Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign

Hillary 2016 logo

I will like to read/add who is author of the campaign logo and what is the symbolic of it. For first glance it seem to be 9/11 inspired. 73.50.83.60 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion. On Wikipedia, we go by verifiable reliable sources as to what the logo is inspired by, not the opinion of an editor. Regards —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest that the logo be taken down to safeguard Wikipedia from legal attacks from the Democratic Party. The lawyers of one candidate from the party have already attacked Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.186.69 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's totally unnecessary. The use of such logos is covered under fair use, regardless of what happened with the Sanders campaign matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Failure to include reliable information in article

The information in http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html should be included in the article. There is a pattern of biased editing of this article which violates neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please learn to assume good faith, Fred. Your accusations of biased editing are getting extremely tiresome. Instead of just throwing a link up here and demanding something happen, why don't you constructively propose something you would like to see added here, and then let us weigh in on that? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My edits using this material are in the history of the article. The material which replaced them does not reflect this reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The Vote for Bankruptcy Reform that Haunts Hillary Clinton" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A more nuanced discussion:

• "Hillary Clinton’s Attitude Toward Wall Street Is Subjective" User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please make any suggestions to improve the section on fundraising as it relates to Wall Street. I think the information from the Clinton campaign staff should be excluded. It is very self-serving, nearly like having the subject editing the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder: I agree with you that this should be included in the article. Perhaps in the "Fundraising" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Other issues that might be included

• Use of husband and PAC for attacks.
  • "Sanders Campaign Determined Not to Get Knocked Off Message by Clinton Attacks" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Bill Clinton Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Bill Clinton unloads on Bernie Sanders ahead of crucial New Hampshire primary User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Demands that women support her.
  • "Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Nobody involved in the Madeleine Albright-Gloria Steinem-Hillary Clinton flap has much to be proud of" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Why Clinton’s feminist pitch is not working in New Hampshire" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Dismissal of the claims of women approached by her husband for sex.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• • "’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

These are all extremely vague. Do you have specific proposals/language, or is this just a wish list of negative crap you would like to see in the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

These issues and more can be googled. I'll fill in more specific sources. Please try to be more courteous. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You've done this before, Fred. You can't just toss lists of sources on to this talk page without actually making concrete proposals for improving the article. Use your own user space if you want a place to keep them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can. It is is better to discuss these matters on the talk page rather than proposing edits which, in the absence of consensus, can be deleted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you can't. It is better to discuss these matters on the talk page by proposing edits here so that you can begin to seek a consensus for inclusion in the article. Without actually proposing something, your junk pile just sits here until the bot archives it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fred Bauder that more referenced info about her campaign should be added to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and this is not supposed to be a campaign ad. Fred's requests are very clear (not "vague"): 1) Use of husband and PAC for attacks. 2) Demands that women support her. 3) History of dismissing women/90s scandals. 4) Multi-million donations from Wall Street.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

A suggestion for a criteria to include information about issues in the article:

• Is there a reliable source that the issue has affected voting behavior?
• Is the issue hot on social media?
• Is the candidate spending time or money addressing it?
• Are the Sunday talk shows or debate moderators or C-Span or the candidates' websites addressing the issue significantly or repeatedly?
• Is the issue part of the talking points of significant opponents, their PACs, or advertising?
• Fact based or not? An issue that is not fact based but affects voting behavior is notable in itself.

The supreme utility of this criteria is evident as results of primaries and caucuses come in and information is gained from entrance and exit polls. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on the talk page about the content of the article need to be visible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

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

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

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

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

The issue about permission from the groups is a red herring. The Harry Walker agency contracts reserve all rights to the speeches for the speaker. I agree that Clinton is unlikely to release anything damning during the election. But the fact that she is unlikely to release anything at all is something to cause speculation about how damning it is. In any case, this issue probably does require coverage in our article, as there are many reliable sources discussing these speeches, her reluctance to release the transcripts, and now the commentary from audience members describing the speeches as "glowing" towards wall street. [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a faux issue to me, although this is a campaign article and a large number of campaign events have no real-world relevance. Between the two Clintons, they gave 729 (paid) speeches since Bill left office, usually earning something over $200K each for a total of $153 million.[13] Of those, at least 39 were to big banks, 8 to Goldman-Sachs. Goldman is (one of?) the biggest banks in the world, so although their extremely profitable speech-giving engagements are probably relevant to their bio articles, it's not particularly noteworthy here that just over 1% of their many speeches were given to one client or that, like most such speeches, the transcripts were not released — not unless it becomes a bona fide issue in the campaign. Right now it seems to be news of the day material on the part of her left-leaning detractors and challenger, and perhaps any Republican nominee who is promoting an anti-bank message. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2014 UNLV contract [14] [15]
• 2014 some random foundation [16]
• 2013 University of Con [17]
• 2013 [18]Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upcoming contests

I've removed sections on upcoming contests, per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a historical perspective, where possible. I suggest these sections be added (and presumably, altered) once the contests are over. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: Yes, I agree with you. I "thanked" you for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is contained in these relevant well-sourced sections which projects outcomes, only the current efforts and plans of the Clinton super PAC and campaign. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzag20s - TY! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder - Nevertheless, it's still WP:CRYSTAL stuff. You can tell it's not appropriate from the very first phrase, where it says "The Clinton campaign is relying..." instead of the "The Clinton campaign relied...". It's obviously not "historical" (as in, past tense) so it basically falls foul of WP:RECENT. It's good stuff, Fred, but it is too soon for it. Please self-revert and then add it back (in past tense) when the contests are over. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at WP:RECENT. It does not seem to apply. The strategies of the super PAC and the campaign are current facts. How they will work out and speculation thereon is what would be covered under WP:CRYSTAL, but that is not what is in the information added. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect to WP:Crystal, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The future events are both certain and notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect to WP:RECENT, "Recentism as a positive: But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information." see WP:RECENT#Recentism as a positive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to change Wikipedia policies and practices. The type of upcoming events that are certain to take place should still be phrased in the past, for example: "A hearing was set for July 4 on the matter" or "General elections were scheduled for November 6, 2016", not "so-and-so announced that they planned to do such and such" or "it was expected that…" The problem with giving up-to-the-minute accounts of what's expected in the upcoming news cycle is expressed in WP:NOT#NEWS. It makes articles degrade, fast, by picking up stale content that requires constant re-editing and replacement. There's a lot of this mess across the encyclopedia, 3-year-old articles that are talking about future events that are expected to take place and either did or didn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My edit conforms to current policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. All articles should be written from a historical perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A negative characterization

"...the once-daunting Clinton fund-raising model, which the family perfected over years of Beverly Hills dinners, Hamptons summer parties, and rewards for donors like nights in the Lincoln Bedroom." "Small Gifts to Bernie Sanders Challenge Hillary Clinton Fund-Raising Model" How could we adapt this caricature into usable information? User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That article contains the information that 20% of the funds raised by Clinton came from donations of $200 or less. The headline is unfortunate for our use. It also contains the information that Clinton frequently must leave off campaigning to attend fundraisers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder: I've just read the article. My first impression is that it sounds gossipy, and that it would not be a useful reference to use in this Wikipedia article, which should remain encyclopedic and fact-based. I also don't think the comparative approach is particularly useful for us here. The Open Secrets weblink is fact-based, but it may be too "raw" without adequate contextualization, as it is simply a list of her largest donors, though it is true that both George Soros and Donald Sussman were already mentioned publicly during the PBS debate. Still, some of it does not make much sense. For example, why would Haim Saban donate millions of dollars to her campaign when her server had anti-Israel e-mails on it?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another article in Variety, with more names of her multimillion-dollar supporters and two super PACs. The article also mentions another fundraiser hosted by Ellen Goldsmith-Vein and Jon F. Vein in Hancock Park, Los Angeles next week. I think we could easily use this as a reference to expand the "Fundraising" subsectionZigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This new article suggests the Vein fundraiser costs US$2,700 per person.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

How could we improve the lead and remove the tag? I think we should try to do this quickly.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and expanded the lead. Everything OK?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not okay. "Marred by scandals", "murdered under her watch", "relies on super PACs", "give amnesty" and other phrases are astonishing examples of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. This is very far from okay, Zigzag20s. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it has been marred by many scandals (classified e-mails, Benghazi, secret speeches, donations from billionaires). Those are simple facts. This is not supposed to be a campaign ad--simply to reflect reality. As for amnesty--doesn't she want to legalize Hispanics who are in the US illegally? I don't think it's POV to say that. But how would you expand the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Words like these should only be used in quotes, never in Wikipedia's voice. Read WP:WORDS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP so you can see where you horribly went wrong here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was a tag for an entire month and no one was doing anything about it. I tried to be bold. Now you have shrunk the lead so much that the tag should be added again. But perhaps you could be more constructive and expand the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree the lead needs expanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I do, and so did the person who had added the tag. It fails to summarize the entire article, which is what a lead should do. My lead did, yet you removed it. Please be constructive!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey's POV concerns aside, I don't see a whole lot in the proposed addition that fits the usual subject of presidential campaign ledes. For comparison you might check out Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and all the other major party candidates that made it to Super Tuesday in years past. When all is done, the lede will probably be worth 3-4 paragraphs whether she wins or loses the nomination – if she wins, this article will get renamed to the primary campaign and there will be a new article for the post-primary. Looking at those old ones, the first paragraph is about the announcement and early fundraising, and the second is about who has the lede, the early primaries, etc. The lede doesn't really go into scandals, controversies, policy positions, endorsements, and so on. Even the Howard Dean presidential campaign, 2004 article lead doesn't include the Dean Scream, one of the most memorable campaign events of any candidate anywhere! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Can you please do it? I tried to help based on the way she's presented herself, but all my good work was removed. This is exhausting.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your version of the lede is negatively biased. It fails to meet basic requirements of neutrality. Our article cannot be the talking points of Fox News or the Republican candidates. I like the existing lede, for now. It will be revised later as events warrant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was fair and balanced (I'm joking). But seriously, please assume good faith. There was a tag suggesting the lead was too short and I expanded it to be helpful...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Billionaire donors

User:Scjessey: Why did you remove the fact that at least three of Clinton's donors are billionaires?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the article is about Hillary Clinton's campaign, not the donors. If people want to know about the donors they can click on the links. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she has specifically billionaire donors is remarked and discussed by numerous reliable sources. It is WP:DUE to mention in her campaign article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't have any "billionaire donors" at all. The maximum allowable donation is $2,700 if I remember correctly. You are confusing Clinton's campaign (what this article is about) with the independent Super PACs, which have their own articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this article includes within its scope all major material and financial contributions to it. A separate article or articles on PACs seems quite unfriendly to readers. It is important, however, that this article clearly differentiates between acts and funding of the candidate and those of PACs. So large donations by individuals to PACs should be clearly identified if included. There are only a few, actually 2 or 3. George Soros and a couple of others. George Soros is hardly "Wall Street" although there might be ways a government official could render his tax bills and methods of working more or less difficult. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Sussman is a hedge fund manager if ever there was one, for example. It is possible that he donated US$2,505,400 for the fun of it, with no regards whatsoever for the ongoing United States–Cuban Thaw. He seems very philanthropic, and he is probably a lovely man. But Clinton has repeatedly cast "hedge fund guys" in a bad light, so she has essentially created suspicion among the American people.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you think the Super PACs are for, if not her campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

When people say "billionaire donors" they are referring to donations to the Super PACs that are for supporting Clinton's campaign. There are numerous reliable sources covering this and it is completely relevant to her campaign.--ICat Master (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

But we don't need to say "billionaire donors" in the article. Neither Clinton nor her campaign have any control over who donates to these completely independent Super PACs. It is fine to say certain Super PACs support her campaign, but when we start talking about who donates to the Super PACs we are getting into undue weight. We don't see the same level of detail in the articles of GOP candidates, so why are some editors keen to shoehorn it into this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is undue, as it has received a lot of coverage in the media, not only in the press but also during one of the debates. She has criticized hedge fund managers in her speeches, and yet "At the same time, however, Clinton continues to collect money from financiers who are benefiting from some of the deals she decries.". Also, "Hillary Clinton continues to be powered, in part, by millionaires and billionaires" and Billionaire gives $6 million to super PAC backing Hillary Clinton, etc...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

All of those articles quite rightly state the donors are donating to the Super PACs, not Hillary Clinton. It is important that this article remains focused on the subject, and not wander into the territory of talking about other subjects. If you are going to insist on adding this to the article, can I expect the same enthusiasm from you on the articles for all the other candidates? Every GOP candidate is supported by Super PACs with big donors, and even Bernie has big donors in the form of labor union Super PACs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This talkpage is about HRC's campaign (nothing else), which is vastly bankrolled by billionaires and Wall Street largesse, as all those references suggest. The Super PACs support the campaign; they're not collecting donations for any other reason. The media has focused on her billionaire donations from "hedge fund guys" because she started her campaign by disparaging them, as the CNN video shows.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a totally inaccurate statement. Hillary Clinton's campaign (what this article is about) cannot be "bankrolled by billionaires and Wall Street largesse" because that would be illegal. As I recall, $2,700 is the maximum any donor can contribute to the campaign. You are conflating one thing with another. Go and all this crap to the pages for the Super PACs where they belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey, you are arguing a distinction in law, not a distinction in fact. As I sit at home during the campaign season the flood of advertising comes from both sources. It is all part of the campaign, regardless of adherence to the letter of the law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. It is both law and fact. That's like saying a TV commercial for the American Petroleum Institute is the same as a TV commercial for Exxon. Wikipedia must maintain standards higher than some editors seem to prepared to adhere to hold to. How unfortunate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fred Bauder on this one. When I (and most people) say "campaign", we are not just thinking about the legal definition of a campaign, which no one understands anyway. We are also thinking about the extra free speech that Citizens United has given HRC, which she enjoys to the fullest extent possible (with the help of billionaires!); the same freedom of speech that she claims she wants to take away from other candidates, as she keeps saying she wants to overturn the SCOTUS decision (when she no longer needs it!). The media is going bananas over this because she claims billionaires and hedge fund managers are evil, but she enjoys their hard-earned cash. This is not comparable to the GOP candidates, who don't want to overturn the decision and who want to encourage every American to become a philanthropic billionaire or hedge fund manager if they want to. HRC claims she wants to restrict free speech and keeps saying the rich are bad people, all the while enjoying their largesse; besides, she has an estimated wealth of over US$30 million herself. The media is simply calling her out on her double standards.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We are literally arguing over one word ("billionaire") to refer to Haim Saban, Thomas Tull and George Soros, all three of which are billionaires and have contributed to her campaign/Super PACs. Is there much point in arguing over this? It's becoming a little tedious.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Coughing attacks

I have restored referenced information about HRC's coughing attack, which was removed by User:Nations United with no consensus. She was coughing at the MSNBC town hall again a few days ago. It's clearly a huge problem. Apparently she's had three full-blown coughing attacks so far.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So huge that I support its removal. People cough all the time (surprise!), just because it makes it in the media - does not make it relevant or in anyways appropriate for Wikipedia. In 10 years, I don't think her "coughing attacks" will be relevant. In fact, I don't think they will be relevant at all, within a year. Silly addition. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not silly, given her old age and other health concerns. And it happens constantly. It does not look normal.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove it without consensus?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait for consensus to be reached for its addition. You added said content, not even a week later another user removes it. You restore it again, I removed it. Clearly, you can see: you need to get consensus, as you already have a couple editors who disagree with its addition.

And might I remind you: Clinton is a living person. She may be old, but that does not mean you are allowed to draw the conclusion which you are implying: that her coughing attacks are a health concern. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, they had trimmed it. User:Scjessey said in the edit summary, "that should be discussed first". Why do you want to remove it? Her coughing attacks are constant and very long and frightening. Nobody knows for sure how serious her health problems are, but the American people and the media are clearly concerned about this. I think it's fair to say it has become an issue in her campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Btw, it is a health concern. "In a statement issued last July, Clinton's campaign confirmed that the former State secretary is suffering from hypothyroidism and allergies, adding that she is taking medication to treat an underactive thyroid.". Not sure why you removed this referenced info with the direct quote?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so now three editors oppose its addition, only for different reasons. So how about we have that discussion then, and allow for editors to chip in their thoughts. My reasoning is simple: coughing attacks, no matter how public or private or how "very long and frightening" as you claim them to be — are not newsworthy. A fail of the 10 year test. Consensus, can however, change. Who knows? those coughing attacks can be extremely serious, and something bad could happen down the track; but thats the point: Nothing has happened, except coughing attacks. You don't have to be old to have coughing attacks. Everybody has coughing attacks, everybody gets sick — human nature is not a health concern, nor is it something relevant in a presidential campaign article, if any article for that matter (unless it's a health related article, of course). Should Clinton suffer something serious due to the coughing, or since the coughing, I have no opposition whatsover to its addition to the article. On its own however? its coughing attacks – big deal. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about her campaign, not her entire life. Her coughing attacks have been recurrent throughout her campaign, and they have attracted significant media coverage. Her staff has admitted she is taking medication for them, so it is clearly a health concern. We have a section here about her "health", where it makes perfect sense to add this info. I don't think this should be redacted from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

People take medications for all sorts of things that are not at all life-threatening or serious: and? not newsworthy. I do think it should be redacted, because if we were to add all recentism-related content to this article... well let's just rewrite MOS, change BLP, to allow for a WikiNews-style article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what is newsworthy or not as a Wikipedia editor; the media does. It has been a health concern during the course of her campaign and we have a section about her health during the campaign, so it should be there. The campaign itself is limited in time and "recentist" in nature; I doubt many people look at the article about her failed 2008 campaign much any more, and yet we kept the article. There is no good reason to redact this referenced information.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We have the 10 year test for a reason, and hence: Clinton's unsuccessful campaign in 2008 actually is newsworthy – I actually don't think I need to debate that any further, because I think the suggestion that her - or any other failed US Presidential campaign is no longer relevant – is absurd. You're comparing Presidential campaigns to coughing attacks. Coughing attacks, in a years time (should nothing spectacular happen because of them) will be exactly what they are: coughing attacks – care factors around the globe will be zero. There are no good reasons to retain said content either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that I don't think we should create an article about Hillary Clinton's history of coughing attacks. But it has all its place in a subsection about her health in this article about her 2016 campaign, as it has been a recurrent problem throughout this campaign and she is taking medications for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because we have a health section, does not mean we should add every single thing that comes under the domain of health? we ought to add signficant health issues, not insignificant tittle-tattle that belongs on WikiNews, not a Wikipedia article. Again: I agree with you that said section ought to exist – but only for substantive issues, not coughing attacks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, given the extensive media coverage it has gotten, I believe you are wrong. It is not trivial. It is recurrent and concerning. And the media thinks it is significant. Your personal opinion is of no concern. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:I just don't like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, familiarise yourself with the 10 year test whilst you're at it, because coughing is trivial. Oh, and the media thinks a lot of things are significant: like her hair, her appearance, her clothes = all fluff. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should leave this material out. It's fairly trivial. If it gets ongoing coverage over the course of the campaign, in several mainstream news sources, then we could consider adding it. - MrX 13:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar: I'm sorry, I don't think your 10 year test applies here. Any article on a campaign is recentist in nature. She has had recurrent coughing attacks throughout her campaign and this fact will never change. Even in 10 years, it will still be true. She coughed a lot at the recent MSNBC town hall. And she had major coughing attacks when was talking about Benghazi, Israel, and African-Americans. Nobody knows if her coughing attacks are Freudian slips; that's not the point. What the media is reporting is that she keeps coughing during her campaign; it is an issue during the campaign; she takes medication and it seems serious. This article is not a campaign ad; we report the truth, based on third-party references.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

user: MrX: It's gotten significant media coverage. Google "Clinton coughing" if you like.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

10 year test applies here because it is on something as trivial and insignificant as coughing. When people think about the 2016 election, Clinton's campaign and what not – I seriously doubt they are going to consider her coughing attacks. And we don't report anything – WikiNews does. We add encyclopedic material to articles – not coughing attacks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Newsmax, WND, DailyMail, and Washington Times are poor sources.- MrX 13:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar: I believe it is encyclopedic, as it is recurrent and she is taking medication for it. It's not like she coughed once. She coughs constantly, and she has full-blown coughing attacks when she talks about sensitive issues. That may be Freudian or unrelated--nobody knows for sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

user: MrX: The liberal media has also covered it. As have The New York Times ("Mrs. Clinton had a coughing fit that stopped testimony for two minutes."), Bloomberg ("At one point, as she was overcome by a coughing fit and struggled to regain her speech"), NBC News ("Clinton Suffers Coughing Attack During Harlem Speech"), The Boston Herald ("Cough not a sign that Hillary Clinton is choking"), etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If or when it's confirmed to be something more than a coughing attack - I'd consider supporting adding it back to said article. Until then, no. I stand very much by the fact that a cough is a cough, and is a trivial matter. I would, however, consider what other members of our community believe too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

She's got a fucking cold. Big fucking deal. When the media has mentioned her cough, it has only been in passing. For example, the MSNBC embedded reporter mentioned yesterday during the Nevada coverage that she's had a cold which is causing her to cough a lot, but that she's otherwise perfectly fine. Enough with this "the American people are concerned" bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is original research--we don't know if she's had a series of colds since the beginning of the campaign. We do know that she has been taking medication for it and that it happens often, with at least three major coughing attacks during speeches about Benghazi, Israel and African-Americans. Again, our role is not to opine or do OR; this info has received significant media coverage and nobody could deny that. It is a significant campaign issue (not trivial), based on the extent of the media coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Nobody could deny that." I can. I'm denying it. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Please stop your anti-Clinton editing extravaganza. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have zero opinion about this. The media does. By denying it, you would be expressing your opinion, which is POV. Please try to be serious and stick to the sources (the national media).Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Virtually every change you have made or proposed across all the Clinton-related articles has been to attack her or put a negative spin on things. She's got a little cough and you make it sound as if it's a grave health issue. You claim she "supports the mass incarceration of blacks". You claim she gave "secret" speeches, even though everyone knew about them. It's a pattern with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I love HRC. But that's not the point. Her coughing attacks have received significant media coverage, and it has been addressed by her campaign staff. It would be POV to redact it from this article. Again, this is not supposed to be a campaign ad. We are supposed to remain neutral. Please assume good faith and stick to editing in a NPOV manner with third-party references, without personal attacks or swearwords! In any case, the media believes this is a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious health issues would be notable. Allergies and their symptoms are not, nor is hypothyroidism. Reliable media can be counted on to cover medical issues which might affect her performance as president. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a physician. Again, I think it would be original research to opine over whether this is serious or not. We do not know. It looks serious on camera (and possibly Freudian), but in any case, I believe it has received sufficient media coverage to be added to this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, consensus is not with you. So no. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: Would you not agree that her coughing attacks have received sufficient media coverage to appear in this article? See some of the links above.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Undocumented Hispanic children

User:Scjessey: Why did you remove this referenced info? It may be an inconvenient truth, but you are free to watch the video from The Huffington Post, where she says undocumented children "should be sent back" to Central America, and she adds, "We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.".Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Because of the way you phrased it. Your brief statement lacked any context whatsoever. Do better. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

How would you like to rephrase it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I watched her say that during the PBS debate. Her phrasing of Obama administration strategy to discourage more children starting out was unfortunate, and there were political commentators who said so. You might cite one of those comments. Not sure it has staying power with respect to notability though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think we should stick to the sources. The video on The Huffington Post is pretty clear: she wanted to deport undocumented Hispanic children to send a message. Christiane Amanpour even pressed her about it, and HRC persisted. So that's her position, and it should appear in the article!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think we should stick to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everything in due weight. This is another Nothing Burger with Fries. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Undue with Wikipedia:I just don't like it. This was not undue weight because it was only one sentence.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If we covered every single thing with "only one sentence", this article would be like a Tolstoy novel. You obviously don't have a proper grasp of the meaning of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The deportation of Hispanic children is not a minor issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It may or may not be a significant issue. The bigger issue is undocumented immigrants and immigration policy. If that subject gets an entire paragraph, I would not think that the specific case of what to do about undocumented children caught at the border, or driver's licenses, would be one of the 3-5 major points to make in that paragraph. There are some far more significant, substantive aspects to the underlying policy, and the campaigning and campaign issues/positions that make that up: paths to citizenship, asylum, requirements on employers, family reunification, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: I agree with you that there needs to be a way for everyone to be in the US legally and the government needs to give more visas to workers and investors. However, that's not really the point. She wants to deport Hispanic children; she's on camera saying it, and I think this article should be NPOV, not a campaign ad, no matter how heartless she comes across.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You miss the point of what I said. I take no position here on what policy should be. I said that there are major aspects of policy, and this is not necessarily one of the leading ones. Saying something on camera during a campaign is not the standard for what makes an sub-issue significant of the larger policy question. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think she is probably a sweet old lady. But I don't think this is a detail. America has millions of Hispanic children.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"She wants to deport Hispanic children" is an absurd statement. In the last town hall thingy they had, she was asked about this by a Sanders supporter and she explained that her policy would be to discourage people from Central and South America from sending their children because it was dangerous for the children. Your outrageous characterizations ignore this nuanced position. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In the Christiane Amanpour interview (with the video I shared), she was talking about Hispanic children who were already in the US. She wanted to deport them "to send a clear message".Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That's another mischaracterization. In the video, despite badgering by Amanpour, she said once it can be determined if the children will be safe, where possible they should be reunited with their families. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

By being deported to the very dangerous countries they fled in the first place. And if they're orphans--tough luck!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is just bullshit. She specifically said "if possible" and "depending on their circumstances". You paint her as unfeeling, but imagine what a Republican would do! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't paint her as anything; she presents herself this way. Btw, you may want to read a bit more about Republicans.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Primaries

User:Scjessey continues to revert well-sourced material without giving any reason supported in Wikipedia policy. The latest example. Repeated aggressive editing should be based on Wikipedia polity, not personal opinion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In a series of edits I made changes to the primary/caucus material to reflect the fact that this article is about Hillary Clinton's campaign, not Bernie's campaign. I also removed irrelevant percentage data from caucuses (since only delegates count) and entrance poll data (which exit poll and results data has shown to be inaccurate). These sensible changes were inexplicably reverted by Fred Bauder, who seems to not understand the mechanics of caucus primaries. I've restored my changes because they reflect updated and accurate data, not the stale inaccurate data that was there before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, I don't "continue to revert well-sourced material" et al. All of my editing decisions are policy-based and I'll thank you to assume good faith in future. I understand you are disappointed some of the stuff you have written has been removed, but leaving out-of-date, inaccurate or irrelevant material in the article makes no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fred Bauder. You do revert a whole lot of well-sourced material. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Ownership of content.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are both wrong. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We are simply trying to reflect what the overwhelming majority of third-party references from the press say. Your constant redaction of well-sourced material seems POV. Do you have a close connection to HRC's campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? There's no "overwhelming majority of third-party references" saying squat. There is a difference between what the fuck actually happened and was reported by the media, and the guesswork of entrance polls that I removed from the article. New information superseded old information. There's no "constant redaction" of anything - that's just your misguided opinion. And I'm not connected to any campaign. I'm not even a fucking American. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, that's out of line. Please remain civil. Jonathunder (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: How so? Profanity is perfectly okay on Wikipedia and my points are well made. This guy just accused me of being a shill for a candidate, so I get to say otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Profanity is not perfectly okay. Please see WP:IUC. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The entrance or exit polls contain demographic information which is of great interest. For example, a full description of the Nevada caucuses would discuss whites' preference for Saunders, African-Americans' preference for Clinton, Latino support for Clinton which weakened somewhat leading up to the caucuses, but overwhelming support from unionized Latino casino workers in Clark County. Similar analyses for South Carolina have been published in reliable sources. This can get too fine grained, but brief summaries of particularly notable trends could be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder: I couldn't agree more!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of that sort of analysis, although this particular piece is about Sanders. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But Fred, the stuff that was in the article before was exclusively from entrance polls, which proved to be inaccurate. For example, the Hispanic vote broke dramatically for Clinton in Nevada when the entrance data indicated the exact opposite. There are other articles that go deeper into the weeds about this sort of stuff, and trying to shoehorn it all in here is both redundant and undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it was proper for User:Scjessey to remove the percentage information. I have restored it. It has just as much or greater notability than the delegate count and other presidential campaign articles also have the percentages listed.--ICat Master (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, and I've restored it. The percentage information has zero value in caucuses. Zero. It only matters in regular primaries. It appears your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to revert my edits. Do you ever have anything of your own to contribute? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Although the popular vote does not control the outcome of the caucus, the popular vote is important to note the actual level of support. Note that for the actual presidential election where a similar electoral vote actually counts, we still display the popular vote. It is widely reported, and deep analysis of the difference between the popular and delegate counts are exceptionally common and notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. In the general election, vote totals are recorded. In caucus primaries, not everyone who shows up to caucus actually votes. For example, in Nevada an MSNBC reporter noted a number of people who had showed up to caucus in the New York New York casino had to leave before the caucus was over because they had to go back to work (they'd only been given 3 hours). The numbers matter in regular primaries, but they are inaccurate and irrelevant in caucus primaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

They are still weighed heavily in public and media perception. As I've stated, other presidential campaign articles on Wikipedia report the especially notable percentages and this shouldn't be an exception.--ICat Master (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hispanic polling was probably accurate, which is the most of what we expect from any polls. I do not see any reliable sources questioning them. TFD (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There are tons of reliable sources out there questioning that Hispanic polling. Here's a solid example. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That source is very good, but is also a good example of the problems involved. Our article is not an advanced seminar in political science. Brief summaries need to be used, but they should not be misleading. In this particular case unionized Latino workers in Clark County made a contribution to Clinton's campaign which overcame state-wide Latino preferences. It is very hard to justify an extended and accurate presentation of this in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why we must leave out this inaccurate and irrelevant stuff which can be properly explored in greater depth in the articles devoted to the election specifics. Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Black lives matter protester

I've reverted edits that introduced a section called "Miscellaneous controversies" primarily because it would instantly become a shit magnet, but also because it is unclear if this incident with the misguided protester has anything to do with the presidential campaign itself. Certainly there are some serious WP:UNDUE concerns here as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is DUE to mention HRC's ongoing conflict with the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps we could have a "Conflict with Black Lives Matter" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey, there is no consensus, and cannot be in Wikipedia policy, to remove notable, well-sourced, relevant negative information from an article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is completely WP:UNDUE and written in a very scandalous way. No way should we include the slanderous rants of a single protester in this article. - MrX 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ETA: Wording like this: "...her past statements in support of incarceration of "super predators""" will be removed as the blatant WP:BLP violation that it is if it's reinserted. Fred Bauder, please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.- MrX 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the above comment violates BLP; remember that Ashley Williams is also a living person. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is Hillary Clinton speaking in Keene, New Hampshire, on January 25, 1996. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see problems with that wording actually. The problem wording would be stuff such as was previously proposed/discussed about "calling black children superpredators" or "mass incarceration of black children" etc, which is putting words into her mouth. But she indeed did call for incarceration of "gangs of kids" who were "superpredators" who needed to be "brought to heel". Now, WP:UNDUE is a better argument at this point, as you say it is one protester. But if this continues to be an issue for her, it may become WP:DUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This incident is being widely reported and commented on. Clearly, it passes the basic test for notability. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly notable and DUE, and it should not have been redacted from the article. It has received considerable coverage in the national press and HRC herself has addressed the issue. Please reinsert it!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to call the section "black lives matter protesters." Or include it in a section about her relationship with African Americans. There should be a section about that because it has been widely discussed and is critical to her winning the nomination. It would also be more neutral than a controversies section. TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a subsection about her ongoing conflict with Black Lives Matter and Michelle Alexander's essay, both of which have been widely discussed in the media.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In order to observe the spirit of neutrality, it should encompass all aspects of her relationship with African Americans. Most of it is positive, but having the section you suggest would imply it is entirely negative. TFD (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This Chicago Tribune article [19] presents this in a neutral manner. There is no reason to have a dedicated section for this. I agree it may fit into the overall context of her relationship with African Americans, as it relates to her campaign. What we should not do it simply quote her out of context, portraying her in the worst possible light.- MrX 20:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the event should be included, in an encyclopedic manner.--ICat Master (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune story is indeed very good, and does not hold back at all, describing her statements in 1994 as "dog whistle language while also including her apologetics. I'll look at the article and see if we have a section on her relations with African-Americans. That is one option. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The original section might be renamed Notable incidents rather than miscellaneous criticisms and be used to include both positive and negative incidents. She is running an ad in Colorado which shows her interacting with a young Mexican girl whose parents are at risk of deportation. That is also a particularly notable incident as she comforts and reassures the girl. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pushing Clinton on her past statements as Williams did is eminently fair. What isn’t fair is ignoring what Clinton promises to do to fix the glaring problems unleashed by a bill Sanders voted for and Clinton’s husband signed into law." Hillary Clinton on ‘superpredator’ remarks: ‘I shouldn’t have used those words’. I think we can use that opinion, of Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, as a guide. The incident needs to be put into the context of Clinton's current positions and efforts. However, it should not be excluded. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But why should it not be combined with information about her support by the Congressional Black Caucus SuperPAC and African Americans? While I understand the argument that the Clintons betrayed African Americans, we need to balance that with the support they provide to her, which is what mainstream sources do. If we present this information, readers can decide how to evaluate her relationship. TFD (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here is her speech on criminal justice reform delivered in April 2015 (after the Baltimore riot) User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The section you created, "African-American support," in my opinion, provides neutrality. Thanks. TFD (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been away from my computer since I created this talk section and I'm delighted to see this has all been worked out in a satisfactory manner without me. I'm much happier with the new section title and the new text. Well done, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What the? This is not a political ad. I have trimmed the subhead to "African-Americans", but the whole section is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your latest edit; African American support for Clinton is clearly notable. If it is POV it is their point of view, generally. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are black Republicans. And many blacks support Sanders on the Democratic side. HRC does not own the black vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

True enough but the majority of Black Democrats support Clinton. That might change, but as of now it is simply a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We will know more tomorrow and after Super Tuesday, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-south-carolina-will-clintons-expected-victory-shift-momentum/2016/02/26/72622cb0-dc30-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s Your latest series of edits is unacceptable. Vice is an acceptable source, while the exact words of Clinton are not? You have crafted a short section that makes Clinton look like a monster no sane African American would support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is how she presents herself. I think she should stick to reliable sources. The section does say that she has changed her mind in recent years.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors in this section that Fred Bauder's version does a very nice job of balancing the facts without taking sides. It's about as neutral as it can possibly be.- MrX 16:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It made it sound like she owned the black vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be a political ad. If we fail to reach consensus, the subsection might be UNDUE (in spite of all the media coverage of Alexander's essay, etc.)?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that Fred Bauder's version looks anything like an political ad. Your version is problematic for a few reasons.

• The topic sentence sways the reader to believing that Alexander speaks for all African Americans. ("warned her community")
• Undue emphasis on the importance of the comments of a single activist.
• The last sentence is blatantly WP:OR and it uses an unreliable source.

I'm not going to edit war over this, but I want to be on record as strongly opposing both of Zigzig20s' versions, which give excessive emphasis to a minority opinion and cast Clinton in a overly-negative light.- MrX 17:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s' version is awful, with far too much weight given to fringe views. Restored to version that obviously has consensus of Fred, Mr X, TFD, me and others. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the first sentence because: 1)The Young Turks is not a reliable source, in the same way as MSNBC or Fox News aren't. 2) The sentence sounded like she thought she owned the black vote. I have also added Michelle Alexander's name with third-party references to avoid adding a "by whom" tag to "Clinton was criticized for her view". I believe this is a good compromise. Her donations from the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America are not OR as they were referenced, but in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to let this go. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Young Turks, but your claim that MSNBC and Fox News are not reliable is very wrong. Please stop edit warring against consensus, and please heed the advice that I and Gaijin42 have already given you about discretionary sanctions that apply to this page, and the main biography. Folks are going to lose patience if this continues, and the next stop will be WP:AE.- MrX 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Biased sources are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Besides, my last comment shows that I am trying to reach consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are in fact quite wrong. WP:BIASED. MrX is very right here. And I say this as one of the more obvious conservative voices in these articles. Some of the issues you are pressing to be put in to the articles are appropriate for inclusion somewhere and somehow. But the way you put them in is ridiculously WP:POV and WP:BLP violating, and will end with you getting a topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zigzig20s: I'm sorry, but you're wrong: see WP:BIASED. You don't reach consensus by edit warring against consensus. - MrX 18:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But if it's a left-wing website saying black voters support her, it's not reliable. I am trying to reach consensus here. Please assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Another consensus-building effort: I don't think the title "African-American Support" is NPOV at all. It assumes she is supported by black voters (at the expense of her competitors). That is wrong. Thus, I think "African-Americans" would be unbiased and encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I read "African-American Support" as discussing her level of support (which could include non-support), not saying she has it. But there are probably even more neutral titles such as "Relationship with African American Community" or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be preferable.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42: So can you please change it? Perhaps "Relationship with African-Americans" would be even better?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegates mean everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Tuesday results

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

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

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

Democrats Abroad

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

"Relationship with the LGBT community" (sic)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think her views on don't ask don't tell and DOMA are significant as not all political leaders, including Sanders, shared them. But the section is too verbose. She is more popular among openly LGBT voters than Sanders, although they generally see Sanders as more supportive of LGBT rights.[20] But more LGBT people see them as the same and probably the issue is not decisive to them. TFD (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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