had announced her candidacy. Super PACs are unaffiliated, not affiliated. Otherwise they wouldn't be super PACs. Finally, if you keep saying "wikidrama" enough times in the same conversation, people will think you are Marco Rubio. You have created all this drama. Saying you don't want wikidrama while generating oodles of it with antagonistic comments makes you look like a hypocrite. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

On your last point, I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to prove my good faith to you. Who cares. And you can't prove how many of the Goldman Sachs speech attendees donated to her campaign or Super PACs, so you have no point. This is boring. Please let us let the RFC run its course.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't matter how many speech attendees (at any of her 51 speeches) donated to her campaign because they are unrelated. For all we know, just as many people Goldman Sachs employees have donated to the Sanders campaign as the Clinton campaign. You don't know, so speculation is a total waste of time. As private individuals, they may do as they please. As far as the RfC is concerned, the discussion here does not impede it so I'm not sure what your point is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be seen as part of the fundraising process. You disagree. There is an RFC precisely because we don't agree, and we are trying to get more outside editors to bring new perspectives. So please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Your RfC doesn't mention fundraising at all. In fact, the text I added is just a better, more neutral and properly placed version of what you proposed. The only point of disagreement I can find is that you now also want to add speculative claims to synthesize a negative narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Read above and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm serious. Why else would you want to add speculation about "unknown knowns" that suggest links that no reliable sources corroborate? Where's the evidence Clinton's speeches directly resulted in campaign contributions? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We disagree, that's why there is an RFC. Stop it.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

But your RfC isn't even about that. It's like you don't even know what you wrote. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dave Dial: Many editors believe the RFC is valid. Don't try to shut it down. Just let it run its course. Not interested in wasting my time discussing its validity when so many editors agree that it is valid. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many editors think it's 'valid', editors can be wrong. A majority of editors can change policy, but they cannot subvert policy. There is no question the wording of the RFC is not neutral and not valid. By policy, described here, it should have been. Dave Dial (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an echo in here! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A badly formed RfC based on an editor's untenable content proposal, eliciting confused responses from random passersby, is hardly the right way to go about establishing consensus to improve an article. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what the question is. If it's for the text at the top of this section, I think it is better than the text at the top of the RfC, However, there should be a period after criticism, imho, unless there are some actual statistics out there. Elinruby (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable suggestion; however, it was the initial criticism from Bernie Sanders specifically that brought this issue forward. Moreover, criticism from other sources does not focus on the fact she gave speeches to Goldman Sachs, but that she did not respond to Bernie's demand by releasing the transcripts. For example, the NYT editorial piece opines that Clinton is weakening her position by not releasing the transcripts, but doesn't really criticize her for giving the speeches in the first place. I am hoping these sorts of specifics, which are too complex for the post-2008 section, can be given proper consideration in a "campaign timeline" section like the one I have commented on in a later discussion thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I remember reading about the secret transcripts before Sanders brought them up.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well your memory is failing you then. Bernie brought it up first. And for the umpteenth time, they are not secret because everybody knows about them. You have already been told by an administrator that referring to them as "secret" is a BLP violation, because it is a lie. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the transcripts are only known by HRC and Goldman Sachs employees; they are hidden from the American public. That is why the press (not me) has called them "secret". Please read the lead in secrecy and start assuming good faith. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not "hidden from the American public". They are paid speeches, ostensibly the property of the people who paid for them, that are really not any of the American public's business. And YOU called them "secret" by using the term in a section title, so the violation is yours. And given the level of your disruption, assuming good faith from you is nigh on impossible at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I didn't. The press did, as I made very clear in the discussion which was wrongly archived and should be restored: "The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)". She has repeatedly refused to release them to the American public. And it meets the definition in the lead of secrecy. I have no opinion about this; the press does.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you are still epically wrong. "The press" didn't create the title of the Wikipedia talk page section. You did. It's like the lights are on but nobody's home! Please tell me you are just trolling, rather this being intentional on your part. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I used the word secret because that's how the press described those speeches--and I don't work in PR for HRC's campaign, so I don't feel I need to open a thesaurus and reword everything to fit her brand. In any case, I started the RFC to stop having to answer your random accusations and end the Wikidrama, so please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you just imply I worked for HRC's campaign while claiming to be looking to end Wikidrama? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm implying that if I read "secret" in the press, I use "secret" on Wikipedia. I have zero interest in you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL all evidence to the contrary! Do you not understand the concept of attribution? You keep using "secret emails" in Wikipedia's voice, instead of using attribution. Maybe you shouldn't be swimming in the Wikipedia deep end with the adults -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes But Drop the amount of money. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:08, 13 April 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.

A demographic section

The following has been removed a couple of times. I'm sure it is relevant, and as suggested, could be expanded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 13:59, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

White men

As of mid-March 2016 support for Clinton from white men is weak. Low support by white men has been associated with Democratic losses in past presidential elections such as those of McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984.

References

No, we really don't need that, Fred. It's just not important. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder: The longer discussion about this was just archived, yet once again we were not done. It would be POV to say HRC has support from American Americans, but not mention her lack of support from white men. I'm for removing the African-American section if we have no section about whites. We can't only have sections about those who support her, because it sounds like an advertisement if we do that. This article needs to be balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to go into who doesn't support a candidate. Insisting that we do so is only "balance" in the same way Fox News uses the word. Besides, support changes dramatically over time. For example, this week's tracking poll shows Sanders leading Clinton among men 47% to 45%, but the week before it had Clinton leading 51% to 45% in the same demographic. That's a massive swing in a single week, and that is not uncommon. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If support changes, let's remove the sections about her alleged African-American and LGBT support. It is very POV to censor her lack of support from white men otherwise.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, her support from African Americans, the LGBTQ and older voters remains strong. Nobody is trying to "censor" anything. Please dial back the hyperbolic rhetoric you are now becoming infamous for. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop it with Rule 13. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't know you were a disciple of Saul Alinksy. Fascinating. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have some reservations about the significance of this section. I think we should be guided by the amount of coverage of it in the usual sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it has gotten sufficient media coverage. I also worry about the current POV state of this article because of its redaction.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have considered requesting deletion of the article due to our inability to maintain NPOV. However, the correct path is to ban the small group of determined POV editors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right Fred, there is a small yet unfortunately loud group of editors that are doing their best to add as much negative POV-pushing information into Clinton articles – hopefully, they will be dealt with on a future AN/I discussion board, because this constant nit-picking pile on of crap into articles, is getting quite tedious. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV means that we shouldn't only cherry-pick whatever makes her look better than reality. However, if most editors want to turn this page into an advertisement by leaving out Goldman Sachs and white men, we will soon get bored and spend more time editing more interesting articles like antique furniture and historic buildings. I'm not Joan of Arc.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please. If you believe this article – which is dazzled with email controversy here, fundraising scandals there, some Clinton Cash and Benghazi hearings in the mix – is too much of an advertisement for you, then you must be sorely mistaken. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I do think leaving out Goldman Sachs and white men would be POV, but I have zero interest in arguing with strangers online. I'm not Joan of Arc..Zigzig20s (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And I think your constant POV-pushing on this article, and related Hillary Clinton articles is problematic. Thankfully there are other editors seemingly who agree, and undo such contributions. You've added that song twice at the end of your comment – would you like to add it in your signature? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And some agree. Actually I am trying to push NPOV, as I am trying to balance out her African-American support with her lack of support from white men. It is POV to leave it out. But I also have more important articles to edit--her campaign couldn't be more dull!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the difference between balance (what you are trying to achieve) and neutrality (what Wikipedia is trying to achieve). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Nobody is saying we should "leave out Goldman Sachs". What was wrong was the way you put it in (bad writing, wrong section). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How things go upstate in the New York primary should shed some light on the relevance of this topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-again-looks-upstate-for-win-in-new-york.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each got 50% of the white male vote in the NY primary, so we can probably close this thread now. Agreed? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually that just proves the point. Even in New York, she did not get over 50% of male voters. Sanders beat Clinton among women in Vermont, it does not mean that Clinton does not have an advantage with women voters. TFD (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't prove the point. Clinton did better with white men in NY than she has in many of the previous primaries, which disproves the point she doesn't do well with white men. In fact, the only demographic Clinton is doing really badly at is young voters (particularly first time voters), but they make up a pretty small chunk of the electorate. But the salient point here is that how Clinton is doing with white men (good or bad) is not interesting at all, and certainly not noteworthy. It is hard to understand why anyone would want to make this a thing for the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

So in New York she gets 58% of the vote, including 50% of the male vote, while in Vermont she got 14% of the vote, including 9% of the male vote. See the pattern? She only gets a majority of male voters when she has an overwhelming majority of all voters. In Alabama, where she got 78% of the vote, she got 52% of the 18 to 24 vote, but we still say and you agree that she has a problem with young voters. TFD (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A Wall Street Journal article today [6] describes Clinton's campaign as "powered by minority voters, as well as urban and suburban professionals." Further, "support among rural and working-class white voters has eroded." This characterization is part of a pivot of attention to the general election where Trump has had considerable success in appealing to disenfranchised white working class voters. Does this article fairly reflect this characterization? User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be completely irrelevant, since Clinton is running in the primary at the moment, and has not had the opportunity to run against Trump. There's no evidence to suggest Trump has more appeal amongst the electorate as a whole than Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, to see voting demographics in the general election that closely resemble those of the 2008 and 2012 elections. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Information in reliable sources is notable, not irrelevant. Not including it is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Since Clinton and Trump are only in the primary part of the election, there's no data to indicate Trump would fare better than Clinton with any particular group, or vice versa. As far as your NPOV claim is concerned, that's just complete nonsense that makes you look foolish. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the primary and the election are different because primaries only include a minority of voters. But there is no reason why we should not mention both of them. In a landslide victory, it is possible for a candidate to win all demographic groups. However they would still be stronger among some groups and weaker among others. And the reality is that Clinton will do better in November among women than men and among African Americans than among whites. If the race is close, she will probably lose among men and white people, but will still get the overwhelming majority of African American votes. TFD (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we know Clinton will do better in November among any particular group? We aren't interested in assumptions here. Maybe when the nomination fight is over and we get some decent polling data, we can look at this again. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• How do we know Clinton will even make it to the general election at all..? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop arguing for the point of arguing. I am not presenting my opinions but the opinions of political experts. The Democrats have got over 90% of African American voters for decades and continues to poll as high in 2016 and no reasonable observer would say that we have no way of knowing if it will hold in November. In the same way, I "know" that the Prohibition Party will not win in November. TFD (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not to the general election campaigning yet, but if the present pattern holds Clinton's base is not only minorities but younger, more educated, more affluent, and female. Trump's is older, less educated, poorer, and male. I think there was a study or two that Trump appealed to people of a more authoritarian bent, not to mention racists, although Clinton also scores pretty high on the authoritarian versus libertarian spectrum. Probably at some point these demographic and other skews are relevant to the article, and they definitely will be after the election when the article presents the results. If we do that we should be comprehensive and not just pick up on a single point of differentiation. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What we can't do right now is make claims about the demographics of the general election based on what is happening in the primaries. We should at least wait until there's more polling out there and poll analysis site like FiveThirtyEight have had a chance to do a deep dive into the new data that will emerge. Only then will we have a clearer picture of where things stand demographically. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So you think it would be just a shot in the dark to say that Clinton will outperform Trump (or any other Republican) among African Americans and women, or that she will do better in the North East than in the Deep South? TFD (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. But what I think is irrelevant. Until we have proper analysis of polling data, we really don't have the reliable sources we would need to make such a claim, especially when current polling data seems to be all over the place. Besides, there's no rush. There's no need for us to be speculating on the general election until we are done with the primary process in July. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason you and I think she will outperform is that reliable sources say that. There is nothing wrong with reporting what experts (as opposed to you or I) think. And of course we will never know what percentage of the white vote or any other demographic any candidate receives because they determine the demographic breakdown based on polls that sample a small portion of the population and then statisticians calculate how they think the total population broke down. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Delegate Count section

Hello. I think the delegate count section should be worded differently, partially because it states that Clinton is "73 delegates short" and Sanders "841 delegates short". This can be misleading to readers, and I think it should be written in another way, because none of the super delegates are actually counted towards a candidate until they vote at the convention.

In fact, in the past week or so Sanders picked up the support of several super delegates. It is likely that neither Sander's or Clinton will actually have the required pledged delegate count before the convention, and the election will be decided by the super delegates. I hope this can be addressed. Thank you. --IntelligentName (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the way it is written current could imply to readers that, for example, if Clinton gained 73 delegates she would secure the nomination, which is false.--IntelligentName (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, be rest assured that once Hillary Clinton wins the nomination on Tuesday, the Supers will not reverse course, especially those who have publicly announced their support. S51438 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This really isn't a technicality. I agree with IntelligentName. We have no idea (you included) what superdelegates will do. What we do know is that those are not counted toward the total until cast on the floor of the Convention. I actually think that's also true of pledged delegates. But whereas the pledged delegates are effectively locked in, superdelegates are not. As an obvious addendum, Secretary Clinton cannot win the nomination on Tuesday.* She can win the nomination at the Convention... and that's kind of IntelligentName's point. It is misleading. Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [*In total deference if she won 88%+ of all pledged delegates Tuesday, she could become the presumptive nominee (/win the nomination) Tuesday. Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)]

The DNC has repeatedly said that superdelegate totals should not be counted, and are likely wrong because the votes have not occurred yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5PKoEbdDgA&feature=youtu.be Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. All the reliable sources (AP, NYT, Politico, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters et al) universally count pledged delegates and superdelegates together, even though the DNC has gone to great lengths to stop news outlets from doing it that way because it infuriates supporters of Sanders. It was the same in the 2008 election as well. In this case, we provide two separate counts (because they sometimes differ). The AP count specifically refers to how many delegates each candidate is short, so I have included that in the article. The CNN count does not, so it is left out per WP:OR. To answer IntelligentName's issue specifically, at no time do we suggest Clinton is "73 delegates short" of "securing" or "winning" the nomination. We don't say that because the source doesn't say that. Besides, there is no requirement for a candidate to reach a majority of delegates with pledged delegates alone. All that is required is a majority of delegates, regardless of type. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that all that is required is that they get a majority of all delegates. the point is that the superdelegates don't vote until the convention, and assuming we know their votes now is WP:CRYSTAL. The comment above is a case in point of the twisted tautology logic that is being used once Hillary Clinton wins the nomination on Tuesday, the Supers will not reverse course. She won't have won the nomination on Tuesday... Serious question here, where are the media's SD counts coming from? Surely there can't be interviews or something with everyone one of them. Do the campaigns put out lists or something? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question. Many of the superdelegates are politicians, and we know politicians love to put out press releases. I'm guessing the rest of the data comes from the DNC and/or the campaigns, the latter of which will be eager to publicize every superdelegate acquired. The folks editing List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016 have done a great job in providing sources for all of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Undoubtedly they have, and nobody's questioning whether the maintenance of that information will be accurate. The issue is that until cast on the floor of the Convention, those votes are subject to change (whether or not they in fact will change). So until cast, the only way either candidate can cinch the nomination on Tuesday is by winning 2,383 pledged delegates. Were either candidate to have that same total but of total delegates (i.e. a count of 2,383 including superdelegates), that would not - per se* - cinch them the election until all cast on the floor of the Convention. *Unless that 2,383 only includes pledged delegates. This isn't a technicality. Dems the rules. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey, I have to disagree with your comment "at no time do we suggest Clinton is "73 delegates short" of "securing" or "winning" the nomination.". It seems to me there is actually a strong implication of that in the section. --IntelligentName (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Implication of a thing is not a thing. Besides, this is precisely why politicos use the label "presumptive nominee". When a Democratic candidate passes 2,383 delegates (however they are obtained), they are presumed to be the nominee until they are confirmed at the convention. Even "presumptive nominee" Trump hasn't actually passed the required number of pledged delegates, because some of his haul are "unbound delegates" who could technically change their vote. Anyway, this will all be over in two days and the language "x delegates short" will be removed from the article once New Jersey's results are in and every news org in the US will be using the term "presumptive nominee" for Clinton. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton will not have a majority of bound delegates before the convention. The parallel with Trump is not accurate because Trump is the only candidate for the Republican nomination. OTOH presumptive merely means probable, so Clinton has been the presumptive nominee for 8 years and was presumptive nominee for 4 years before losing to Obama. TFD (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide us with any guidance on standards of use of "presumptive nominee" in previous elections? Your indifference notwithstanding, widespread media implication does not make the use of "presumptive nominee" a thing. It merely means that the article can report the media's use of that term. And then the article can report the DNC's chastising of the media for use of that term. Am I mistaken in this analysis? Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am confused. Widespread media implication, provided it is a prevailing view from reliable sources, is exactly what Wikipedia articles are based on, is it not? Anyway, come Tuesday evening this entire discussion will be rendered redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to be confused. March 2003 marked a culmination of the falsehood, widely reported in the media, that the Iraqi republic had WMD. Those reports were wrong and, depending on your memory, knowing misrepresentations, but they were almost universally reported. Therefore, as here, it would not be inaccurate (if, as there, media actually widely misreports presumptive nomination) to mirror the media's reports. But the media widely reporting something does not make it reality. Sadly that's the purview of the same process but via history. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not is largely irrelevant, per WP:TRUTH. And I'm getting the impression here that a number of editors are perhaps trying to alter the article to favor Bernie Sanders, rather than simply have it represent the facts as presented by reliable sources. I hope that I'm wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to provide evidence of bias. The article you cite supports what I said. The DNC determines the nominee. The DNC has verified the process. The process is what I laid out. It seems to me the WIki article explaining verifiability represents the criterion as (indeed...) verifiability and not breadth of reporting. Since qualified reps of the DNC have verified the process, why are we still talking about this? It seems to me editors are perhaps trying to alter the article to support media hearsay rather than rigorously verified procedure. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, when the article mentions verifiability, it is referring to WP:VERIFY. What is published in reliable sources trumps anything put out by the DNC, even if we know that to be somewhat misleading. This morning, virtually every mainstream media outlet is calling Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, even though the Clinton campaign, the Sanders campaign and the DNC would rather they did no such thing. And they are doing this because outlets have independently surveyed and verified which candidates the super delegates have pledged themselves to. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly correct. So we can report that media have stated that Clinton is the presumptive nominee; and we can simultaneously report that both the DNC and Sanders Campaigns have counterindicated that fabrication. Each version of reality is verifiable. 24.186.117.215 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [Sorry, I think that was me. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)]

Fabrication? Take a look at the recently closed RfC on Talk:Hillary Clinton and then come back here and apologize for your bias. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a fabrication. [I thought this section had deleted my comments, but it was in the similarly titled section here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#RfC:_How_should_we_go_about_declaring_a_candidate_the_.22presumptive_nominee.22.3F), I apologize for that confusion]. The concern is the same. In the past, when the pledged delegate count is not close or if there is only one active candidate, it is appropriate to presume a nominee going to the convention. Unless you can show me that in previous years media convention has been to call a candidate presumptive in an unfinished race, I think you should apologize for unfairly accusing me of bias. If you can show me that my concerns are solely rooted in bias - and that media has followed this process in previous years - then I will apologize to you for my bias (a weird request...) and apologize to all of us for wasting our time. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton has a gigantic, insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and an ever-increasing gigantic lead in super delegates. What other reason, other than bias, could you possibly have for ignoring 99% of reliable sources stating Clinton is the presumptive nominee? Certainly your view isn't based on any form of logic or understanding of the process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although superdelegates are most likely to vote for whom they voice support for and most sources include the superdelegate count, I believe that there should be an explanatory note after "superdelegates" in the article, as without knowledge of what superdelegates are, readers may deduce that Clinton is the definite rather than the most likely nominee (as stated by most sources): ... plus the support of 541 superdelegates (who can freely vote for any candidate) for a total of 2,310 delegates. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Both POV should be presented per WP:BALANCE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is currently presented in a rather obfuscated form.--IntelligentName (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Restored

I've restored the article to its stable state, after IntelligentName again changed it without consensus. I've since updated the delegate counts and added new contests. Since IntelligentName is a new editor, I will assume they aren't familiar with the way consensus works in this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's "Delete your Account" Tweet

On 11:27 AM on June 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton tweeted out "Delete your Account" in response to Donald Trump's tweet "Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!" It has been described by media as Clinton's most retweeted comment of all time. Also, Donald Trump Responded with "Where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?" Where could I fit this information in the article?

Sources:

• http://time.com/4363217/hillary-clinton-delete-your-account/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-donald-trump-delete-your-account.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-trolls-trump-twitter-39738581
• http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-already-beat-donald-trump-delete-your-account-tweet-soars-toward-2380336
• http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-response-to-hillary-clinton-delete-your-account-tweet-2016-6

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Interest in extraterrestrials

I have a hard time believing that the "Interest in extraterrestrials" section actually belongs in this article. Granted, it's covered by reliable sources, but it still seems like a rather trivial detail with little to no importance to understanding the subject of her campaign. Anyone object to removing it? Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. It's biographical, so I daresay space should be found in her main article for it (assuming it's not already?), but it has as much to do with her presidential campaign as the hole in my Aris. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the topic has received too little coverage to make it significant. Her comments appear to be flippant rather than sincere, so the section could be misleading. TFD (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders / Clinton rapprochement

See here and here for reporting of a meeting between Clinton and Sanders, which was followed up by almost identical press releases from both camps. Clearly something's developing, and we should be prepared to incorporate it into this article once the two Democratic contenders have worked out some kind of way forward between them. -- The Anome (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Older voters section

Having an entire section about a demographic group seems like WP:UNDUE when there's only a single line of text and one reference. Unless there's opposition or expansion soon, I plan to remove it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Donor appointed to top State Department intelligence committee

This content was removed. The content refers to a major donor to Clinton's campaign whom she appointed to a top State Department intelligence committee which he was unqualified for. It's not clear to me how this is not relevant to this article.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in my edit summary. It has very little to do with the campaign, if anything. Moreover, it received very little press coverage because it wasn't illegal, or even improper. This seems like a case of throwing everything at the wall and hoping something will stick. 24 hours after the "story" broke, it had vanished. So even if it had some relevancy, the lack of interest in it makes it a WP:WEIGHT issue, rather than just a WP:ROC issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

These sources demonstrate the content's relevance, significance, and interest:

Slate: New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card (6/10/16)

Time: State Dept. Emails Shed Light on How Clinton Donor Was Named to Intel Board (6/10/16)

CNN: Clinton donor received top spot on State Department intel board (6/11/16)

NY Daily News: Major Clinton donor put on State Dept. board despite complete lack of experience (6/12/16)

Vox: The scandal over the Hillary Clinton donor tapped for a national security board, explained (6/22/16)

Charlotte Observer: Donor promised to make Clinton ‘look good’ if appointed to board (6/27/16)

McClatchy: Donor promised to make Clinton ‘look good’ if appointed to board (6/27/16)

The Hill: Donor promised to make Clinton ‘look good’ on advisory board (6/27/16)CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Stronger Together"

The new "Stronger Together" motif seems to be a new centerpiece of the campaign. I think it should probably replace "Hillary for America" as the slogan in the infobox. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150717025205/http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/ to http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of logo

• http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/design-experts-trash-hillary-clintons-new-logo-117100

czar 01:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Morell controversy

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 we add Michael Morell's call for the covert killing of Russians and Iranians upon endorsing HRC for president in his Charlie Rose interview?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Morell isn't even mentioned in the article as is (nor does the article mention the unprecedented and extensive bipartisan support she has received from national security experts). I don't see any reason why Morell's prefered policies on issues XYZ belong in this article over the dozens of other significant individuals who have endorsed her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, does she intend to hire him if she becomes president? Is this one of her policies?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What does this even have to do with Clinton's campaign? If you have questions, read the sources then propose edits. Stop using this talk page for original research and floating conspiracy theories, especially when it is obviously oriented toward vilifying Clinton. You've been warned about his before. Next stop, WP:AE.- MrX 21:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you please assume good faith? The Charlie Rose exchange sounds like a job interview. Rose asks Morell if he'd consider joining her administration, and he doesn't say no. (There's a direct quote about the killing controversy in the CBS article btw, absolutely nothing conspiratorial.) We don't have to include this new information if she hasn't addressed it publicly, but you really should assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I can assume good faith, but not in this case.- MrX 22:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, please do. Maybe watch the Charlie Rose interview if you don't believe me.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, can you please stop proposing random nonsense? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For the love of all that is...secular? Can you please assume good faith and watch the interview if you don't believe me? I am a serious editor and love HRC, but this is what he said. If that is her foreign policy, the American people need to know.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please stop posting nonsense here, and then flopping with appeals to good faith when people call you out on it? Just try to think a little harder before you press the "save" button. That would save us all some time and brain cells. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing Wikipedia editors. This is not about us; it's about the content. There is content here that could be added to the article, as it looks like it relates to her foreign policy agenda, should she become president.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I watched the interview. It is only about Trump's incompetence and unfitness to be president of the United States, in part, because he is a tool of Putin. Given this and other talk-page comments there may either be an issue of competence here or an attempt to misuse the policy of assuming good faith?--I am One of Many (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. While he does talk about Trump, he is asked if he'd like to join an HRC administration. Then he says the US should covertly kill Russians and Iranians (as reported by CBS). It sounds like that could be her policy. If other editors don't think we should add this to her campaign, and leave voters in the dark, that's fine, and that's what this talkpage is for--to discuss this and other matters relevant to her campaign. But don't shoot the messenger.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton campaign. Morell isn't with the campaign, he isn't a "surrogate" of the campaign and he doesn't work for Clinton or anything related to Clinton. I endorse removing this entire thread per WP:BLPVIO and pitching the proposing editor into the Great Pit of Carkoon. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the Charlie Rose interview sounded like a job interview. We can certainly censor/remove this topic if it is too sensitive. The interview is in the public domain, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL "censor/remove". Are you even aware of how you sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in talking about me or you or any editor at all. I am only interested in improving content. This would have been new content, and quite a significant piece of information found in the public domain, that could have improved our understanding of an HRC presidency. We will see if Morell ever serves in her cabinet--I guess we can close this topic now if there is no consensus to add this content to the article. But I think it would be good to add more policy-related content.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 12 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Not June 22 but July 22

75.80.56.73 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

New Logo Color

Ever since Kaine was introduced to the ticket, the campaign seems to be almost exclusively using a new version of the "H" logo with the arrow light blue instead of red. This should probably be updated in the infobox. 64.183.216.107 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's AMA on Quora

Following Donald Trump's AMA on /r/The_Donald subreddit, Clinton will have her own AMA on the website Quora on August 8th. Where should I put this information in the article?

Also, I have sources:

• http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/1/12340322/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-quora-q-and-a

• http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/08/01/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-hosting-ama-quora/#gref

• https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/01/clinton-and-kaine-will-answer-your-questions-on-quora/

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It probably doesn't belong in any article, but if it did, Clinton's appearance on a social site would likely be a minor part in the Quora article, listing this among the many dozens of other nationally prominent people who have done similar things there, on Reddit, etc. If it were a landmark part of her campaign, it might belong somewhere in the 2016 Clinton campaign article, or perhaps a more specialized article if one exists about her social media strategy and appearances. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See alsos

@Graham11: I've reverted your removal of the Trump campaign see-also I added earlier. Yes, I know about WP:EMBED, but in this case I don't think that guideline applies here as originally intended, as there is no visible link present to the Trump campaign article anywhere on the page. as the navbox contents are hidden by default, and you would need to open the box to even see that it exists. Moreover, even if WP:EMBED did apply, this would be one of the "occasional exceptions" that the guideline states may apply: the Trump campaign article is pretty much the yin to the Clinton campaign's yang: if there is a single link that needs a "see also" her it's that. -- The Anome (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that's probably fair. I'm usually pretty careful about WP:EMBED being a fairly bright line here, even when a navbox is collapsed, but this seems like a reasonable exception (provided that it's not taken much further in terms of duplicating other links from the navbox). Sorry about that. Graham (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it. -- The Anome (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Should we include the latest Wikileaks controversy in the controversy section? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No, not unless it is shown to involve Clinton directly and becomes a significant issue of due weight. And even there, possibly no, lest the section become a WP:COAT. The story is a couple days old. There's time to wait and see what comes of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the e-mails apparently show the DNC rigged the system in favor of Clinton campaign. This article is about her campaign, not HRC herself, so it should appear here.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Based on the facts known now, this has little relevance to the campaign. As far as I know, the emails have not been authenticated. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to hang this controversy on Clinton's campaign, but I'm open to reconsidering my opinion if it develops further.- MrX 13:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen zero media coverage suggesting the e-mails might be fake. Instead, the media suggests the DNC rigged the system in favor of HRC; this should be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. The fact that the emails are widely perceived as relevant to Clinton's campaign is sufficient grounds to include them, if only briefly to avoid WP:UNDUE. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There was no evidence of rigging nor any pertinent mention of Clinton. If it is to be included (which I don't think it should be), it should only be included briefly and saying that the only thing that the DNC e-mails showed is that some DNC officials appeared to favor Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Short circuited

Hillary's recent comments regarding her email server received quite a bit of attention in reliable sources. I propose adding the following content to the Email Controversy section here:

In August 2016, Clinton was asked by a journalist about her previous assertion that FBI Director Comey characterized her statements regarding her email server as truthful. In her response, she reiterated that her previous statements on the issue were truthful, but that using a private email server was a "mistake". She also stated: "That's really the bottom line here and I have said, during the interview and in many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly....So I may have short-circuited it and for that, I will, you know, try to clarify." Clinton's comment generated considerable attention on social media and, in response, Donald Trump tweeted: "Anybody whose mind "SHORT CIRCUITS" is not fit to be our president! Look up the word "BRAINWASHED."[7][8]CFredkin (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Typical back and forth of a campaign. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict - Muboshgu summarizes it well) I agree that the email controversy section should be made current, but it is already long enough, as it is in summary form. Any discussion of her truthfulness, and after-the fact discussions of that, are secondary issues that are far too detailed and unimportant vis-a-vis the campaign overall. These kinds of details and extended quotes (but not Trump's tweets) belong, if anywhere, in the detailed main article about the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually according to [this discussion, including commentary by political opponents regarding candidates' statements is definitely relevant.CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is to be added, it can be summarized without a lengthy quote to no more than a single sentence. Trump's tweet is of no significance whatsoever.- MrX 22:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess we're applying different standards to Trump's articles than for Hillary's, because that's not what you said there.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's the same standard - how much coverage of something there is in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see: [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], [14],[15]. Is that enough?CFredkin (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, I was referring to the fact that some editors argue that Hillary's response to Trump's comments absolutely must be included in Trump's Campaign article, but then come here and assert that Trump's response to Hillary's comments is out of bounds.CFredkin (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not Hillary's response to Trump's 2A comment, nor Trump's response to Hillary's remarks, that matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It makes me wonder if she's actually saying she has these lapses, these short circuits. I wouldn't add in all the bits Trump said, I'd paraphrase what is relevant only. But I do think that her comments about she may have short-circuited and will clarify are relevant here. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For goodness sake. When she said "short circuited", she meant that she concatenated her comments somewhat on some of the many times the press forced her to repeat herself. For example, sometimes she said "classified emails" when she meant to say "emails marked classified". It doesn't mean some kind of brain lapse. And I think I should remind editors, for the umpteenth time, that what happens at Trump's article has no bearing on what happens here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to explain what she was referring to and meant by it? If that's all it is, it's a wonder why we're even talking about that here. Might as well start a discussion everytime a candidate says "my bad" or "excuse me, I didn't here what you said." - Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Relying on VolunteerMarek's standard, we should also include this reliably sourced response:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also responded to Clinton's statement by saying "She now has a fundamental way of saying, ‘I didn’t quite lie to you; I just short-circuited,'".[16]

CFredkin (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If it's a reference to my comment above, you're missing the "how much" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox images

Resolved

 – Inappropriate images have been removed. Graham (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the images from the committee and slogan fields of the infobox. Having been reverted by Spartan7W (with the edit summary "No rationale given for removing campaign materials from infobox. These visually illustrate relevant details as they appear in campaign materials. Also, logo size is on the small side for computer screens, mobile don't care because of auto-changes"), I am bringing the matter to the talk page.

WP:TEXTASIMAGES clearly states, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." To do otherwise needlessly hampers accessibility. And given the length of the infobox, and infoboxes' purpose of "summariz[ing]… key facts that appear in the article", it seems excessive to have four images in this infobox.

If the intention is to "illustrate relevant details as they appear in campaign materials", the images can also be placed later on in the article. But with the exception of the first image, the images are created by Spartan7W to resemble campaign materials. I think that to include them without that fact being acknowledged either leaves readers believing (a) that they are true reproductions of campaign materials or (b) that for some reason, Wikipedia is trying to style its infobox in such a way as to be consistent with campaign branding (rather than consistent with encyclopedic style).

(As an aside, I should note that I believe one of the images to be inappropriately licensed, but I recognize that to be an issue for Commons.) Graham (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The contrast of each of these is within accessibility limits, as the "Stronger Together" is bold text. Either way, alternates are used for accessibility-aiding devices to know what each says. Both "Stronger Together" and "I'm With Her" are actual campaign materials, they are not 100% facsimiles for free-use reasons, but the have the exact same content and appearance; the untrained eye wouldn't know the minor typographical nuances of the "Stronger Together" graphic. And that argument, that they aren't exact copies, doesn't hold water. SVG variants of official seals, like of the State of California for instance, are somewhat simpler than the full seal used on official documents, but because they say the same things and depict the same images, they are an acceptable illustrative tool.   Spartan7W §   22:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, alternates are used for accessibility-aiding devices to know what each says.

That doesn't get around the requirements of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The same paragraph from which I quoted earlier notes that alternate text should be used, thus making it more accessible (as there are degrees of accessibility – it's not a black and white thing), but it still requires that "[t]extual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." I see no reason why this would be an exception.

Both "Stronger Together" and "I'm With Her" are actual campaign materials, they are not 100% facsimiles for free-use reasons, but the have the exact same content and appearance; the untrained eye wouldn't know the minor typographical nuances of the "Stronger Together" graphic.

They are not "campaign materials" unless they are materials used for a campaign, which these are not. You can't suggest that these are merely "typographical nuances" either when one of the images incorporates a photo of the candidate that, to the best of my knowledge, her campaign has never used. (A photo which, by the way, is not in the public domain. I would suggest changing the licensing information on Commons accordingly.) And even if we are dealing with what you describe as "typographical nuances", that still means that they are not materials put out by her campaign. Whether "the untrained eye" would notice is immaterial. One would likely not notice if a photojournalist staged a photograph, but it is well established that that is a clear ethical violation as, by omission, it misrepresents to readers what it is they are viewing.

SVG variants of official seals, like of the State of California for instance, are somewhat simpler than the full seal used on official documents, but because they say the same things and depict the same images, they are an acceptable illustrative tool.

I am not from the United States (nor another country that uses seals in the way Americans use them), so I'm not familiar with the nuances of the matter, but as it's a quasi-heraldic device, I suspect it's being used in that article in the same way that national coats of arms are used in articles relating to other countries. Various depictions of armorial achievements are just that – depictions. What matters in heraldry is the blazon, a formal, technical description of the components of the achievement. It has been fairly long established that any depiction that meets the specifications of the blazon can be used in an article when the depiction generally used by the armiger is not a free image. My guess would be that the same logic is being applied there, but that's certainly not my area of expertise. Graham (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's misleading to use a composite image in which the subject is unsmiling and facing left as a "stand-in" for a campaign image in which she is smiling and facing right. It doesn't belong in the infobox as a substitute. Jonathunder (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Delegate count update

@Archwayh: This is a great idea and I thank you for doing it; however, the numbers don't seem to be correct and there are no references to support them. Could you clear that up, please? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, Thanks, @Scjessey:, but I just took it from 2016 Democratic National Convention#Nomination and balloting. I don't know who put the numbers in, and so feel free to correct them (in both entries) with sources. Archway (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I don't have time to do it right now, but later on I'll mine the more accurate Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and its sourcing for the correct numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing other's comments

Apparently Malerooster has taken a penchant for censoring other's (not mine) comments here, claiming that calling someone racist is a BLP violation. Note that the content removed is in a discussion linking directly above to and referencing the article which provides seven sources for accusations of racism. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, discussing the accusations are different from an editor actually calling the subject of a BLP a racist on a talk page. Zero need for that type of thing on a talk page directed at anyone. --Malerooster (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP applies to content that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. The discussion is related to an open RfC about article improvement and the BLP in question includes racism in the lead and is well sourced. TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TJW, but in the interest of ending this argument and allowing constructive editing to move forward, I will allow the edit of my comment to stand without objection and further suggest this thread be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to remind folks that editing of another's TALK is inappropriate. It is contrary to WP:Talk page guidelines at WP:SIGCLEAN Quote : Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Unquote. I will suggest that the editor who did the delete may revert the TALK once this is pointed out, or the original poster may reinstate his TALK. Look, if a TALK is stupid y'all don't have to respond -- it's just TALK, and not that unusual for folks to fall into saying something stupid. If you want to say Off-topic, fine - it may help the other editor return to productive talk about edits to the article. If it's off-topic to extensive length the admins are guided to collapse it, not delete it. If it's unacceptable behavior per WP:TALKNO, say that and again it may help the other editor return to productive talk about edits to the article. If the editor persistently does WP:TALKNO, particularly getting into legal issues, then refer it to admins to sanction the editor. Markbassett (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I do hate it when these things get into kegal issues. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

p.s. by legal issues, I mean TALK where WP containing it would actually be WP breaking the law, such as Category:Wikipedia legal policies of copyright violation or child porn. Other article Category:Wikipedia content guidelines do not apply to TALK, though I think things like TALK with obscenities would draw a sanction. Markbassett (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorsement by Seddique Mateen

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.

---

The father of Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at a 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, attended a rally of Hillary Clinton in Florida and endorsed her for president. Seddique Mateen said: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” and “It’s a Democratic party, so everyone can join.” The Clinton Campaign played his appearance at the rally down. It released a statement saying: “This individual wasn’t invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event.”

Why is this allways deleted. This is a newsworthy story und it should be included in this article.--Broter (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Because Wikipedia is not a news site and this has zero encyclopedic long-term relevance, just as Mark Foley being at a Trump rally isn't relevant for the Trump campaign article. This has been discussed on this talk page before. If it's not still visible, check the archive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This thread needs to be deleted, as it was until @Timothyjosephwood: reverted it. Using the talk page to dump material that already had no consensus for inclusion is a lousy POV pushing tactic. This is a non-notable factoid about a non-notable person. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personal opinion on what is notable and what is POV is not a criteria for deleting others comments. Please see guidance at WP:TPO and note that criteria for including content in an article is not the same as the criteria for deleting discussion about that content. As an experience editor, you should not need this explained to you. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless it's construed as a BLP issue for Seddique Mateen, who is being dragged through the mud by the partisan press despite being non-notable but for one event. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this content should be left out. It has no encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. However, we should not be deleting threads that are posted in good faith. The OP is obviously not an SPA.- MrX 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thinking this is a BLP violation indicates only a need to actually read WP:BLP. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with editors deleting talk page discussions of whether a particular piece of content is a BLP violation or not, based on a circular argument that the content is a BLP violation. I don't agree with doing that, but it's fairly common and some people read BLP that way, particularly the statement that it applies equally to talk pages. Anyway, except in WP:DENY cases I agree that new / good faith editors should get a patient hearing. Archiving or at worst collapsing pointless discussions rather than deleting them tends to keep things moving better. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this could perhaps be included (I am not sure). The WP:NOTNEWS argument does not work here because this campaign is by definition news-oriented. And David Duke's endorsement in the article about Trump's campaign is just as "newsy" and (ir-)relevant. (I am not necessarily comparing Mateen's father to Duke by the way; just the fact that they are both news segments.) Do we know the father's views on homosexuality? Are they the same as his son's?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS means that we as editors have to rise above the daily news cycle to determine what is and what is not encyclopedic. David Duke, as the former leader of the KKK and active U.S. Senate candidate who is clearly linked his campaign to Trump's, is quite different than the father of a mass murderer. If you want the more apt analogy, I gave it earlier when I mentioned Mark Foley, who is appropriately not mentioned at that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[BLPVIO portion of conversation removed — the editor's concerns are noted, but this is not the place to discuss these sorts of questions about non-notable people] - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely should not be included. NOTNEWS, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems at least as relevant, if not more so, as the references to Don Black, Jared Taylor, and Andrew Anglin at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.CFredkin (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Accepting that at face value, and noting that relevance is not the only criterion for inclusion, that would make the references to Don Black, Jared Taylor, and Andrew Anglin on the Trump campaign article at least as inappropriate, if not less so, than the proposed content here. I'll take a look there, as anybody concerned about our standards might want to apply them to the Trump articles as well - Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Followup, I did just that.[17] My position here is that a one-way endorsement by a person to a campaign, that the campaign doesn't support or encourage, is just political fodder and not relevant to the campaign. Let's see if that holds. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the fair comparison is to David Duke. Will you want to remove that from Trump's article too?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No, though I would perhaps shorten that per WP:WEIGHT. The issue there is not that Duke endorsed Trump but that Trump, when given the opportunity to distance himself from Duke refused to do so. The encyclopedic content isn't Duke's endorsement but Trump's actions. There are plenty of mainstream reliable sources that Trump is cultivating support from white nationalists, and that his refusal to distance himself from them is related to his campaign. There are no such sources about Clinton cultivating support from whatever Mateen represents, perhaps anti-American immigrants or parents of mass murderers, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I take your point about Weight from RS. However, both Mateen's father and Duke are hate speech peddlers. Both have been disavowed by Clinton and Trump. It's the same thing.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s Please point to a reliable source that says Mateen's father is a hate speech peddler, or retract it. It's a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 12:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon removed it! Can you please restore it? This is out of control. His father thinks "God will punish those involved in homosexuality". That is homophobic hate speech.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sourced or not, it's hard to think of anything more hurtful to a living person whose possibly gay son recently died in the course of carrying out a mass murder than to speculate idly on whether or not the parent is homophobic. The harm comes from world events, not Wikipedia, but we're writing an article about a presidential election, not somebody's personal tragedy. It does no good to amplify this kind of stuff here. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think redacting my comments was inappropriate. It is a fact that the father said those words. It is a fact that those words are homophobic. As far as I know, there is no reference saying that he ever apologized for what he said. So, those are his views. Those views are homophobic. There is absolutely no need to hide his homophobia here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Double down often? Those are reasonable opinions and questions, but this is not the place] for talking about a private individual's problems. The more extreme options were deleting / archiving the entire thread again or asking for administrative intervention. I was going to ask about the propriety of this discussion at WP:BLP/N. On the other hand, we could just ignore it and let meandering off-topic conversation run its course, which tends to derail real work on the article. Anyway, you posted the link and anyone who wants can read it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's on topic. He's a hate speech peddler like Duke. Homophobia is just as damaging as racism. So, if we include Duke in Trump's campaign article, we should include this guy in Clinton's campaign article. Both have endorsed Clinton/Trump, both have been disavowed by Clinton/Trump. That is the point.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, he's a TV host apparently, not a "private" individual. And those are his words; it's a direct quote. He's not trying to hide his homophobia apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

FTIW, he did later backpedal a bit. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's still hate speech. He's saying "you're free to be a sinner", ridiculous. He thinks God will punish homosexuals--that's very homophobic hate speech. But the point here is that this is comparable to Duke's hate speech.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The point as I see it, is that your claim is essentially WP:OR, since the source doesn't appear to actually call it hate speech. TimothyJosephWood 14:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? If you replace gay with Jewish, would you still say it's not hate speech? He's free to say homophobic things, just like Duke is free to say racist things. But they're on the same level and we should treat them the same way for inclusion in the campaign article here.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If you replace gay with Jewish and say something akin to "Jews are sinners and do not follow God's righteous path, but their punishment will be delivered by God." ...Well... no. That's not really hate speech; that's pretty much how everyone of any religion feels about most everybody else who doesn't follow their tenants. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry--I don't think being Jewish is a sin punishable by God--neither is being gay. That's all hate speech, like Duke's racist views. Again, these people are entitled to their free speech, but we have established that both are peddling hate speech. So if we include Duke's endorsement, we should include this one too.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You may not believe that. Lots of people do. Unless you have a source calling it hate speech, you have not established that it is hate speech. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant to the campaign and has received widespread coverage and therefore should be included. The only problem is how to include it. Some editors think we should say "The father of a terrorist supports Clinton and backs her. What do you think of that?" But the reality is that the Clinton campaign did not know who he was (and we are talking about Democrats in Orlando) and put him behind Clinton in order to show that minorities supported her. TFD (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's received short-lived coverage and the only relevance is that a private citizen attended a public event. Clinton's opponents are trying to tie it to the campaign, but of course it's not working.- MrX 12:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How would you know Clinton's opponents are trying to tie it in, if there is no coverage in the media? Relevance btw is not determined by our individual assessments but by coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump talked about Mateen. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed he did. And the media covered it. TFD (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is so biased not to include this in this article. This is clearly left wing favoritism of wikipedia.--Broter (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It is "short-lived" in the sense that there has only been news coverage between Aug. 9 and Aug. 22. In a perfect world, the news media would not have reported it, for the reasons you mentioned. But they did and policy requires we mention it. TFD (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the media stopped reporting this around 10 days ago. Regardless, the ultimate decider of whether we include something in an article is editor consensus. Given that that doesn't exist here, you may want to start an RfC if you really think this material improves the article.- MrX 18:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, not yet another RfC. There's almost no chance there is going to be consensus to include this sort of fodder of the day. First-level controversies like Benghazi or emailgate that actually become part of the campaigning, sure. Second-level stuff like taking flak from Black Lives Matter and gay activists for not being fully onboard, sure. But the daily feed of outrage and gotchas from the opposition? No way, that would turn Wikipedia's political articles into something that is not encyclopedic. If it weren't for BLP, that sort of stuff might be worthy of inclusion in an article about the shooter or his father but it's just not significant to the presidential campaign overall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, many editors disagree with you. I too wish we didn't have to do an RFC. We could just agree to include it. But you really are not giving us a chance. Or should we remove Duke from the article about the Trump campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You have every chance to improve the encyclopedia. That's not going to happen by splattering the talk pages with a constant stream of unencyclopedic anti-Clinton proposals like this that don't have a snowball's chance of gaining consensus. I'll probably ask arbitration enforcement for guidance next time anybody launches another pointless RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started this topic. User:Broter did. I wasn't even sure it should be included until you convinced me otherwise with your zeal to close this topic. But we should probably have an RFC for the speech transcripts and now this. I think it would be much more constructive if we could just agree to add referenced info when a topic has been widely discussed in third-party sources. This is tedious, and it has a chilling effect on editing Wikipedia--making this so unpleasant and time-consuming we may become discouraged from editing Wikipedia at all. But it's not pointless to look for consensus. It's what we're supposed to do.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to start the RFCs right now to be honest. I am rather discouraged. If someone else wants to start them, go ahead.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar

@Zigzig20s:I've been feeling bad about this all day, Zigzig. I feel strongly about the content issues, but I can tell you have good, positive reasons for coming here, plus you've been very courteous. The encyclopedia can be discouraging. I think of the editing here like being a caterpillar hoping to become a butterfly. The result is great when it works, but the process to get there is pretty gut-wrenching. Not to stalk, but I see you contribute in a wide variety of content areas. Personally, some of the hot issues get too much for me too, but there are lots of really good things to do around here that don't involve locking horns with other editors: for me, writing an article about a local celebrity, a new invention, a company that became prominent, a kitchen utensil. Not to trivialize things but I am proud creator of Wikipedia's article about the lemon reamer. When you do come to the political articles, I've found that the best approach is to be kind, and sorry if I haven't been. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, User:Wikidemon. Indeed, I feel very hurt, discouraged and microaggressed by what's happened. I think we should have an RFC to hear from other editors because clearly we don't agree on this talkpage. The son killed gays; the father, a television host (not really a private citizen), has said what many members of the LGBTQ community regard as homophobic hate speech and endorses Clinton during her campaign, even attending a rally; it seems to me that we should include it with lots of third-party sources. We shouldn't dismiss homophobia as less nefarious than racism; that really makes Clinton look bad if her campaign does that. It's like we don't matter and we're not welcome in Hillary's America. The campaign should acknowledge homophobia and denounce it; he should have been removed from the rally. But I won't start an RFC if I'm harassed for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this up on our user talk pages, but I think it's useful to remind people about the importance of collegiality and respect. You make a good point that I don't think everyone realizes, that the father was at least in some measure a public person so his apparently homophobic views were more than a private family matter. I think the community would be resistant to more RfCs at this point, and unfortunately some people are annoyed by your approach here. It's a positive spirit to be sure, but you've directed the positive energy to highlighting various faults of Clinton that people are seeing as tangential matters and consistent with low-level politics. The veteran editors here have grown weary, and cranky, and somewhat impatient and intolerant, not from you, but from years and years of dealing with the same things time after time. Imagine there's a cheese shop with a very expensive, prize cheese, that will spoil after you open it. Everybody comes in asking if they can have a sample of the cheese, because that seems only right. But the shopkeep, who has worked there for thirty years, has had to explain day after day, year after year, that they do not give samples. Everyone tries to argue with him, that's bad customer service. How can they be expected to buy the cheese without sampling it? Maybe they're right. But he's just getting very tired of telling each new customer who comes in that they can't have a cheese sample. In my little analogy, you're the latest person who has come into the cheese shop asking for a sample. So the shopkeep isn't very friendly in his response. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade (strictly speaking, I am more of a "veteran editor" than you). If we need an RFC for this topic and the speech transcripts, we should have them. We shouldn't have to, because both issues come with countless reliable third-party sources, but it looks like it might be the only way to stop certain editors from acting like they own this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more reasonable and admit that, even if you don't like it, the amount of reliable third-party sources means we have to include it?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're gonna try to pull seniority than I've been here even longer than you Zig. And I know, and you know, that just because a source mentions something is not enough for it to be included. Especially in a BLP. This whole proposal is off-topic and very POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to User:Wikidemon re: seniority. I don't think seniority is an argument anyway, except to say that I shouldn't be snubbed the way I was in the cheese shop allegory. I think this issue is definitely on topic and it would be POV to exclude it from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How could anyone think this issue is off topic by the way? It is happening during the campaign; he endorsed her campaign and attended a campaign rally. The key word here is campaignZigzig20s (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I made assumptions, I really am trying to be friendly and you do come across as a new editor. You are certainly new to this specific set of articles as far as I can tell. If you're reading the cheese shop analogy as an insult you might try to develop a thicker rind. Sometimes we old timers have trouble adjusting to the much more restrictive, incremental, rule-based approach that started around 2008 or so. BLP was a strange wave across the encyclopedia. On the content point I admit nothing, the material is not suitable for the article in my evaluation. But could we please discuss that, respectfully, in another section? I just started this one to apologize for being harsh, express respect for you for your positive approach, and try to encourage other editors not to pile on or make things personal. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Other editors disagree with you and you do not own this article. And an RFC would make this even more evident.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Take it as friendly advice, I think you're substantially misreading the dial here. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Trump has yet another RFC. Why should Clinton be more equal? This is turning into a Streisand effect. I think you should just let us have two more RFCs without harassing us with the threat of "arbitration enforcement for guidance". You don't own this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to that. These are two different articles and two very different issues, but I have gone ahead and voiced some displeasure there too. I haven't yet checked to see if the RfC itself was hasty but it probably was. We're two months from the election. RfCs take a month. That's not a good way to get article details right in that timespan. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well then please let us add referenced info to the article about the speech transcripts and Mateen's father without RFCs! But that may be our only option.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it impossible to build and ascertain the presence of consensus without an RfC? Graham (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really because a couple of editors here think they own this article and won't let us add referenced content if they don't like it. The good thing about an RFC is that we get to hear from other editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus, and that's already ascertained both by the poor arguments in favor of the proposal and the lack of editor support. An RfC only takes us further off track. Ridiculous reflexive claims of article ownership, bad faith, flopping over imagined personal attacks, and so on, only compound the pointlessness of proposing content that is not viable. Normal process works fine if editors are actually listening instead of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've taken a liking to Zigzig20 as a nice spirit around here, but the bumbling approach to adding ridiculous content to this article isn't going to work. An RfC is just going to waste dozens upon dozens of editors' time that could be spent actually doing useful work for the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not alone. User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter agree with me. With an RFC, we have a chance to include the truth in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Face-palm. Okay, per WP:TRUTH. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are reliable sources. Why are you trying to hide the speech transcripts and Mateen's endorsement?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Continued

This discussion has lost its way a bit. It is important to remember that this individual is not notable. Notability is not passed along to family members, so this guy was basically just a private citizen attending a rally. Besides, this has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign whatsoever, so this wouldn't even be the right article to discuss it. And I still strongly object to copy/pasting whole paragraphs of disputed material that may be a BLP violation, regardless of comments about talk page protocol. BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And where exactly is the copy pasting of paragraphs of BLP violations? TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a guilt by association problem in the text at the top of this section, which you put back. It associates the non-notable father with the murder of 49 people. I think that's a pretty clear BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How exactly? As I said way far above, a claim that this is a BLP violation means you need to go read WP:BLP. There is no BLP vio by association or insinuation. BLP does not mean saying something bad about someone; it means that claims about a living person should be supported by sources, which this is. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that this article violates WP:NOTNEWS, I am willing to nominate it for deletion. TFD (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: Will you nominate George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and countless other articles about presidential campaigns as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, because we can now establish their historical significance. But if editors want to omit some aspects of the current campaign, such as the Mateen endorsement on the basis that they are current news, then the logical conclusion would be to delete the whole article. TFD (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we please just add the Mateen bit because Wikipedia:CENSOR?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR does not say "I get to put in any kind of nonsense into articles I want. Into BLPs too". WP:CENSOR is a *warning* that material which some might find objectionable may be present, it is NOT a *license*. It specifically says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies". Which is the case here. So the answer is no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This content would not violate any policies. He's not a private citizen, he's a television host apparently. His son killed gays and he thinks homosexuality is a sin and endorses Clinton for POTUS. We should include all of that.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy based reason to remove Mateen. His appearance was noted by the press because the campaign placed him in a favored seat behind the candidate and (apparently) failed to recognize him even though it was in Orlando. Clinton's main opponent also noted it, which again was reported in the media and ironically he had another controversial person sitting in the same seat. Should the media have noticed it? Maybe not, but they decide what is significant, not us. TFD (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: Would you like to start an RFC please? That seems like the only way out of this conundrum.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

First we need to determine a fair wording. As a first draft I suggest, "The campaign attracted embarrassment when the father of Omar Matteen, who had killed 49 people in June, was apparently unknowingly seated behind Hillary Clinton by her campaign staff in her appearance in Orlando. Several days later, Donald Trump criticized her for this in a rally, but ironically had a disgraced former congressman seated behind him as he spoke. TFD (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"49 members of the LGBTQ community". Also why are we not allowed to say the father believes "God will punish those involved in homosexuality" (sic)?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Because why would the candidate be responsible for the views of a person at a rally? Nobody's suggesting that Trump is okay with sexting teenage boys. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to bring up Foley; it's old news and my understanding is that there was no criminal charge. So perhaps this text for RFC? "The campaign attracted embarrassment when the father of Omar Mateen, who opined that "God [would] punish those involved in homosexuality" after his son had killed 49 members of the LGBTQ community in the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, was apparently unknowingly seated behind Hillary Clinton by her campaign staff at her Orlando rally. He subsequently told the media, "Hillary Clinton is good for United States". Several days later, Donald Trump criticized her for this at another rally."Zigzig20s (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if Omar Mateen' comments are correctly translated or presented in the right context. One report of his comments is, "Only God can punish homosexuality. This is not an issue for humans to punish."[18] The first sounds like incitement to hatred. While Foley's resignation may be old news, that he appeared behind Trump his rally is not. Certainly he was not convicted of anything, but neither was Omar Mateen. And mentioning that Trump criticized Clinton without mentioning Foley was behind him which was well covered in the media, would be to tell half the story. Unless we present the story in a fair way, as the media did, it would be hard to get outside editors to agree to its inclusion.

Wait, was this translated? Does he not speak English?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

He wrote it in the Dari language on his facebook page. We must take extreme care if we quote him that the translation is accurate. It could be also that it is open to interpretation. TFD (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I did not know that. However, "Hillary Clinton is good for United States" sounds like his own words because it's in broken English?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. He said that to WPTV. I would just say that is a Clinton supporter. TFD (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think the translated quote means the same thing. Foley seems off topic but if the media think it's relevant, we could include it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind after reading all the comments here; however, it would need to be reworded significantly to avoid confusion. Something like this removes ambiguity:

Seddique Mateen, whose son Omar killed 49 people at a 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, attended a Clinton rally in Florida and endorsed her for president. Playing down his appearance at the rally, the Clinton campaign released a statement saying Mateen "wasn't invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event."

The quotes from Seddique Mateen do not seem to be of any significance here, so I have omitted them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That wording is better. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it should still not be included, simply because it's too minor of an event and one whose very mentions creates a POV problem. DUE WEIGHT applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I concede that WP:WEIGHT is an important factor here. It was widely reported at the time it happened, which would make one think inclusion was necessary; however, there's been no coverage after that initial blip. Therefore, I think WP:RECENT is a good guide in helping to determine weight. It's one of those things that if it was put in the article now, it would probably be cut out a bit later because of it being of little significance. So although I would be okay with it being included as I suggest, I'm leaning toward exclusion per WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also reaffirming my opposition to this content, regardless of how it's worded. There's no evidence that it has enduring value, and the understanding of the article's subject is not improved with this tabloidesque piece of infotainment. Are we writing a serious encyclopedia or Click-bait-y-pedia?- MrX 15:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, what is the POV problem it creates? Surely due weight means we "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to say he killed "members of the LGBTQ community", not just people. And why are we not allowed to say the father thinks God will punish homosexuals (sic)? Homophobia should not be downplayed. Secondly, why are we not allowed to remind readers this was the deadliest attack on US soil since 9/11? Finally, the recentist argument does not work here; it's a campaign, and by definition news-oriented. By the way, I am not surprised that Scjessey and others will not let us add anything remotely critical of Clinton. They are blocking the referenced info about the speech transcripts, too. That is why I want an RFC. To hear from other/neutral editors. Otherwise, User:The Four Deuces, we are wasting our time.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The translations are ambiguous whether he said God will punish homosexuals. In one translation the implication is that people should not attack homosexuals because judgment belongs to God alone. It could be that God is accepting of homosexuals, but S. Mateen does not presume to speak for Him. TFD (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's either "God will punish those involved in homosexuality" or "Only God can punish homosexuality.", both of which suggest he thinks it is a sin punishable by God, correct? That's seen by most members of the LGBTQ community as homophobic hate speech. We shouldn't censor that.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@TFD: When it comes to WP:WEIGHT, it is not just how much attention it has received in reliable sources, but also how much attention it has received in relation to other things in the article. Clearly, this was a BIG THING for 24 hours, a Little Thing for the next 24, and a no thing for the hours since. From a historical context, it turned out to be a transient thing that had no real impact on the campaign, if it had any at all. Any interpretation of WP:WEIGHT would suggest this shouldn't really be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Members of the LGBTQ community are people. If we decided to include this material, and I think it is clear the consensus is going in the other direction now, we do not need to unnecessarily label anyone. Also, I am not "blocking" anything. If you read a few comments above, I even suggested a possible text that would work. And for fuck's sake, enough with the abuse of RfCs. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Based on WP:NOTNEWS, this one person attending an event, which was "breaking news" in the 24-hour news cycle, and then faded from view after, is not worthy of including in this article. There seems to be general consensus on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Many members of the LGBTQ community have felt micro-aggressed by Clinton's association with Mateen; as far as I know, she hasn't even apologized for it. Clearly we need an RFC to avoid pro-Clinton bias here. But the RFC shouldn't deny the homophobia. The LGBTQ community are not second-class citizens.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) There's nothing for her to apologize for, (b) please provide evidence for your assessment that "many members of the LGBTQ community have felt micro-aggressed by Clinton's association with Mateen". I call bunk on that. Besides, she has no "association" with him. He attended a rally that was open to the public. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu:There is no chance that the Secret Service didn't recognize him. They knew.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That statement is ridiculous. They don't vet the people coming in to rallies. They check for weapons and such, but they don't do background checks at the door. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you intend to back that up with a reference to a reliable source? Graham (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

He was right behind her. He is easily recognizable. They knew. But my point is that there shouldn't be a double standard on Wikipedia between allegations of racism (Duke) and homophobia (Mateen).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saying "they knew" doesn't prove that they knew. But no, Duke to Trump is not the same as Mateen to Clinton in any way. See yesterday's "alt-right" speech for more on Trump and racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Service professionals are not stupid. Of course they knew.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not watched Clinton's speech but her rhetorical feats are not facts. Mateen's attendance would be as if the Bin Laden family had attended a Bush rally. Sure, they are property developers who did not condone the attacks (as far as we know); but do you really believe the Secret Service wouldn't have noticed?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as far as we know, Duke never attended a Trump rally. So the Mateen association is even worse. Unless you dismiss homophobia as not important because LGBTQ Americans are seen as second-class citizens.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's speech was loaded with facts, using Trump's (and others') own words. I don't understand why you insist the Secret Service "knew", when it's so easy for them to have not known. And that last sentence of yours is too ridiculous to respond to, no matter how many times you type it. Fine, here's a response: Trump approves of white supremacists and their behavior, by retweeting them, saying essentially what they say, and not condemning them, while Hillary is a noted champion of LGBTQ rights. There. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump has repeatedly disavowed them. Besides, his own family is Jewish! Protip: White supremacists don't like Jews. Now, here's what most members of the LGBTQ community regard as homophobic hate speech, courtesy of HRC.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Graham (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Clinton campaign should stop insulting the Secret Service's intelligence. They are not stupid. They are highly skilled professionals. There is no chance that they did not recognize the father of the perpetrator of the second deadliest attack on US soil. What remains unknown is why the campaign thought it was a good idea to let him stand right behind her.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

… You didn't answer the question. Graham (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Which part? This is not a forum. I don't have time to talk to anonymous online editors endlessly. We are just trying to add Mateen's rally attendance and endorsement to the article, based on reliable third-party references and its impact on the LGBTQ community (since Trump's article mentions Duke's non-attendance but endorsement).Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please cite your source regarding the "impact on the LGBTQ community" of Mateen showing up at a HRC rally. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As you can see by the indentation, my initial statement was in response to this claim: "There is no chance that the Secret Service didn't recognize him. They knew." So I'm referring to your assertion that the Secret Service noticed and correctly identified him at the rally. But, for that matter, also what Muboshgu said, regarding "impact on the LGBTQ community".

You say that you "don't have time to talk to anonymous online editors endlessly", but you certainly have time to deflect questions you don't want asked. And for future reference, you'll want to ensure that any assertions you're making here are (or are able to be) backed up by reliable sources. Graham (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I apologize if I thought this was WP:NOTBLUE. I really did because even I would have recognized this guy, and I can't possibly be as smart as the Secret Service--I believe they are top professionals and definitely smarter than you and I. However, Seddique said he was invited to the rally, apparently by the Florida Democratic Party, so they can't have been surprised. If he was invited, was there not a guest list? Political parties always have guest lists for events. And does this mean they sent him an e-mail to invite him, based on a mailing list that they have? Security would have reviewed this mailing list.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When he says "invited", could that not mean that his name was on a mass e-mail list? The article in the National Post that you cited also goes on to say "'The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public,' a Clinton campaign official said. 'This individual wasn't invited as a guest, and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event.'" That tells us that your assertion that "Political parties always have guest lists for events." is absolutely untrue. On what did you base it? Did you read the article to which you linked? (Not rhetorical questions.)

Furthermore, none of that made any reference to the Secret Service, despite this being your attempt at proving your assertion about Secret Service. (And next time you're asked for a reliable source, it might best to find an article that doesn't begin with "Holy cow, this is EPIC" [emphasis in original].) Graham (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we ought to close some or all of this discussion, it's veering into speculation, conspiracy theories, and advocacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I think we should have an RFC to include that Mateen attended the rally. I know you don't want to discuss this but that is why we need an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

When all you can say is that HRC knew Mateen was there because the Secret Service is omniscient, I think that means it's time to close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No. We need to add referenced info to the article about this, and stick to what the reliable sources say about Mateen's rally attendance and endorsement. Do LGBTQ lives not matter?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your attempt to manipulate the subject matter with odd statements like those don't matter. But again, Mateen's presence at the rally fails inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We've addressed this before. The entire article is news-oriented, as it's about the campaign (which is a series of events). I know you don't want to include this. That is why I suggested starting an RFC, to hear from other editors. Why are you blocking the RFC? Trump has an ongoing RFC right now by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Mike Pence said, "The father of the very radical Islamic terrorist who murdered 49 Americans attended the rally, was on television through most of the rally sitting behind Hillary Clinton, and he said he was there because he supports Hillary Clinton, because she’s, quote, good on national security.".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seddique said, "I was invited".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have expressed your desire for an RfC. You have been able to see that that view is not shared by most and that consensus to hold an RfC does not exist. This would be a good time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Graham (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the RFC is to hear from other editors, otherwise we wouldn't need to start an RFC. But sure, he was invited to Clinton's campaign rally and endorsed her campaign by saying she was "good on national security" during her campaign, shortly after his son had committed the second worst terrorist attack on US soil by killing members of the LGBTQ community, and this is all happening during the campaign. Why would we need to add this information to the article about Clinton's campaign? Silly me. Meanwhile Duke never attended a rally but hey, let's definitely add his endorsement to Trump's article. This bias does not make Wikipedia look bad at all. I think there should be an RFC as User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter suggested, but I'm not Joan of Arc. Zigzig20s (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I speak for all of us when I say that we are aware of your position on the matter. Graham (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And starting an RFC would lead to more editors coming to terms with WP:NOTCENSORED.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 27 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.