Talk:Political positions of Hillary Clinton

Questionable Wall Street Reform Section

I think it's a bit strange that the section on wall street reform is just one sentence of a link to her proposals and another sentence mentioning she's been criticised. That second sentence should be relatively speaking (i.e. as opposed to Bernie Sanders, and not written in the passive voice, with more direct mentions of what she proposes. As of right now, the section reads as if someone just put it there to criticise her, which I don't think is consistent with the topic of the article, which are her political stances. Joetheshmoe (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Need for Democracy section

added some recent material on the whole government accountability/transparency/secrecy issue; as the secondary sources were relating this directly to Democracy, I started a new section entitled exactly that; I don't know whether some of the subsection Civil Liberties - Government Secrecy should be merged; but Democracy is perhaps the best place for this info, since transparency, accountability, participation etc are such fundamental democratic concepts. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First, there's no need for a separate top-level "Democracy" section, as Clinton's remarks re the cables leak fit well under the existing "Government Secrecy" subsection. The idea of the "Political positions of X" articles is to have as few top-level sections as possible; most only have three (social, economic, foreign policy). Second, Chomsky's opinion that HRC hates democracy is irrelevant here; it might be an addition to the article on Chomsky, but it has no bearing on what HRC's stated positions are. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think 'Government Secrecy' is not an ideal heading. I think position on Democracy is pretty important ?enough to warrant a top-level section?. Accountability, transparency are fundamental democratic concepts. This is quite indicative of HRC's views. And a leading commentator has encapsulated the issue eloquently in the secondary literature. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the top-level section to be "Civil liberties and democracy". But to your greater point, accountability and transparency may be fundamental democratic concepts but like all other such concepts, they have to be balanced against other interests. There are limits to free speech (libel, slander, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre), there are limits to participation (you have to be a certain age to run for different federal offices), and there are limits to transparency (there are bad actors out there and free nations may be imperiled unless they hold some secrets). That HRC has a 'bitter hatred of democracy' is just the opinionated statement of a very opinionated man, and the "Political positions of X" articles are not intended to debate the issues included in them nor to include all the opinions about X. They are just to present X's views. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and amendments to the article, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Easy on the deletions, please!!!

@CFredkin: Instead of summarily deleting content, please use the {{Citation needed}} instead, for any content that is not controversial. Please respect the work of others and use your time to improve the article rather than decimate it by multiple consecutive deletions. Cheers. Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note that deadlinks are not a reason for deleting content. Use the way-back machine if you are interested in verifying deadlinks. I would argue that your attitued here is not constructive. Please stop these deletions and instead spend your time researching sources. You are bordering in WP:TENDentious editing Cwobeel (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored most, if not all the content that was deleted. Please consider adding the {{Citation needed}} template instead of deleting, as this gets tagged with the appropriate category so that articles lacking citations can be addressed by editors using WP Cleaner as well as some WP bots. Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel here. Per WP:LINKROT, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." So, to pick just one example, CFredkin's deletion here with edit summary "Rm statement not supported by source provided" is inappropriate, even if you can't find an active online version of the source. Furthermore, as Cwobeel points out, in less than a minute you can often retrieve the source from the Internet Archive, in this case right here, and verify the cite; and with a little more effort, you can update the cite to the archived version. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Campaign pamphlet?

The current "article" at this point looks mainly like a campaign pamphlet -- with no 'balancing of the "positions" at all (five sentences or so for "criticism" in an article of roughly 8K words is not a whole lot) , nor any discussion of the positions. Is there a reason for this based in Wikipedia policy? Collect (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When these "Political positions of X" articles started appearing in 2006 and 2007, mostly for candidates in the 2008 presidential election, the idea was that they would provide space to describe the views and stances of X in some detail, often via a quotes from X's speeches and position papers or via longer-form news accounts. If significant news sources described X's views as vague or contradictory on an issue, that could also be included. If X's views on an issue changed over time, that would definitely be included, often by presenting those views in dated, chronological sequence. However criticism of whether X's views were "correct" would not be included. So, for example, if X initially spoke out against the Iraq surge, then later started making statements saying that the Iraq surge had been a success and implying that they had really been for the Iraq surge, it would be appropriate to include both sets of statements about the surge as well as RS criticism that X had shifted his or her views on it as events happened. However it would not be appropriate to include general arguments about whether the surge was or was not a good idea or whether it did or did not have a short-term impact or whether it has had or has not had a lasting effect. Descriptions of those debates should be left to the articles on the Iraq surge itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If this were generally true - one thing. But it is not, and there are plenty of silly season attack pages on politicians overall, and thus we really should simply enforce WP:NPOV as policy -- hagiographic articles on some politicians are contrary to Wikipedia fundamental principles. Collect (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, the initial idea was that each of these articles would, by definition, be X-centric, but that doesn't mean it would be a forum for either attacks or hagiography or that it would violate NPOV. There has been some concern that in practice – as you can see by looking through Category:Political positions of American politicians – those political figures getting these articles have mostly been candidates for president in the last few election cyclces, but that kind of recentism and electoral focus tends to come with the territory in WP. Maybe it would help if you could specifically point to a few of the sections or passages in this article that you think are hagiographic. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Other political positions articles are similar in structure and content, so I don't know what the problem is

• Political positions of Mitt Romney
• Political positions of Sara Palin

Neither of thhose, or this one are hagiography. Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Palin one starts off with Despite attending a Pentecostal church which supported abstinence from alcohol which is more than all the entire criticism in this article. Then During a debate for Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin said she was a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in the Alaska public schools. The following day she said: "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum", and that she would not push to have it added.

Thanks for showing us that the other articles are not just expositions of their opinions. Yet this one is absolutely criticism-free (I think there are a couple of sentences which someone could call "criticism" at most) Two minutes later, she recanted the position and blamed the Bush administration for not passing immigration reform is about as tough as this article gets on Clinton, and even then it seems to criticize Bush more. Cheers -- I love it when folks prove my point so clearly. Collect (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And when you are done fixing it, fix also Political positions of Mitt Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- the rule is that when one finds one article not meeting policy requirements, we deal with that article. Which means it is this article which needs balancing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, WP:IAR. In any case, as it is you who found this article to be an hagiography, you can start by suggesting ways to improve it, and doing the work required to fix it. Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think the first Palin excerpt is appropriate to the purposes of these articles - it's a "gotcha" wording intended to find some contradiction between her religion and her public stances. It would be better to quote Palin in her own words describing the relationship or lack thereof between what her church believes and what she believes and what actions she takes as a public official. Many politicians have done this, going back to JFK at least. As for the second Palin excerpt, it's incoherent to me - I have no idea what the "it" in the second sentence is referring to.

As for 'balance' in general, again that is not the purpose of these articles. By definition, every non-trivial stance that a politician takes brings criticism from people who have an opposite stance. To take just one example, where the current text says "On November 13, 2005, Clinton said that she supports the creation of the West Bank barrier, stating: 'This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.'[47]", we could follow that with thousands of words from all those who think that Clinton was wrong and that the barrier really is against the Palestinian people and that its construction only encourages more terrorism. Then we could follow that with thousands of more words from people who say no, Clinton was right, and the barrier really has reduced terrorism. It would all be pointless. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where it is clear that "different rules apply to different people" and WP:NPOV is not negotiable, then WP:NPOV applies here. I note that I was not the one who used Sarah Palin as an example. Or do you feel some people are different from others? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why to harp about it? If you believe this article is not NPOV, then fix it. Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Just one question. I looked closely at Mitt Romney's article and compared the political section to Hillary Clinton. Now I dare not change it but with all due respect, clear something up for me will you? Romney's article (which also has a star) is stating his political positions much more than the HC article does. Basically the whole section of Political positions is about placing her on a Political compass, rather than talking about her actual policies. Now I do realize that she has a long career and I do not wish to be for her or against her, but shouldn't that section be a bit longer and the part where studies found her to be on a Political compass a bit shorter. It would be nice if her major policies were in the main article. One other thing (I may be pushing it now): shouldn't there at least be a mention that she changed her policies on number of issues, including LGBT, civil rights, Wall Street, Health care etc. Just putting it out there. Any replies are welcome. P.S.: I dare not to edit the article myself. TheAce11912 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Women's Rights

How is the fact that she gave speech called "Women's Rights are Human Rights" a political position? Likewise the No Ceilings Project?CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people around the world disagree with the proposition that women's rights are human rights, or that women should have equal rights as men, or that women should have full rights no matter what particular religious doctrines might hold. So it's definitely a political position. The No Ceilings Project shows that she continues to act on that speech and that proposition. And there's a quote that could be added from the WaPo source for that: "She said that equality for women 'remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century'". This is a non-vacuous stance, since there are plenty of people who think that other things are more important unfinished business (climate change, economic justice, free market economic liberty, the fight against terrorism, whatever). So I think this is a valid entry. And past practice for these "Political positions of X" articles has been to give wide latitude for inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent quote

I removed the quote about corporations and businesses and job creation, per WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS. If this quote resonates later on, it can be added with the necessary context. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether the quote "resonates" or not. These 'political positions' articles often include stances on specific issues that don't get much press, but are still important if the person is (or could be) in office. Instead it's a matter of whether the quote accurately reflects what the person's stance is, or instead is a case of misspeaking or careless enthusiasm in a partisan setting. I agree that the jury is out in regard to this particular statement, but I suspect that some editors will want it included anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "stance", and there is no context for the quote. The right-wing media is all over it, surely, but it is not a relevant quote. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The "right wing media" are not the only ones discussing it. Even Huffington Post discussed it.Sy9045 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The full context of what she said is this:

"Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what we want to see across the country.

And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly.

One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't add up. Now that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha [Coakley] understands it. She knows you have to create jobs from everyone working together and taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to work."

There are three things here. One, this is definitely a political position in terms of what she views as the positive value and effect of the minimum wage, and as such merits being included here in this article in that context. Two, it's a political position regarding the negative views she holds about 'trickle-down economics', although use of that phrase generally tends to bring more heat than light. And three, there is the curious statement "And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs." That statement is obviously false on the face of it. What she probably meant to say is that cutting taxes at the top bracket levels doesn't cause corporations and business to create jobs. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite what the right-wing echo chamber is trying to do with this quote, let's not forget the full context of her remarks:

Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what we want to see across the country. And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly.

Do you see how context matters? The text in the article needs to reflect not only what Clinton said, but the context including the order of her comments. I will correct in the article.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not follow Fox News' (parroting the Washington Free Beacon) example of describing this quote as "businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America". We should let the material as is and let our readers interpret it any way they want to. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Even MSNBC called the quote "progressive" and isolated it from other parts of her speech (see http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-im-elizabeth-warren). I don't know why following an even more neutral example (where "progressive" or other subjective terms are not even mentioned) is suddenly "right wing" propaganda.Sy9045 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Who said that it was propaganda? I was mentioning how the some media outlets took a quote and transform it into something else. - Cwobeel (talk)

@Sy9045: I don't think your edit is useful at all[1], because it breaks the cadence of her words and it seems as if these two statements are separate, when they are not. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, with comments like "right-wing echo chamber" and blaming "Fox News" for her own quotes, you've proven that you are not an objective source and should quit editing this page.Sy9045 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My bias is my bias and I own it for sure, but that does not preclude me from editing this article, like it does not preclude you from editing this article for the same reason, see m:MPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your concern that the quote was too long, can be fixed simply as I did by providing link text that does not make these two different quotes. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR: She followed that quote by discussing corporations and businesses and their effects on job creation. Clinton did not "discuss" anything, she was speaking and said both things, now treated in the article as two different subjects, in the same breath. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the OR tag I added. Why don't we just put the quote in its entirety and without commentary? That way we let the readers decide for themselves. That was the initial edit, which was reverted on the basis that the quote was too long. But is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Transcript

Here is a transcript of her remarks. If anyone can find a way to paraphrase that in a manner that is neutral and that reflects what Clinton was saying, please propose. Otherwise, I think that cherry picking a quote and breaking it into parts for "effect", is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what we want to see across the country. And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't add up. Now that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha understands it. She knows you have to create jobs from everyone working together and taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to work.

The only problem with this edit is that it's not supported by the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

??? Of course it is. Can you read? - Cwobeel (talk)

Can you? There's no mention of the minimum wage in the source.CFredkin (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of shooting first and asking questions after, respect the work of other editors and ask before deleting content. It took less than 10 seconds to locate the second part of the quote. That is why we have {{cn}} for. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We've already discussed how you only have problems with deleting unsourced content when it's not you doing it. Now that you've actually added a source that includes the quote you'd like to add. I've edited the content to reflect the actual source.CFredkin (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are just trying to annoy WP:POINT, and I can tell you it will end up pretty bad for you if you continue, each and every POINTY edit you are making is recorded. As for your edit here, it is incorrect as the transcript shows she said these two things in the opposite order. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down and WP:AGF. WP:Verifiability is a key tenet of WP. We all need to provide reliable sources for our edits. It looks like on your third try you've been able to do that in this case.CFredkin (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

(Please note: I have removed the merge template from here, as it is meant to appear on the article itself so that more people can see it. The IP has proposed merging Hillary Rodham senior thesis into either Hillary Rodham Clinton or this page. All discussion should be centralized at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Merge proposal) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The content of this article does not seem sufficiently notable to warrant a page of its own. The details could be merged quite easily into the two above articles. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The thesis has sufficient reliable sources, and enough detail in reliable sources, that to summarize the notable aspects in anything other than its own stand-alone article, would be incomplete and biased. Also I am not comfortable with the shot-gun approach to the merge proposal. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. These "Political positions of X" articles are for policy stances that people establish while they are political figures. What an undergraduate in college writes in an academic setting as a senior thesis does not belong in such articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The standalone article is completely appropriate, and would not belong here in any case.Tvoz/talk 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Please continue this discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Merge proposal. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Syria

Hillary Clinton's interview in August with The Atlantic was one of the most in depth discussions she has given regarding her foreign policy positions (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/). It would probably be prudent to add a section regarding Syria in her Foreign Policy section for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.138.130 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead and do it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Move? Objections?

Now that the "base" article is at Hillary Clinton, any objections to moving this one to Political positions of Hillary Clinton? --В²C ☎ 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cato Institute as a source

I object to MrX's reversion of this edit because the Cato Institute's trade policy position is in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute is nonpartisan, and recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers political activity. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since their trade policy view is in line with the mainstream view among economists, it constitutes a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. - Jajhill (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The link to our Economics article does not seem to support your assertion. Can you show overwhelming (independent) sources that establish that Cato is widely regarded as authoritative on the subject of economics? So that we don't have to have this discussion on every page, you way want to join the meta discussion that I started at WP:RSN#Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs. - MrX 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a good edit, if you can find a source that is one step away then that should be acceptable. If the information is a good viewpoint then there should not be a problem finding another source. Jadeslair (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Our economics article does support my assertion, MrX. Specifically, number 2 on the list, because you clearly did not read it. I have expanded and added further links to that section to provide further evidence that this in fact the case. - Jajhill (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011144041/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012104904/http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/25/iraq_debate_moves_into_next_phase/ to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/25/iraq_debate_moves_into_next_phase/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Position on Brexit

Has she talked about her position on Brexit yet? If so, it should be added to this article. The Obama administration has an official position.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Political philosophy as described by others

I'm really not sure about the balance of this section. It may be valid to keep the opinions that say her political ideology leans right, as is a common take from highly critical pundits, but my concerns are:

1. overquoting Elizabeth MacDonald, a single source with lots of allegations,
2. sourcing mainly conservative critics (MacDonald and Joe Scarborough),
3. is Newsbusters a good, vetted, commonly used source for Wikipedia? (I haven't come across it before),
4. if we are to balance the section, how to even begin to select from the hundreds or thousands of articles by objective, liberal, or moderate journalists and pundits that a) contend allegations of neoconservatism, b) support them, and/or c) put forth alternative interpretations,
5. how much of any of the above actually belongs in this article at all, if we are to be completely objective and encyclopedic.

I did wonder about either deleting this section completely, or only including the data-driven measures. A reason to delete it that similar pages do not have this section at all (Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama, Political positions of George W. Bush). However, a reason not to delete it is that Bernie Sanders' page does have a similar section (Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders)-- the election has drawn a lot of attention to the candidate's 1) progressive and 2) socialist views, so they are fairly relevant.

A humungous difference is that Sanders' section does a great job of only including professional opinion-- experts on socialism. If we keep this section, I would advocate limiting it to similar opinions from academics, if possible. (In a cursory search, such sources seemed harder to find re: Clinton and progressivism-- there's mostly a ton of op-ed opinions.)

In sum: should we delete or balance? Alternatively, could it be moved to some kind of "criticisms" section? RachaelAMS (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This section has been pretty worthless ever since it was added last year. In particular, the opinions voiced about her by cable television bloviators are of no value whatsoever, even if they weren't so badly weighted and cherry-picked. Data-driven measures are good, with a preference for ones that report on three axes (social, economic, foreign) or at least two. I've been meaning to update the main article with more recent ones of these, and I've added a couple that you put in here, the Crowdpac one (although one axis, valuable because of it using fresher and different data inputs) and the On the Issues one (valuable because of some freshness, although I used their more meaningful two-axis 'Left Liberal' assessment rather than their one-axis 'Hard-Core Liberal' tag). I agree the professional opinions in the Bernie Sanders section you mention have value, although I don't know whether you'll find that here because HRC is a less interesting case in terms of labeling. The most compelling thing to isolate with her is the foreign policy views, although once anyone brings in the term 'neoconservative' there tends to be more heat than light. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the two cents-- this definitely needed another pair of eyes before taking additional action. It's interesting to hear how you'd approach selecting data-driven measures.

Even if we entertain keeping these opinions here and adding more pundit viewpoints, despite their questionable value, the page could go on for miles before even getting to the politician's actual platform stances. Especially without other opinions, it stands in the way of delivering accurate information and sets the article off from the beginning with a heavily opinionated tone.

I'm going to remove the opinions from pundits. If anyone can find some meaningful, scholarly based assessments on her political ideologies from experts on the topic of progressivism, perhaps the section can be resurrected in a form analogous to Sanders'. If anyone believes the pundit opinions belong on Wikipedia, they should at least be balanced with other viewpoints and probably placed on some other section/page under a 'controversy' or 'criticism'-type section-- though that would probably merit some further discussion. RachaelAMS (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708041813/http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html to http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html

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} 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Content from campaign web site

I've removed some content that was sourced to Clinton's campaign web site. I think it's reasonable to rely on reliable secondary source as a bar for inclusion here. Otherwise the article may ultimately become a mirror of her campaign web site.CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem with this article and other wiki pages on candidates' positions is that the candidates' positions (according to wikipedia) on most issues are non-existent, incomplete and focus on controversy. Reading this page, you'll have absolutely no clue what the candidates' stated position on most issues actually are. Nearly everything I added has been reported on by reliable secondary sources and when they do, they link to her website or factsheets released by the campaign. Those are after all her stated positions (which I would have thought was relevant for wikipedia pages on "Political positions of X"). To ask me or other editors to produce a secondary source for each edit is grueling and a complete waste of time and I'm frankly not going to do it. So the choice here is between (i) leaving the wiki article incomplete and confusing by omitting candidates' actual plans or (ii) allow edits that quote the candidates' directly. I think the removal of content leaves the article vastly inferior, and the reasoning behind it is poor.

As for your fear of the article becoming a mirror of her campaign web site, there's nothing to that. The article will not become a mirror of her campaign web site because (i) there is plenty of context missing in her policies; (ii) she will omit past positions that are not politically expedient; (iii) the campaign omits flip-flops if there are any; (iv) the campaign omits controversial positions; (v) her website will not explain that issues XYZ are controversial among groups QPR; (vi) not all policies and statements are notable enough to warrant a mention; and for many other reasons. If you check my edits, you'll see that I (a) avoided mentioning every policy on her website verbatim and instead chose to mention the most salient ones and (b) edited in context and secondary source material to fully account for her positions.

On a slightly related note: This is the second time that you radically alter a page on your own accord that I have edited and for yet again spurious reasons (removing research from the NAFTA page for reasons that did not make any sense). Shouldn't you seek consensus before removing lots of content, especially when its based on such dubious reasoning? In your slew of edits on this page, you also removed a bunch of other content for other equally poor reasons (you refer to a NY Post article as a reliable source, use an interpretation of her comments on Iran during the debate instead of her actual quote during the debate). I don't know the rules on wikipedia but I get the feeling that you're altering articles for POV and reverting edits for spurious reasons to deter others from editing. Either way, it's a nuisance and to the detriment of wiki content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A significant chunk of the content you added in this series of edits was cut/pasted directly from Clinton's campaign site. If you can't see how that's inappropriate POV pushing, then you shouldn't be editing here.CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it's inappropriate POV pushing to quote the candidate directly or describe the candidate's positions on the basis of the candidate's own words. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And please spare me your complaints about my edits to your POV pushing when you followed me here from Nafta (where you also engaged in POV pushing by inserting the exact same sentence 3 times).CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with these "Political positions of ..." articles sourcing positions to a politican's website. They are, after all, the person's positions, whether presented in a book, a whitepaper, an op-ed, a speech, an interview, a website, whatever. That's the whole idea of these articles when creation of them started back in the 2008 presidential cycle: to present in detail political positions beyond the usual sound bites of campaign ads. Now, positions given in any of these forums venues may be vacuous pablum, unrealistic promises, inflammatory rhetoric, motherhood and apple pie, whatever. That's up to the reader to judge; usually it's pretty self-evident. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User: Wasted Time R: So what's to prevent the candidate's entire web site from being pasted into the article? Are you ok with that? Or would you consider that to be WP:undue? If the latter, who determines how much content from the candidate's web site is appropriate to include?CFredkin (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be undue, and (lacking special permission) a copyvio. Entries have to fit within the general scope and size of these articles (some issue entries are one paragraph, most tend to be three or four paragraphs, in some especially involved entries you get up to ten paragraphs or so). The consensus of editors working on the article determines whether an entry is appropriate or not, same as everything else. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors will have to judge it on the same basis as they judge the relevance of any content. Just as every news story about a candidate doesn't merit inclusion, the same applies to the candidates' own statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That you still believe that my inclusion of five studies in the NAFTA article amounts to POV pushing (the sentence you refer to was inserted for each NAFTA signatory, three of them, with different stats for each signatory as per the findings of the study) illustrates that you're unfit to edit here. I thought it was a bad and honest mistake at first but it seems pretty clear to me now that you're out to sabotage wiki pages by inserting rubbish into them and deleting substantive content. I am not familiar with the rules around here but the higher-ups should check whether this is a pattern of malicious editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you restore the edits? How can we reach a resolution on this? What do the wiki rules say? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, @CFredkin:, @Wasted Time R:, and @Anythingyouwant:. I'm not knowledgable enough about the rules on wikipedia for a situation like this one. Is there a way to get a definite ruling on CFredkin's unilateral decision to ban the official platforms of the candidates as a source? I don't think it's right that a single individual holds up edits for spurious reasons, surely there are rules for situations like this one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: At a minimum, content that is copied from her web site needs to be attributed to her web site in the text.CFredkin (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Order: Policies for 2016 vs. her record on issues and old policies

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to list the candidate's current policies at the top on each issue, and then list her record and past policies below? As the article currently looks, most of the issue sections start with her oldest recorded stance or history on each issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2001 bankruptcy bill

I just removed a very confusing text that seemed biased, incomplete, and inconsistent with credible sources. I re-wrote the text, using the Washington Post fact-checker's account of the whole episode. My edit was then reverted. Can I kindly ask you revert it back to my version? This is how my text looked (note that it is wholly reliant on the WaPo fact-checker): Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2001, Clinton voted to advance a bankruptcy reform bill that would have made it more difficult for borrowers to discharge their debt as part of bankruptcy proceedings. Clinton stated that her vote for the legislation was contingent on the inclusion of provisions intended protect women, including allowing women to collect child support payments after the father has declared bankruptcy. Clinton stated, "I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing... I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform." The bill did not come up for a final vote that legislative session. When similar legislation came up again in 2005 but without the amendments added by Democrats in 2001, Clinton opposed the legislation.

This is how the text looked prior to the edit (note that only source used is a book by George Packer (seemingly only for one remark - which happens to be incorrect), a WSJ piece that briefly addresses this piece of legislation, and a Senate link showing who voted for/against the 2005 bill): Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2001, Clinton voted for bankruptcy reform legislation, supported by credit card companies and banks, that would have made it more difficult for borrowers to discharge their debt as part of bankruptcy proceedings. The bill did not pass at that time. Similar legislation was passed in 2005. According to George Packer in his book The Unwinding, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton helped pass this bill. (Of the three, however, only Biden voted for the final bill. Dodd voted against, and Clinton did not vote.) She later said that she would have voted no.

I object to the removal of the following phrase: "supported by credit card companies and banks".CFredkin (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping that (though I'm generally wary of statements that interests XYZ supported/opposed a particular piece of legislation, since support/opposition often shifts depending on changes that news reports miss + see contradictory reporting on which groups favor/oppose TPP/TTIP, Obamacare etc.). You could also add that women's groups supported the amendment and that consumer groups opposed the legislation, for consistency. Could you re-insert the text with your + mine interest group changes? Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia

Snooganssnoogans: I find it more than a little hypocritical that you claim a statement made by Clinton at a foreign policy speech is "not a political position", after insisting that Trump's statement to the effect that Oakland and Ferguson are among the most dangerous places in the world is a political position. If we're going to categorize any statement made by Trump as a political position, then we should apply the same standard here.CFredkin (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

My position has never been "any statement made by politician X should count as a political position". I explain my rationale for the inclusion of Oakland and Ferguson on the other page. Not similar at all, except both politicians say inaccurate things (which was never my rationale for the inclusion of Trump's statement). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And so similarly, I think this statement by Hillary was highlighting the problem of violence in Bosnia and is therefore relevant here.CFredkin (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? Her political position on Bosnia is that it was inaccurately dangerous in 1996? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

She was talking about sniper fire to highlight the issue of violence in Bosnia at that time.CFredkin (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC) There's no difference between that and Trump stating that Oakland and Ferguson are among the most dangerous places in the world in order to highlight "a major problem (that there are cities in the US that are among the most dangerous in the world)".CFredkin (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You believe that it warrants a mention that Clinton highlighted the issue of violence in Bosnia a few months after the conclusion of the Bosnian War (i.e. her political position is that violence was a problem in war-torn Bosnia)? The sole reason why you want that on the page isn't that it's an embarrassing quote? Give me a break. It's an embarrassing lie and she's right to be attacked for it but there's absolutely no political position whatsoever to gauge from it (Bosnia was violent in 1996?) and it has absolutely no belonging on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm a new user to this page, but I also agree that the Bosnia section doesn't belong in her foreign policy positions. I agree with Snooganssnoogans that it's a bad quote, but it doesn't express a foreign policy position. I think the Bosnia snafu (if it were relevant enough) would more properly belong on her personal page, and not on a page listing her political positions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is an unreliable source

The Daily Beast is a source that mixes news and opinion, writing pieces of mixed factual accuracy and quality. It's kind of like Vox (which we agreed not to cite on the Trump page). Here are some of the recent pieces that the author cited in the Brazil section has written (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/betsy-woodruff.html):

• "Animal Activists Go Apesh*t on Bernie"
• "China Billionaire Tried to Buy Hillary?"
• "Hillary Is the Jeb Bush of the Left"
• "Trump’s Supreme Court of Gay Hate"

Is this a reliable source to use for factual reporting on this and other wikipedia pages? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the Daily Beast is considered a WP:reliable source. It's won awards, it's under editorial control, it is cited by other sources: [2] [3], and they have taken responsibility for mistakes: [4].CFredkin (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think that the Daily Beast is generally acceptable. It is a good notch below sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post (I would prefer those two and comparable sources like Reuters and the AP in almost every case), but I think we can use the Beast. The overly clickbaity, horse-race, routine stuff we don't have to use, but that seems to me to be more of a scope-of-article/trivia/weight issue rather than a reliabilty-of-source issue. Neutrality^talk 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil Liberties/Democracy vs Social Policies

What is the rationale for lumping Civil Liberties with Democracy?

Personally I believe we should merge the "civil liberties" and "social issues" sections, leaving "Democracy" as its own section. Civil liberties and social issues are often intertwined, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. I would suggest having the sections labeled as "Social issues and civil liberties" and "Democracy and governmental structure" so as to be more clear.

Any objections or insights into the reason the page is currently structured as it is? Thanks!

Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Systematic removal of content

I've reverted a series of edits that include a number of instances of removal of reliably sourced content. Per WP:BRD, I believe the edits should be discussed here and consensus reached before the edits are restored.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the edits were controversial while others were clearly not in my view (the user made good corrections to biased language on several occasions, and the one scribbled-down note of a late friend about Clinton's position on healthcare comes to mind as something that should never have been on this page). Surely you agree that they were not all controversial? It would be more appropriate to revert the specific edits that you feel are controversial and bring them up here rather than revert it all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Approaching them one at a time, I'm not sure why this particular commentary was removed. Third party commentary is included throughout this article and the corresponding article for Trump.CFredkin (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind this third party commentary. I think it gives undue weight to Volokh's view though. Surely his interpretation is contested among law professors and justices? It's a bit like adding one law professor's view of the constitutionality of Obamacare (contentious issue among legal folks). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't particularly like third party commentary on these pages, but I see how some might want it. I agree with the Obamacare analogy and think that there is probably a better way to include opposing viewpoints than a single professor's statement. You can find a law professor that will say anything, and just because he is quoted in politifact doesn't mean his opinion is notable enough to include in this article. For criticism I would probably look to a more reputable conservative think tank, or perhaps even the NRA. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

2) I think the offending "despite" can be edited out in lieu of deleting all the content here.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that we could say something like "Clinton's position on firearms has evolved since 2008, and she now supports..." I feel like such language is more neutral. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

But there isn't an evolution in positions as far as I can tell, just her emphasis during the 2008 primary on being more the right on gun control than Obama. This is how Mike Allen describes it in the cited Politico article: "Clinton was running for senator from New York at the time, and her message did not directly contradict what she’s saying now. In the speech, Clinton was talking about handguns, not hunting weapons like shotguns. But the contrast in emphasis provides a jarring reminder of how times, messages and circumstances change during campaigns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, thank you for the correction. I had actually gotten the article confused with a more current one that I had open in another tab, so I retract that comment. :) In that case, I think a potentially less contentious way to include the same ideas as the old version would be something like this: "In 2000, Clinton emphasized her support for gun-safety laws, including giving a speech about handguns to the NAA. In her 2008 presidential campaign, she supported the right of rural Americans to own hunting weapons such as shotguns." Obviously that's something rough that I just wrote, but maybe the idea seems more neutral this way? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This source (already inline in the article) describes the shift pretty clearly....CFredkin (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I read to make my proposed sentence above. Since the Politico article noted that her two stances weren't inconsistent because she was talking about two different kinds of guns, I tried to make an example sentence that reflected that. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This is what that article says: "Clinton was running for senator from New York at the time, and her message did not directly contradict what she’s saying now." When running against Obama, she emphasized that she was more conservative on gun control than he was. That's not to say that she shifted her stance and became conservative on gun control. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think it would be more consistent with the source to say: "She made gun rights a part of her 2008 Presidential campaign, after highlighting the importance of passing "gun-safety laws" during her 2000 campaign for the Senate."CFredkin (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's going to be mentioned on the page, it needs to be made clear that she's not contradicting her prior positions. Otherwise the language that she emphasized gun rights in 2008 after trying to pass gun control legislation over 2000-2008 will imply that she made a drastic flip-flop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the sentence I proposed above, which would replace the text in dispute, is accurately and reliably sourced. I'm not sure that I understand your objection.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your sentence implies that she flip-flopped and reads as such to nearly everyone (see above how one editor immediately assumed that she flip-flopped due to how it was phrased). As Mike Allen clarifies in his article, there is no shift in her position. For clarity, it needs to be mentioned that there was no shift in position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, since that's what the source says.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed then. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

3) I'm not sure why this content (and its reliable sources) were removed here.CFredkin (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the first version seemed accusatory in tone (ex "reporters have questioned... if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy"). I think the second one is more neutral. However, if we want to incorporate information from the source (which I haven't read) then I'm sure there are neutral ways to do that. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the corresponding article for Trump is chock full of 3rd party commentary like the sentence referenced above. If it's a problem here, then we should remove such references from Trump's article as well.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support that, though I haven't had time to make many substantial edits to the Trump page yet. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. But I think this content should remain in, until there's movement to make that happen.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

4) I don't believe this should be removed unless we agree that similar statements should be removed from the corresponding article on Trump.CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

5) This content is well-sourced and widely reported.CFredkin (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's basically a report of scribbles by an at-the-time-deceased person: "At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare". It's basically hearsay from someone who is not around to explain what she actually heard. This is not even a person's transcript of a speech but the person's own summary of what was said. The notes could be exaggerating, she might have misheard, Clinton might have been spitballing ideas, Clinton might have been playing Devil's Advocate, Clinton might have been referring to specific proposals that she agreed/disagreed with and so on. There's no need to decipher a note from twenty years ago by a deceased person in order to gauge her position on healthcare. That alone should warrant removal, but I'd also point out that the source is the Washington Free Beacon, an unreliable source. This Washington Post blog is just relaying the four things that the author believes Republicans will use to attack her on ("a look at the four things from the piece that you are likeliest to hear about again in the future — either anecdotally in other stories or as part of GOP criticism of the likely 2016 White House hopeful"), so it's not as if the Washington Post news team is reporting that these scribbles of the Washington Free Beacon as trustworthy findings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the other points (1-4), but as to this fifth point, I agree with everything Snoogans said above. This literal cocktail-napkin scribbling is not meaningful; it's gotta go. Neutrality^talk 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This source seems better than a napkin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that op-ed is referring to. It doesn't cite anything for its claims that HRC have said XYZ and Thorpe said ABC recently (are they referring to economists' legitimate criticisms of Sanders's specific healthcare proposals?), and their recollections of a conversation in 1993 is just hearsay. Again, there's no need to decipher 25 year-old individual recollections of what may have been said in meetings to gauge her official position on healthcare over the same period. This is not Socrates's or Hammurabi's page, we don't have to rely on cryptic contemporary hearsay. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, that additional source I mentioned is better than a napkin. It can be a starting point for any editor who wants to learn more about the issue. It discusses both HRC and Thorpe at considerable length, and keep in mind that a Thorpe study on single payer was explicitly cited by Hillary Clinton in a debate with Sanders on Feb 4 of this year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

But it still just amounts to hearsay from 25 years ago. Ask two people to listen to a HRC speech and they may interpret the content of the speech differently, even more so if they're recalling the speech 25 years later. I just don't see any reason why it belongs on this page for that reason alone. That the authors of the piece also criticize Clinton in an unclear and unsourced manner also raises alarm bells with me as for how they interpret her current position on healthcare (and consequently also how they recall what she said 25 years ago). That we have endless official statements and reporting on HRC's position on healthcare over the last 25 years makes it completely unnecessary to add hearsay of any type (even if HRC/Trump had no official statements on issues, I don't believe hearsay has any belonging - there is a book out there by a Trump associate that claims that Trump called blacks inferior and lazy, surely that has no belonging on Trump pages?). Ancient historians are forced to rely on contemporary second-hand sources to know what Socrates was all about (and place major warnings on the reliability of them), we don't for HRC's position on healthcare for the last 25 years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with not using the reference to Blair and the napkin. However, TheHill article that Anythingyouwant references above is reliable and clearly states that Clinton changed her position on single-payer.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"TheHill article" is an opinion piece by two individuals who are claiming Clinton said something to them in the early 90s. The opinion piece also lacks clarity and sources for a bunch of statements made in it (which raises questions about their understanding of both HRC's current and past position). Do you think the book by a former Trump associate that claims that Trump called blacks inferior and lazy belongs on his page or does your acceptance of hearsay shift depending on whether it suits your politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that we directly use the piece in The Hill in this article. I said it's a good starting point for any "editor" who wants to investigate the matter some more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a third story about it. Now we have Goldman, in addition to Himmelstein & Woolhandler, plus Blair, all saying via reliable sources, the same thing about single payer and Hillary Clinton's willingness to support it. Cumulatively, it's worth mentioning in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant raises a good point as well. If multiple, reliably-sourced parties claimed that Trump had made disparaging remarks about blacks, then I think an argument could be made that it should be included in a relevant article.CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to propose this statement to replace the reference to Blair: Multiple individuals have claimed that Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. in private conversation, but in some cases she indicated that she didn't believe such an approach would be politically tenable.CFredkin (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just edit it slightly: "Multiple individuals have claimed said that Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. in during separate private conversations with them, but in some of those cases she reportedly indicated that she didn't believed such an approach would not be politically tenable."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Those edits look fine to me. Any input from other editors?CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"multiple individuals" is far too vague. Neutrality^talk 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The specific identities can be footnoted. But maybe this sounds less vague: "Reportedly, Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. during multiple private conversations, while sometimes indicating that she believed such an approach would not be politically tenable".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we may have the basis for a consensus. I'm planning to undo my recent reversion in the article shortly and then will attempt to reflect the discussion above.CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In making these changes, I also restored the reference to Blair until we can reach consensus regarding how that topic should be handled.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Where do I begin. First of all, labeling this talk section "Systematic removal of content" is kind of insulting and funny. What is this system? Is the system Wikipedia? Ok, perhaps we should name this section "systematic restoration of content"? Is the system my reading of the article, and making changes over several hours? Scandalous. Why is it removal of content? I actually added a lot. Right off the bat this smells like ownership to me. I don't need your approval when material is poorly sourced or contentious. Disputed material stays out, not in. A lot of these changes were trivial, but you reverted them all, indiscriminately. If you would like me to go through and explain in more detail each one, I can do so. But you've restored many dead links and arbitrarily reverted mundane improvements in wording and specificity. My main purpose in going through the article was verifying the information was in the source. You shouldn't be restoring something if it is impossible for me to verify. But then again, doing something more than a rollback, is harder, right? 159.1.15.171 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: thanks for reverting a day's worth of changes without so much as a note on my talk page. I bet you were hoping I wouldn't come back and check. Sorry to disappoint you. 159.1.15.171 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are my responses to the numbered issues listed here:

1. What happens in the Trump article does not matter. This article is about the political positions of Hillary Clinton. There are literally dozens of topics on this page, and hundreds of minor positions. We are not here to debate the effectiveness or justice of each position. We are here to state each position. Anything else is unnecessary bloat. Should I go through and add a bunch of stuff saying "senior economist john doe thinks this is an amazing idea" or "this governor agrees that this will work well"? Well then we have to balance that with people disagreeing, right? Analysis needs to be kept out. Perhaps links to other articles which cover the material in more depth would be appropriate, but inline debates could go on endlessly, and so should be kept out.
2. "She made gun rights a part of her 2008 Presidential campaign, despite her previous attempts to introduce strict gun-control laws at a federal level." This sentence is clearly phrased as a "gotcha". Let's look at the sources. The first says, "She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith 'is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.' " And the second: "...she said that 'one of the reasons I am running for the Senate' is that 'we need a comprehensive plan to stop gun violence.' ... Clinton was running for senator from New York at the time, and her message did not directly contradict what she’s saying now. In the speech, Clinton was talking about handguns, not hunting weapons like shotguns." This is why I removed it. She supports hunting. She wants to limit handguns. That's what the sources say. They do not say or even try to imply that she's a hypocrite because her views are complicated, as I described in my edit summary.
3. I assume you're talking about this edit. After including the full quote regarding Clinton's vote on the war and whether or not that vote was a mistake, a SECOND interview with David Letterman was unnecessary, and did not add anything more. "This material was reliably sourced" isn't enough reason to include something. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
4. WP:WAX again. What political position does this imply? That Obamacare is good? Bad? Not enough? Too much? It doesn't say. This article is about the political positions of Hillary Clinton. Our information needs to state a political position. This is not one. She got busted for a misstatement and her campaign admitted it. Great. That doesn't mean it gets added to every Wikipedia article about her.
5. The content was absolute trash. "Republicans jerk themselves off with a two decade old napkin". Oh yeah, let's add it to Wikipedia. Again. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in a reliable source is not itself enough justification to add something.

159.1.15.171 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I initially reverted all your edits on Friday, but then yesterday restored them and just rolled back the edits that are under discussion here. Per WP:BRD you should seek consensus for your edits here instead of just restoring them. Your comments above don't really constitute meaningful engagement in the discussion that's in progress.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Top image

I recently added an image of Clinton at a campaign rally since this article was otherwise image-less and I thought it was a good visual representation of her giving a policy speech. If anyone has a different image that they would prefer, feel free to suggest it. Hopefully later I can add a few more images to make the article more visually pleasing. Any thoughts and/or criticisms are welcome. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2010 interview with Vladimir Pozner

I've removed (see diff) a long-ish quote from a 2010 interview with Vladimir Pozner, a Russian journalist, in which Clinton tries to dispel the notion (widely held by the Russian public then, as now), that the U.S. is "out to get" Russia.

The inclusion of this quote here doesn't seem noteworthy to me (in other words, the proper weight to be accorded to it is zero). I believe this to be the case for several reasons:

1. The citation for this content is a transcript of the interview on the State Department's website. This interview (or at least this section of the interview) does not appear to have been the subject of any significant attention or analysis in the mainstream media. The editorial function of deciding what public statements are significant/illuminating as to Clinton's policies should be guided by journalists' and scholars' determinations.
2. This quote seems only weakly/indirectly related to Clinton's political views, and seems cherry-picked. The statement is essentially part of Clinton's public diplomacy as secretary of state; it isn't really a policy position. If we're going to try to explain Clinton's attitudes toward Russia, we have much clearer and more explicit statements on the subject, both in 2010 and currently.

--Neutrality^talk 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I don't think it's notable (this is standard SoS rhetoric about enemies) but could give insight about rhetoric towards Russia. I think it could be cut down and noted that Clinton, as SoS, insisted that US foreign policy was not out to get Russia, but that still feels like mundane SoS rhetoric that she could have said about any state. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a secondary source. The statement indicates her public policy view of Russia while she was SoS. We've included past positions by Trump in his article.CFredkin (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote that she voted for every trade agreement

I removed a quote from 2005 where she says that she voted for every FTA. We already mention that during her time in the Senate, she voted both for and against FTAs. We also mention her supposed rationale for supporting/opposing FTAs (which is also in the quote). It might be misleading to have that quote without clarifying that later that year, she voted against CEFTA. Not a big deal, but I think the quote can be skipped, because it's dated, duplicates content expressed elsewhere and might mislead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems misleading not to include her quote, but then state that she voted against CAFTA the same year. I believe the article states that later that year following the quote, she voted against CAFTA. I think that should prevent confusion.CFredkin (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is tendentious to provide a quote where she misstates her record unless reliable secondary sources have commented on it. It implies dishonesty when it could have been an error. In any case it leaves the reader confused because we have an incorrect statement by her without any explanation that it was incorrect. I find anyway that lengthy quotes just bloat articles and make them harder to read. Better to say which trade agreements she supported and opposed and where she has changed her mind. TFD (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is too big

Needs to be split into:

Foreign Domestic Social AHC300 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. According to the readable prose measurement, the readable prose size (i.e., text only, excluding images, references, external links, and HTML markup) is ~150 KB, which is not that large, especially if the material is well-organized. (Further copy editing could reduce the size even further).

A split would make it more difficult for the reader to cleanly navigate among topics. It also raises some problems in terms of classification (i.e., the line between "domestic issue" and "social issue" is rather thin? Where would trade policy go? Etc. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. The article is not too big and the policy information should be kept in one article for the sake of easy access for readers. Perhaps some things need to be trimmed and you can propose that here. I also object splitting policy topics into minute sections. Finally, edit summaries should not be considered optional for important articles such as this.- MrX 12:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for shortening the article. Trims and cody-editing acceptable as always if they are improvements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think if we need to shorten the article that it would make more sense to spin off articles about individual policies. Also, using summary style rather than lengthy quotes could greater reduce the number of words and provide greater clarity. Take Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Minimum wage. There is a lot of quotes but her position is not clear. I think she supports state and local initiatives for a $15 minimum wage, supporters a $12 federal minimum wage but would sign a $15 minimum wage if Congress passed it, and thinks these measures would reduce poverty without increasing unemployment. I am sure that there is a lot more to it than that, but it seems adequate for this article.

Also, a split between foreign and domestic policy is arbitrary, as each impacts the other, and domestic policy has a huge effect on other countries. I do not think readers would be served by having to look at two pages for an overview of Clinton's policies.

TFD (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

---

I'll continue to hunt for ways that we can sensibly trim. Neutrality^talk 07:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Barrack Obama has separate parts of his political positions. Since Hillary is most likely to win the presidency, I think we need to create new articles so it makes it easier for people to find what they want about her.AHC300 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

When she's president, then perhaps we can create articles about the policies of her presidency. Bear in mind, they will could vary considerably from her current or past political positions. TFD (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Haiti

Should the article include a citation from either the story in The Nation or from the more in-depth article at Haïti Liberté which includes the following citation: "The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.

To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and parliament, the State Department urged then Haitian President René Préval to intervene."

References

This took place in June 2009, which was during Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department (which started in January 2009 as mentioned in the lead). This seemed to me to be common knowledge, not OR. My write-up was surely imperfect, but this is a historical fact and should -- it seems to me -- be presented as such in Wikipedia. This was widely reported at the time (CBS news, columbia journalism review, etc.) Look forward to seeing how it will be appropriately integrated, as garment factories in Haiti are definitely a big foreign policy issue for HRC, as getting rid of the tariff on imported Arkansas rice was for Bill. The Clintons of course honeymooned in Haiti. SashiRolls (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The article in The Nation does not mention Clinton at all. Not everything that happened at the State Department or the U.S. government from 2009 to 2013 is a "political position of Hillary Clinton." This is likely improper WP:SYNTH, or even if not, then undue weight. Perhaps something could go in Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State or United States-Haiti relations. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that it belongs in United States-Haiti relations, but I see a user active on this page deleted it from there. SashiRolls (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

At least that user did not delete the Joseph-Anténor Firmin book I also added to the page, but this seems like pretty unencyclopedic behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Haiti is already mentioned and it says the Foundation has been criticized. But I do not think it is a political position. Clinton's political position is that the U.S. should do everything it can to help Haitians. Any greater detail belongs in the Foundation article. TFD (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm OK with that. By the way, Haiti is mentioned because I added it. :) What I think is unencylopedic behavior is deleting the information from US-Haiti relations (which was a cut-and-paste from a US government page according to the talk page). SashiRolls (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to begin the section that she supports aid to Haiti. Haiti is one of only two countries in the Americas that the U.S. provides aid to, and the only one where most of the aid is non-military. TFD (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. I've added language that makes clear that the Foundation has channeled a lot of money to Haiti without mentioning any of the influence peddling that the press likes to dwell on (Algeria, Boeing). Katz' article is not a hit piece, incidentally, he does make clear that the Clinton Foundation is one of the most successful NGOs in Haiti and debunks/dedramatizes the story about her brother being there for the gold mines. Still, US opposition to the Haitian parliament raising the minimum wage in Haiti is particularly troubling (at least to me). SashiRolls (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

CBPP evaluation of Clinton econ policy

Can't do a write-up on this at the moment. Leaving here for someone else or for me later to do: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/clinton-child-tax-credit-proposal-would-help-14-million-families-raise-15 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bill McKibben? Censored.

Content disputed by Mr. X and Snooganssnoogans from a member of the Democratic Platform Committee. Wow!

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed in September 2016, Bill McKibben was critical of the disparity between the Democratic platform, which calls for recognition of the "right of all tribes to protect their lands, air, and waters," and Clinton's silence on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 17:59, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

References

Why does one September op-ed rise to the level of inclusion in this article? Has there been anything said on this subject in the last six weeks? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, when someone doesn't agree with one of your edits, that doesn't mean it's an attempt to censor the material, so please don't make such inflammatory comments. The oped is not a suitable source for a presidential candidate's policy position, unless it has been cited by several other reliable sources. Please have a look at WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 22:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

one quick google search leads to other articles from less important sources than a member of the Democratic Platform Committee: Mother Jones, Counterpunch, NY Mag... also mention of how this story is being silenced at NPR [5]. Those who gatekeep the page should feel free to add this to Trump's political positions too, since he is an investor... smh at the continual bias... rather than reverting you COULD do a 2 second google search!

Also please see WP:RSOPINION to see why you are violating policy by reverting this content. SashiRolls (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

May I please restore the legitimate content now? I would like to replace "the issue" with a link to ReZpect our Water SashiRolls (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no. Either she has no position on this, or the position of the Democratic platform. We don't know. We do know she's running an election where there are many issues she's talking about, and this one may just not fit in to the campaign speech she gives in NC, FL, NH, etc. If and when she produces a position on this, we can include it. But as of now, we don't know her position for sure, and shouldn't suggest she's doing anything wrong by not voicing one. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Time to take a break. If the two candidates' silence on the biggest social movement in Native American history (other than the Trail of Tears) is not notable... well I guess it's break time. SashiRolls (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We're in the heat of a presidential election right now, and it's not a top issue in this election. I expect whichever one becomes president elect will eventually have something to say about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add Clinton's position on the Dakota Pipeline: write "she has not taken a position on the Dakota Pipeline" (if that's the case), cite a reliable source to back it up (e.g. not an op-ed) and put it in the appropriate sub-section. Very simple. That's how it works for most of the content on this page and Donald Trump's page. Do not add an op-ed criticizing her position. Present the position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you had given me two minutes I would have added a second reference. Fair enough. First the position, then the op-ed, showing that she has had 6 weeks to respond to Bill McKibben's call in the LA Times. That seems fair. SashiRolls (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Respond to some op-ed? Wtf? No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit does not reflect my proposal in the slightest. You also misrepresent the content of the sources. This is the campaign's political position per your sources and is the only thing that should be included: "“I think she believes that stakeholders need to get together at this point,” Podesta said. “It’s important that all voices are heard.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I responded to your call for a second source. Note that there is reference to McKibben's op-ed in the MJ piece as requested. SashiRolls (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't call for a second source on McKibben's opinion. Who cares about McKibben??? Present Clinton's position. McKibben has absolutely no relevance to this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is just becoming a pattern for SashiRolls. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS and disruptive editing, as well as failing to engage in good faithed discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(Also, it's ridiculous and clueless to yell "censorship!" in situations like this) Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dearest Snoog-n-Marek, please understand that I am not against you. I am trying to help you make this encyclopedia entry more complete. The absence of the Dakota Access Pipeline from the section "Environmental policy" might have led people to think that Wikipedia editors were deliberately ignoring one of the biggest stories in 2016 on one of the longest Wikipedia pages in history, which would have been an odd contradiction. So I added comment from a fellow with some environmental credibility according to WP: "He was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2013.[8] Foreign Policy magazine named him to its inaugural list[9] of the 100 most important global thinkers in 2009 and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.[10] In 2010, the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist"[11] and Time magazine book reviewer Bryan Walsh described him as "the world's best green journalist".[12]" But alas, you seem to be doing HRC the disservice of making her look like one who would condone censorship of any criticism published by such a "minor" figure. Oh well, if that's your plan... go with it... SashiRolls (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Soda tax

Snooganssnoogans changed, "Clinton dropped her position on soda taxes as a result of complaints by Coca-Cola." to "When was asked by Vox in October 2016 if the campaign still supported soda taxes, the campaign did not respond." ("piece doesnt say she dropped her support and it doesnt show that she dropped it due to coca cola pressure") The source is an article in "Vox", "Cola tried to sway Hillary Clinton on a soda tax."

The article quotes the vice president of government relations for Coca-Cola North America: "[W]e’ve confirmed that there is no continued conversation around beverage taxes today and in future engagements — campaign is not going to drive conversation here or weigh in further. Also, Jake Sullivan confirmed that they are not driving this from a policy POV. We’re also working on how to walk this back." Jake Sullivan is a senior Clinton campaign advisor.

The reporter then writes, "It’s also possible that Rumbaugh is exaggerating and Clinton still supports the tax. (I asked the Clinton campaign for comment on the exchange and the campaign's current soda tax policy position, and have so far received no reply.)"

Taking into account Snooganssnoogans' criticism, I suggest saying, "A Coca Cola executive later said that she had received assurances from the Clinton campaign that they drop the policy." I am open to other phrasing.

Just saying without explanation that Vox could not confirm the evolution in the campaign's policies provides no useful information. The article currently reads, "In April 2016, Clinton expressed support for taxes on sugary drinks, a policy opposed by Clinton's primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, who opposes such taxes and contends that they would violate Clinton's pledge not to raises taxes of families with incomes below $250,000." That is misleading.

TFD (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone going to engage on this question? SashiRolls (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The text that you propose is obviously more faithful to the article than the current text as modified with grammatical errors by Snooganssnoogans.SashiRolls (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't add every single "seems" and "appears" from reliable sources, so being faithful to the Vox article is besides the point. Wikipedia should reflect what we *know*, not what out-of-context e-mails *appear to suggest*. If you have problems with the grammar, please fix it rather than talk shit about me. It's also rich to hear that from someone who is unable to write texts longer than a sentence that don't read like a word salad, and has the poorest reading comprehension I've encountered on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromise position added: "A Coca Cola executive later said that she had received assurances from the Clinton campaign that they would no longer comment on the soda tax". SashiRolls (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No. No out-of-context e-mails between individuals of unknown familiarity to policy-making within the Clinton campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you propose a better formulation here and discuss with TFD rather than acting as a de facto gatekeeper by reverting. I will admit you probably know better than I do who works for the campaign, having added information that trickled down from the IAC-owned Daily Beast almost before it appeared and hours before the WaPo issued their cruft October 27 lead headline suggesting Wikipedia qua election guide for 2016... SashiRolls (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Unless the Clinton campaign changes its official position on the soda tax or numerous RS say that the campaign no longer favor a soda tax and its due to complaints from Coca Cola, there is nothing to add. As for your delusional conspiracy theories about me and apparently every other editor who doesn't let Venezuelan and Russian state propaganda inform every edit, I found the Daily Beast story because I actually pay attention to the news (unlike you, I don't get my news from fringe websites and state propaganda found on crackpot forums). I have no idea what you're rambling on about with WaPo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not a policy based reason for deleting information. We are supposed to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines not Clinton or Trump campaign talking points. TFD (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Poll of Israelis

The following sentence, unrelated to Hillary Clinton's political postions, was removed, but Snooganssnoogans added it back saying that "We" need to add perceptions of non-citizens to Clinton's page.

An October 2016 survey of Israelis showed that they strongly favored Clinton over Trump, 42% to 24%.

I will remove it again, and ask that Snoogansnoogans place this information somewhere more relevant, like in a file stored on his/her desktop. SashiRolls (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That a candidate is popular in a particular country is important context. We already allow foreign leaders' perceptions of candidates to be included in Political Positions articles, as well as how advocacy groups (e.g. NARAL) consider the candidates. It has bearing on the candidates' ability to put policies into action, and shows how the policies of the candidates align. It is, for instance, telling when Russians favor one candidate or the other. The poll of Israelis suggest that Clinton's proposed policies do not disturb Israelis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Then you would have to add her approval ratings in Palestine, Haiti (Cf. NYT reports of protests against HRC), Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela, Brazil, etc., no? This is fancruft and has no relevance to the article. SashiRolls (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have surveys on her approval ratings in those countries? If so, add them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The polls are irrelevant. However, I think we should add some info about her anti-Israel e-mails:

Shimoni Stoil, Rebecca (January 1, 2016). "New Clinton emails reveal critiques from Israel-bashing son of adviser". The Times of Israel. Retrieved October 30, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What do the letters of Sidney Blumenthal's *son* have to do with Clinton's political positions? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Max Blumenthal, who was revealed by the Hillary Clinton forced email dump as one of her secret sources and advisers on Israel and Middle East affairs, is one of the great Israel haters in America today.".Zigzig20s (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

2008 candidate questionnaire response about vaccines and autism

Material about a 2008 candidate questionnaire in which Clinton responded about vaccines and autism does not belong in this article, in my opinion. This is 2016, and the material seems to have been cherry-picked from a source to discredit the subject. If it can be shown that this has been covered in several other solid sources, I would consider withdrawing my objection to the material.- MrX 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be included. It has been covered in numerous reliable sources.[6][7][8][9]. That this was said in 2008 is not a reason to remove this. We do run through the history of positions that candidates have taken on issues on this page, as well as those of Trump, Kaine, Pence and Jill Stein. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be included. The opening sentence of the article states "Hillary Clinton, the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States in 2016, has taken positions on political issues while serving as First Lady of the United States (1993–2001); as U.S. Senator from New York (2001–2009); and serving as the United States Secretary of State (2009–2013)." Clearly, her position on 2008 in regards to vaccines is relevant and must be included as part of the article.--TM 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It would misleading to imply that Clinton's political positions have not evolved, and the article already mentions some examples. This article is not about the 2016 Democratic platform, otherwise political position articles for Sanders, Clinton, Kaine, Warren and other leading Democrats would be essentially identical and they could re-direct to the 2016 Democratic National Convention#Platform provisions. TFD (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I withdraw my objections in light of the sources presented above. - MrX 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Flag Protection Act of 2005

I think this should remain in the article as Sen Clinton co-sponsored it at the time. This isn't just a piece of legislation she voted voiced an opinion on, she put her name behind it. This is a current event, given Trump's call for even harsher penalties for flag-burners; Trump takes heat for wanting to outlaw flag burning -- but Clinton wanted the same in 2005 and Flashback: That Time When Clinton Wanted To Jail People For Flag Burning. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This does not seem significant within the scope of Clinton's political positions. It's Trump related, so perhaps you can add a brief mention of it on Political positions of Donald Trump, that is if you can find more secondary sources to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 18:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This belongs on this page, not Trump's. You have to use reliable sources though. MSN and Townhall don't cut it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on either page. HRC cosponsored one bill in 2005, which is not enough to establish a "political position" for this article. Trump made one tweet, also not enough to consider a "political position". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Trump's position belongs in his article (if reliably sourced) and Clinton's in hers (if reliably sourced). I don't think you're applying the standards for inclusion consistently. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Does a tweet count as a "position"? I don't think so. He's tweeted all sorts of things during the campaign that could be taken as "positions", which would bloat the article. He hasn't actually proposed anything about flag burning, just one off-hand tweet inspired by who knows what. If he puts forth an actual plan of action for flag burning in terms of recommending legislation, or an executive action, then it should be included. But we cannot and should not take every single tweet as gospel. He's contradicted himself enough already to complicate that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, cosponsoring one bill isn't necessarily a "position", especially since that bill was 11 years ago. We don't know that it's still what she believes on the matter. I think I'm being consistent in wanting to see actual positions beyond a tweet or a co-sponsoring of one bill, before we declare it their "political position". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think that there is a better way to signify a political position, as a legislator, than sponsoring or cosponsoring a bill. If you put your name to something like that, a reasonable person would assume that you support it. Here are some additional reliable sources: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/29/hillary-clinton-flag-burners/ http://europe.newsweek.com/clinton-trump-flag-burning-punishment-526581?rm=eu ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning. However we do not know if Clinton's views have evolved on this issue so we cannot say she still holds it. It is significant because the news media have recently given it new coverage in response to Trump's pontifications. Barbara Boxer supported the bill too. Should point out that Clinton opposed a constitutional amendment that would have allowed laws against flag-burning. TFD (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're being shamelessly manipulated by the media who apparently want us to believe that there is a nationwide flag burning epidemic of constitutional proportions based on the President-elect's ridiculous tweet. Wake me when there's a constitutional amendment to vote on.- MrX 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no indication that anyone has been "manipulated" by the media into thinking anything, and that is not even relevant right now. All we are discussing here is whether a bill that the then Senator co-sponsored, constitutes a political position and whether that position is notable enough to warrant an inclusion on this page. Given the wealth of reliable sources on this issue I think it is entirely appropriate to add.ThaiWanIII (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Policy says that weight should be given to what is presented in reliable sources, which in this case is the mainstream media. TFD (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If that's what policy truly said, these articles would be 100x larger than they actually are. Policy says things should be considered by WP:WEIGHT and flag burning has received nearly no weight over the course of her career. Trump fires off one tweet and here we are. That's undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Her 2016 election defeat received nearly no weight "over the course of her career," yet is what she will be best remembered for, unless she wins a future presidential election. Her sponsorship of the proposed Flag Protection Act of 2005 received attention at the time and is again in the news. TFD (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, winning or losing a presidential election is of huge weight. Co-sponsoring one bill in the Senate isn't. The flag burning bill is getting a small amount of press today, and it will fade. Her loss to Trump will not. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See this additional source, from the year 2006, where Clinton reiterates her support for the criminalization of flag burning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptQ89N5tVlA ThaiWanIII (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Deserves inclusion; readers want to know her position, even if it's a bit outdated… — JFG ^talk 02:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Its baffling how someone can say legislation a Senator co-sponsors carries no "weight". Co-sponsoring a bill isn't just voting for it, it is placing your name prominently behind it. Sen Clinton signed on on the day it was read, unlike the other 3 who jumped in later. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone say it carries no weight? I believe it carries "insufficient" weight to make it into this page. If I have been unclear, I hope that clarifies my position. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another way to assess weight would be to check how many bills Senator Clinton (co-)sponsored during her tenure, and see how they compare to this one. Surely the sum of her own legislative work would be relevant to her political positions, even noting how they could have evolved afterwards. Anybody has the data? — JFG ^talk 17:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As it so happens, I was just coming here to post the list of bills she's sponsored. There are 363, and they're not all included in this page, because that would be insane. And note, it says "sponsored". This doesn't include bills that she co-sponsored. Picking up on the flag burning one is cherry picking. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's a lot of bills, so the flag thing is only being singled out as a comparison to Trump's position. How strange that only 18 of those 363 proposed pieces of legislation ever reached a floor debate and 3 passed into law. Is 0.8% the standard efficiency rate of Congress in the USA? (yeah, drifting off-topic, I'm just curious) — JFG ^talk 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not the only way to make an impact in the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I didn't mean to single out Hillary Clinton's or Bernie Sanders's effectiveness, just noting that US Senators seem to push a lot of paper with no tangible results… </offtopic> — JFG ^talk 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So that's 5-2 in favour of addition, i'm going to go ahead and restore it.ThaiWanIII (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Discussion isn't finished, so I'm reverting you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ValarianB: @The Four Deuces: @Snooganssnoogans: I've pointed out that HRC sponsored, not cosponsored, 363 bills in her eight years as a Senator. I can't find any data on how many bills she co-sponsored; I'm sure it's a ton. Any further thoughts on why we should cherry pick this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: any thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm equivocal. A brief, accurate statement might be fine. Any such statement, however, would have to clearly indicate that the bill would be limited to desecration done to "intentionally threaten or intimidate" a person. And the statement should not cite a primary source. Neutrality^talk 05:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Few of the bills sponsored by Clinton are relevant to this article. Most involved naming government buildings, highways and post offices, or honoring people or organizations or commemorating events. For example, "A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 245 North Main Street in New York City, New York, as the “Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office Building”. Few if any have received the same attention as this one. Neutrality, Clinton thought flag-burning should be illegal and wrote the bill in a manner to avoid a constitutional challenge. It would also be an offense to burn someone else's flag without authorization. But all those actions are illegal anyway, the act would have increased the seriousness of the offenses. TFD (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110728022809/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/03/20/obama_campaign_harshly_critica.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/03/20/obama_campaign_harshly_critica.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401033104/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249895
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103202130/https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm to https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071011043050/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108174313/http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard to http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013000313/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315174624/http://npalliance.org/content/pages/2008_presidential_candidate_health_plan_report_card to http://npalliance.org/content/pages/2008_presidential_candidate_health_plan_report_card

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060629035929/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=256080 to http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=256080
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617130011/http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-environmentalists-are-anxious-about-a-hillary-clinton-2016-run-20150410 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-environmentalists-are-anxious-about-a-hillary-clinton-2016-run-20150410
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926212309/http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/index.cfm?topic=heritage to http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/index.cfm?topic=heritage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016073338/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkkcJJUZ9jVJ_-YkDhrHSOjBfhrA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkkcJJUZ9jVJ_-YkDhrHSOjBfhrA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111855/http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/is_hillary_disingenous_about_i.html to http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/is_hillary_disingenous_about_i.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016002218/http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/walking_that_ti.html to http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/walking_that_ti.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224132806/http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004C08C23.html to http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004C08C23.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011193609/http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=10952&topicID=61 to http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=10952&topicID=61
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127083558/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=236353&& to http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=236353&&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207110436/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161113213400/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517015240/http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268 to http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029124120/http://select2008.com/ to http://www.select2008.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160725204209/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/what-needs-change-about-wall-street-six-words-and-some-charts/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/what-needs-change-about-wall-street-six-words-and-some-charts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808130045/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/?version=meter+at+13&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.is%252F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/?version=meter+at+13&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.is%252F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725170553/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-plan-for-lowering-prescription-drug-costs/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-plan-for-lowering-prescription-drug-costs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160830083205/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/29/hillary-clintons-comprehensive-agenda-on-mental-health/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/29/hillary-clintons-comprehensive-agenda-on-mental-health/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913161901/http://www.sciencedebate.org/20answers to http://sciencedebate.org/20answers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604080612/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160824082452/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160702083341/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-28-06-00-54
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522075609/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522075619/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102024445/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-gets-po.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-gets-po.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/isctsj/filestore/Filetoupload,510584,en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207013910/http://www.cfr.org/publication/14764/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/14764/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725201930/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/hillary-clinton-has-real-plan-defeat-isis-and-prevent-another-attack-brussels-heres-how/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/hillary-clinton-has-real-plan-defeat-isis-and-prevent-another-attack-brussels-heres-how/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160706081129/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/06/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-brexit-vote/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/06/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-brexit-vote/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725185142/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2015/12/16/zadroga-act-reauthorization/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2015/12/16/zadroga-act-reauthorization/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130152912/http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-blasts-hobby-lobby-decision-weekend-protests-at-several-locations/ to http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-blasts-hobby-lobby-decision-weekend-protests-at-several-locations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630082153/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160608194947/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-voting-rights/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-voting-rights/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a Subsection to "Political Philosophy"

Hey I'd like to propose adding a subsection to "Political Philosophy" that describes an assessment of her political views and policies from more left-leaning figures and organizations, ranging from Progressive Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker, Socialist figures like Bernie Sanders, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky, and other left-of-centre figures. Particularly I'd like to focus on the assessment of Clinton as "Neoliberal", and how this is frequently used to describe her position among left wing critics. I have numerous sources that are diverse, factually verified, and consistent. S1d6arrett23 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources. It could bn a good addition to Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Politicsl Philosophy. It currently provides no rebuttal to the view that as senator she was slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders. Also, I would oppose adding criticisms to each of her policies, which is typically avoided in this type of article. For example, progressives oppose her position on fracking, but opposition to fracking is better presented in other articles. TFD (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)