Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign

RfC: 'Deplorables' comment

Prior discussion

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton referred to half of Donald Trump's supporters as "deplorables". Afterwards, after being faced criticism by Republicans and other groups, Clinton responded by saying that she was "grossly generalistic". Her speech and her criticism is covered by many reliable sources including New York Times, NPR, and Time Magazine. Also, her political opponent Trump responded to her speech by retweeting a quote that Obama has said back in the 2012 election, as covered by newspaper The Hill. Should I add this infromation in this article? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Many commentators have compared it to Romney's 47% comment. It also came a day or two (?) after her husband's attack on "coal people".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, we need to wait until we see how this pans out. Relax, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, wait, let's see if it has legs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to wait and see what impact, if any, this has. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to cram every fringe right talking point into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This incident has considerable potential, Clinton's contempt for a substantial portion of the population, and the laughter her remarks elicited from an upscale New York audience, strike home, but, regardless of how it resonates with me, or not, with any of us, is not our editing issue. Her campaign immediately recognized the nature of the gaff, and the candidate is trying to cure. Good chance we are going to see this in Trump ads, over and over. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's slow down and smell the roses for awhile, folks Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

An ongoing campaign is by definition a news story. And any part of the campaign that manages to attract a lot of attention should be included. Hillary Clinton just referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it." Trump and Pence replied, Clinton has backtracked, sort of. TFD (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton just correctly referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it." - There, I've fixed it for you. Clinton "gaffed" by speaking the truth about Trump's supporters. But WP:RECENT still applies here. Let's see where it is at after a few days to gestate in the media. It's not like she referred to a whole nation as murderers and rapists, or called for a ban on an entire religious group, or anything absurdly egregious and disqualifying as that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, what's up with this? Only a "half"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As George Stephanopoulos on This Week on ABC asked this morning, "Will anyone care about this a month from now?" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable third-party sources telling us that she insulted 20% of the US electorate "correctly", or is this just an opinion?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that a tiny fraction of Trump's support is from alt-right or neonazi sources such as David Duke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you able to find a reliable third-party source saying she believes the US electorate comprises 20% white supremacists? That would make international headlines for sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Large majorities of Trump supporters have negative views of Islam, of American Muslims, and of immigrants in general. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of Trump supporters believe that African-Americans are more inherently "lazy", "violent", and "criminal" than whites. These are reliably sourced facts (see Pew, Reuters, and Reuters again). So insofar as such facts matter, it was reasonably correct to estimate that "half" of Trump's supporters fall into a basket of racists, Islamophobes, and xenophobes (with an unquantified but clearly non-zero number of sexists, given the prevalence of Trump-associated campaign schwag referred to Clinton as a "bitch"). But you weren't really interested in those sorts of facts, I'm guessing. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in The Atlantic agrees, "She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters: Clinton said half of Donald Trump’s supporters were prejudiced. If anything, her numbers are too low." and maintains that her statement is true. However, he goes on to say "all truths are not equal. And some truths simply break the whole system.", reasoning that the media is avoiding a substantive discussion of racism, by defining Clinton's assertion as a "gaff." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIQWwonFYHE User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See George Stephanopoulos#Clinton Administration: "Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign.".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTI)

Also said on This Week, by panel members: "Every candidate should have a postit note on their mirror in the dressing room saying 'I am a candidate, not a political analyst." and "It is OK to attack your opponent; it's not OK to attack the electorate" (not exact quotes) User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Its certainly notable "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'," Clinton said. "Unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. Some of those people were irredeemable, she said, but they did not represent America.[1] SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

David Duke. Also, please stop stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pee-wee Herman. VM I didnt see you here, but came here after seeing below SaintAviator lets talk 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

20% of the voting public do not represent America? And remember that Sanders supporters, none of whom support Trump, according to Clinton, are also racist and misogynist. So we are up to 40% plus. Not to mention Obama supporters in 2008, who now all support Clinton, were also sexist. Doing the math, she has more sexist supporters than Trump. TFD (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha! Did you type that with a straight face? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Half" may be an underestimate [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an entire section in Trump's Campaign article devoted to his comment on Hillary and the 2nd Amendment which was interpreted by his critics as a call for 2nd Amendment supporters to assassinate Hillary. Given that, this statement by Hillary seems at least as notable and worthy of mention here.CFredkin (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm amazed I have to say this yet again, but what happens in the Trump article has no bearing on what happens here. Besides, calling morons a bunch of morons is nowhere near as outrageous as suggesting 2nd Amendment supporters assassinate someone. That's false equivalence. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Imagine if Trump called 50% of Hillary Clinton's supporters morons. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be taken as just another Trump comment. Like when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. Your strawman argument still has no bearing though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump's comment required "interpretation" by his critics to derive the assassination "suggestion", while Hillary's comment attacking a large segment of the voting population requires no interpretation at all. As noted above, her comment is directly equivalent to Romney's 47% comment and there's also a very large section in Mitt Romney's Campaign article on that. Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. You guys have jumped the shark by opposing any mention of it here. You are in effect advocating for a double standard for Campaign articles of Dems vs. Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 16:52, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

No one, so far, has opposed any mention of it. The question is how important it will be with respect to her campaign. It seems important and was included in every Sunday morning new talk show and is the subject of wide comment. So it will probably be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interpretation"? Direct quote: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." What's to interpret? That's what he said. Does his campaign article mention that? Without looking, I doubt it.

I am inclined to agree, by the way, that her "basket of deplorables" comment is relevant, but in the context of her "alt-right" speech, since it's the same subject. I see the alt-right speech is not included in this article either. Why is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the Trump comment I'm referring to.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Trump is too smart to say "we should assassinate Hillary Clinton". So he implied it with a dog whistle. You don't have to be a genius to get his meaning. Everybody did. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following statement be added to the "Controversies" section of this article:

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's comment was criticized by her opponents, and the following day she stated that she regretted saying 'half', and added "It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people."CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Comments

• Oppose as written. A mention of the "deplorables" could be worth adding if added with the context of her "alt-right" speech, which gives good context on who the "deplorables" are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. It's been compared by a number of sources to Romney's "47%" comment, which received prominent mention in his Campaign 2012 article.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and please withdraw / suspend yet another pointless RfC. As things now stand it would be a weight violation, as well as POV depending on the wording. Whether this issue will eventually belong in the article, and how, is simply not knowable at this point because it is too recent and events if any have not yet unfolded. The proliferation in American political articles of rapid-fire and often overlapping RfCs on minor issues that are derogatory to the candidates, of that fail to gain immediate consensus, is disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing or to article creation. We are now about 7 weeks before the election and each of these RfCs theoretically runs for 4 weeks. When started the issue at hand is fairly fresh in the news and lots of people who aren't familiar with the article, or editing political articles in general, rush in to say it's notable because it is in the news. Days later the story dies down, and we're left with an RfC that is neither well thought through or represents any lasting consensus of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I do agree this was yet another rush to RfC. We've only had a weekend to process the "deplorables" comment, it's only still going through its first cycle in the media, so we don't 100% know how to portray it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. The breadth of reliable third-party sources covering this remark, the fact that Trump's campaign has responded, and its comparison to Mitt Romney's 47% comment all mean that this has become a campaign issue. Thus, it should be included. The RfC is unfortunate but necessary to make sure the article reflects content from reliable third-party sources and that we all remember this should not be a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary, and quite WP:POINTY in fact, since discussion to reach a consensus for inclusion is still ongoing above. Have patience. We're not Breitbart. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither are The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Please let this RfC run its course. Anyway, I am reading a book--I don't have time to reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, there are NYT/WP/CNN stories on just about everything a candidate does during the presidential election. That doesn't mean every detail deserves inclusion in the article. I say wait and see if there is a lasting impact. Brianga (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include It has received significant coverage and has been compared to Obama's "cling to their guns and bibles" (2008) and Romney's 47% (2012) comments. And of course we should include Clinton's defense, that it was an over-generalization that she regrets. TFD (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include the comments made news, and it was not some fringe news, so much so that Hillary had to apologize for the comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form, impact of remark continues to grow and media coverage, response, and analysis is, in fact, so massive that this topic could probably support an independent article. I strongly urge that we close this discussion and add material to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

comment I was asked to come here and to delete a brief statement on this which I had added to the article ("On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that... Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America."[199] According to New York Magazine, this was the 3rd time that Clinton had referred to Trump supporters as "deplorable," but the first time that the Trump campaign made "a big deal," out of the description.[199]") If deleting it is the correct procedure, I will do so. However, I added it to the article because after 3 days of intense coverage (now including commentators responding to the responses to her remark, and a debate about whether to count Clinton's apology as an apology or merely to describe it as a "regret," and much more [3]) and I frankly deem it better for the project to include a simple statement of what she said, even while we discuss what more to add. the sourcing is just so massive, and imho we damage only our own reputation by the appearance of not covering major campaign developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Question -- what to do about the fact that someone has gone ahead and added it even though there's an RfC in progress? Seems like wasting people's time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We remove it. Rather than simply come to a consensus on our own, this RfC abuse means we have to wait for the whole process to conclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make stuff up tell lies about me, User:Moboshgu; it is rude and slanderous. "clearly" the sequence of events was hat I went to the page after listening to the new cycle and and added content that to me seemed both neutral and patently notable. Then someone came to my talk page to inform me that this is an ongoing RFC. Then I came here and asked an honest question about whether the material I had added should be removed while this RFC is ongoing. Note that there was no edit war. no reversion (except yours). I beleive that you owe men an apology. I would still like a clarification on whether we have a policy on whether the moot material stays on the page or is removed during an RFC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline directly the broad point of editing an article during an RfC or consensus discussion. Perhaps there is and I missed it. However, as a matter of good editing practice I would think that in the spirit of collaboration and BRD, people should not upset the status quo version of an article while an RfC or consensus discussion is in progress on that very topic. E. M. Gregory makes a good point: that the content is so obviously necessary that it would be a disservice to readers and look bad for the encyclopedia to omit it during the RfC process. I don't agree with that point, as it turns the burden on its head of establishing consensus for making changes. Also, the discretionary sanctions (described at the top of this page) include the caution: Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. The content has been challenged here on the talk page. It shouldn't be necessary to go through a game of adding and then reverting it in order for editors to exercise caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include - This speech was analyzed and critiqued by many third-party sources. The speech is still controversial because Clinton only apologies for her exaggerated percentage; she still refers to many of Trump's supporters as deplorables. Type in "Hillary Deplorables" onto Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 1 - The speech is still reported by many news articles (via Google News). For example, here is a recent analysis by Vox regarding her comment. Also, the word "Deplorable" has increased greatly on Google Trends. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 2 - In a report by USA Today, several Trump supporters embrace the "Deplorable" label. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 3 - Trump just addressed his crowd in Miami with this opening line: "Welcome to all of you deplorables". Report from the Guardian and Report from Business Insider. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 4 - New York Times has posted this opinion article on September 22, 2016. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 5 - Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, has doubled down on Clinton's deplorable comment in an interview on Meet the Press by claiming "I think a lot of the people that stand by Donald Trump are deplorable. And the things that they say are deplorable." Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this material and Support suspending this RFC for at least two weeks. I oppose inclusion because I can see that this is way too soon to know if these news reports have any impact at all on the course of Hilary's presidential campaign WP:NOTNEWS. Also, if reports of her remarks turn out to have no bearing on the direction of the campaign, then the error of including this material would probably amount to a BLP violation, per NPOV. Also, thank you for removing this material from the article per WP:TOOSOON and per NPOV. I support suspending this RFC per User:Wikidemon - it is premature. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another RfC? - From WP:RFC: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The debate over this issue is just a few hours old, with no evidence of the need for any form of dispute resolution at this early stage. Many regular editors have not even had a chance to comment in the discussion. This is another abuse of the RfC process, which always seem to come from editors eager to put negative stuff in Clinton articles, by the way. The RfC should be withdrawn, the OP should be trouted, and the discussion that had really only just begun should be allowed to run its course in the usual way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are the "regular editors" that you referred to above? The suggestions that conducting a RfC is disruptive (when there are no other RfC's in progress for the article) and that it's somehow a bad thing to solicit input from the broader community are absurd. IMO editors making such assertions are the one's who should be trouted. And for the record, this RfC at the Talk page for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was started with absolutely no prior Talk discussion on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

CFedkin, although this is an "Otherstuff" argument, it appears there was discussion, as pointed out by the second Ivoter jn that particular RFC - one link is this one ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The proliferation of RfCs is surely disruptive. The process is intended to solicit wider input on significant questions well down the process of consensus-building, if the article editors need some additional perspective, not a knee-jerk process gaming by an editor who can't shoehorn in their favored content three days into a news cycle. If the Trump articles have the same RFC abuse as the Clinton articles, that's not really our problem here but that would be a disruption issue to address there as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This. This is another instance of CFredkin trying to abuse one process or another to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy. Spamming RfCs to have content determined by vote rather than discussion and consensus is indeed disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose to the version posted on the RfC. I think only 2nd comment by Clinton could be included somewhere, but only in appropriate context and not as a separate subsection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form, strongly. It is clearly relevant and past precedent is clearly in favor of it. I see absolutely no reason not to. Even in the form above is fine - it is, after all, a wiki, and if people object to the specific wording, then they can edit it, so long as the basic essence remains. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note Piers Morgan:"This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency [[4]]. The repercussion are continuing to explode, commentators are talking about Clinton throwing away her credibility last Friday. Let's not trash our credibility by deleting this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good thing Piers Morgan's opinion isn't worth the spittle coming from his mouth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what Piers Morgan says? I mean, Ed Anger is a more reliable and noteworthy source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Postpone decision for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the above paragraph, but the information should be included somewhere. The biggest problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't mention the other "half" of the Trump supporters that Clinton described. I believed she said the other half felt economically anxious and politically let down, looking for any kind of change. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but the whole description should be included, not just the "deplorables" bit, per WP:WEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. Stongly. SaintAviator lets talk 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include - This has been covered by multiple high-quality sources and is directly relevant to the campaign. Although the MSM may stop covering it in few days, it has already reached the level of significance to justify inclusion, much like Binders full of Women and similar public comments that politicians wish they hadn't made.- MrX 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and most certainly not without the other part of the quote. Come on, the important half of the quote is being cut off in a pretty transparent attempt to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude We can point to Romney's "binders full of women" and 47% comment as campaign-ending gaffes only because he lost the election, arguably due to those statements. We can't say that about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" at this time. Even the sources we have are just speculating about its impact. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Romney's Binders full of women article was created on October 2012, one month before Romeny lost the election. Although the article was considered for deletion around the same time, the result was "No Consensus". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the Aleppo gaffe is discussed on Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016; where it was removed, but re-added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And that Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has a section containing about a dozen such gaffes. We either need to delete major, new-cycle leading gaffes from the Gary Johnson and Donald Trump pages, or keep this one here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For example, there is a controversy on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 called Veterans for a Strong America event. There are not any recent sources for that news story and there are only 234 reports listed on Google News. Meanwhile, Hillary's Deplorable statement has half a million articles listed on Google News. There are even less stories on Khizr Khan alone (with almost 100,000 articles on Google News and about ten thousand articles about "Gold Star Family") and that gaffe was all over the news for a while. Finally, Trump's biggest gaffe (The second amendment speech) has about 182,000 articles on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude but only for the time being. The comment could very well be a turning point for the election, and if it rises to the prominence of Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment, I would consider it a slam-dunk. I think the article, and the general cause of knowledge, can suffer the delay. After all, an encyclopedia isn't news. Heterodidact (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment From my experience watching this (and I've been watching it all), we have a lot of editors who want to argue a lot and not do crap to improve the project, we have a few experienced editors who have forgotten what it's like to AGF, we have a lot of editors who don't show up until there is an RfC, and none of it matters, because when they all disappear no one who is left can pull their shit together long enough to even implement the consensus of the last RfC. So the default outcome of this RfC is not include, because even when previous RfCs have had consensus for inclusion, everyone is so involved in arguing and attacking one another that nothing gets done anyway. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Snow Include per MrX. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note For the sake of completeness here is the full quote. As can be easily seen, quoting just the cherry picked part is obviously POV. Just because that's the way breitbart does it, doesn't mean we stoop to their level:

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket–and I know this because I see friends from all over America here–I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas–as well as, you know, New York and California–but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously, the final phrase of citation "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well" is important. In essence, this RfC asks a question: "Should [this selective quotation out of context] be included?". I am sure that using selective quotation out of context goes against our core policies ("five pillars"). Whatever consensus here might be, it should be void and overwritten by our core policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, the proposal is a blatant attempt to push POV by manipulating the quote and context and many of these "include" votes aren't much better. Maybe half of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include – Eminently notable statement, widely described as a defining moment of the campaign, both by supporters and opponents of Clinton. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include This was an important statement and there was a lot of media coverage of it. Metron (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Move to close this discussion and include a brief description of incident. My reasoning is that it is an abuse of the RFC process to use it to keep patently notable material and RS material out of an article, we risk WP:UNDUE and giving our readers the impression of political bias not only by acts of POV inclusion, by also by acts of POV omission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't "move" to close discussions, we let RfCs run their course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with closing this RfC because it should never have happened, and I also agree the matter needs to be included, but absolutely not in the way written by the OP. We can continue this discussion outside this RfC in the usual way, until consensus wording emerges. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include – it is note worthy and akin to Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment; there is enough independent coverage by RS sources, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include - A widely-reported and obviously significant incident, since it has led to media speculation it could potentially cost Clinton the election. No valid reason for not mentioning it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. It's funny. (And also, it's widely reported, well-sourced, and probably will get some lasting impact.) epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include, major political gaffe with heavy coverage and substantial implications for the future course of the campaign. The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump fans ([5][6]), and Clinton's walking-back of the remark attests to the controversy's notability. It was deemed significant enough to use in an ad: [7]. It's even spawned sub-controversies, such as Pence's refusal to call David Duke "deplorable": [8][9][10]. It doesn't need its own paragraph, but a few sentences will do for now. If it becomes more significant as things develop, I imagine we can expand it as needed. However, I do think the second quote should be trimmed, as it doesn't seem to add anything. GAB^gab 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, this controversy should be included, but not in the way suggested on this RfC. Yes, the phrase was taken out of context by campaigners to conduct their propaganda, but it does not mean we should continue their propaganda in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include this version. Per conversation below, consensus seems to be for this wording in particular. Agree with GAB that the second quote needs trimmed to about half, or replaced with prose to the same effect, but for the time being I support inclusion of this wording as a starting place, which can be subsequently tweaked as needed. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS -- I doubt it would damage Clinton to have this included here, but I think it would damage Wikipedia to act as such a transparent vehicle for the campaigning interests of those who think she spoke out of turn. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exlude per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Everything any such politician says is "controversial" to someone. Whether this is a lasting, noteworthy controversy that will affect the campaign waits to be seen (and is highly dubious). This article is not meant to be a catalog of every potentially "controversial" statement ever made by Clinton.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are many controversial actions made by Donald Trump that remain on his controversies section that are smaller than this particular controversy. For example, the Veterans for a Strong America event is not widely reported by the media, with only 295 articles on Google News. Also, there is a section dedicated towards Trump's misstatements, and yet Clinton does not, even though she has said many controversial comments like the Deplorables comment, her emails (Clinton has claimed that she "did not send or receive any material marked classified", despite receiving emails that were later found to be classified at a confidental level), and her comment against coal miners, in which she called the comment a "misstatement". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, what goes on in the Trump article has no bearing on what goes on here. Why is this so hard for editors to understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; Yoshiman6464 is just making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument-to-avoid. The Donald Trump article has its own problems, and the editorial pool at it has their own hands full working them out. The responsibility of editors at this page is making this article as best as we can, on its own merits, not as part of, or a tool of, the off-WP political struggles going on. Given the debate I saw on TV a few hours ago, I have little doubt that the pressure to include more "controversies" in the Trump article will mount, but that has nothing to do with undue weight and encyclopedic relevance issues at this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include. There are reliable sources who analyze the comment in terms of what it means to her support in polls: [11], [12]. There are also sources that analyze it in terms of the atmosphere of the election: [13]. And, there are sources who report that it's being fact-checked: [14]. That's a lot of analysis. Find a way to neutrally summarize the analysis and include it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include, for obvious reasons; this is clearly one of the most important events of the 2016 campaign and should have its own section, as I'm sure it will in the medium term once the historical analysis of the campaign starts to appear. As for the wording, it needs serious copy editing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM. The Washington Post question was: "Do you think it’s fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump’s supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?" The question did not mention Hillary Clinton or her choice of words, and starting the last sentence with "this attack" is your clearly biased POV. Your summation of Flegenheimer’s NY Times article is also way off the mark. WP:NPOV. The remarks received some coverage, but it was never a controversy. Public attention has moved on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include. But with significant rewording to more accurately describe what she said... Let's not kid ourselves, just because he makes gaffes all the time doesn't mean that her making one is therefore not notable. As a politician, and by those standards, the comment was notable in its use of the word half and should be included saying as much. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Building a consensus formulation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As this RfC is leaning towards inclusion, I'd like to work here with fellow editors towards a consensus formulation of the event. Starting with the nominator's proposal and a few helpful suggestions mentioned along the way, adding citations about recent developments. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's remark was criticized as potentially insulting to millions of Americans, and the following day she expressed regret for saying "half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices". The "Deplorables" moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters, with the Trump campaign inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement. This attack was deemed unfair by a large share of Clinton's supporters (45%) as well as Trump's (90%), many commentators comparing the gaffe to Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012.

References

Please add your support, opposition, comments and suggestions below; I will amend the text above until we reach an acceptable consensus formulation. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've said this before, but here's a good place to say this again. Her "deplorables" comment cannot be fully understood without considering the "alt-right" speech she gave about two weeks prior.[15][16][17] I would like to see a sentence mentioning the alt-right speech placed before the deplorables remark, if this is indeed to be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Counter proposal? TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is a rough sketch. Also I don't think the snap "voter feedback" stuff is so useful, as really any uproar has long since died out. Also the "was criticized" has a strawman feel to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I incorporated your suggestion about the alt-right speech in the proposal above, so we can keep the conversation clear. No need for a "criticized by whom" as this is in two quoted sources (criticism came from Trump's campaign, pollsters and journalists). Regarding the negative voter feedback, this was culled from a September 26 article reporting on public opinion about this very question, two weeks after the controversy erupted, so that's not part of an initial knee-jerk reaction which would have died out; keeping the phrase. — JFG ^talk 05:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would replace "moment" with "comments" or "statement". "Moment" in this case, is a completely meaningless vanilla filler noun. Other than that is seems fine. TimothyJosephWood 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with the final sentence. First, the referenced poll did not specifically ask respondents about the "basket of deplorables" comment, but rather it asked about a generic generalization that is loosely related. Second, the sentence seems to suggest Democrats were "negative" toward the comment, when in fact less than half (47%) of Democrats were negative toward the generic question asked in the poll and 49% thought it was fair. Third, it seems to mash up the response of the polled registered voters with the opinions of commentators, which is problematic for both the mash up and the fact that we shouldn't be using opinion pieces. Fixing the sentence would be difficult, because you would necessarily have to go into the weeds of why the poll is only related to the comment. It would be better to simply say "a poll indicated a majority of respondents thought it was unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities" and ditch the opinion pieces comparing the comment to the Romney gaffe. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

@Scjessey: I see your point, however this article makes it clear that Clinton's comment resonated negatively not only with Trump supporters (90%) but also with a large segment of Clinton's base (45%), which is unusual in this strongly polarized election and the salient fact emphasized by the article. It's not an isolated comment, as several sources support this assertion (but we don't need to bludgeon the paragraph with more). To address your concerns, I rephrased the text to "This attack was deemed unfair" and I added the raw numbers so readers can judge for themselves how strongly this statement has been rejected. Concerning the comparison to Romney's statement, most of the sources drew this parallel (I referenced four from sources already used in this paragraph, without even looking deeper to find more), so inclusion is WP:DUE. — JFG ^talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include though I may quibble with the wording: the comment generated substantial international interest in addition to huge domestic coverage, and it would be an NPOV violation to leave the matter out. Of course, I do wish that those folks who simply have an axe to grind against Hillary would stick to matters of substance, like her flip-flopping on the TPP, but I suppose we cannot blame Wikipedia for the failings of the mainstream press in the United States. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Thanks all for your feedback. I believe we have reached a fair formulation, so I have now added the text to the article. Of course it can still be amended by the regular editing process. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted your archiving of this discussion, which was closed prematurely. I have also made changes to the text you put into the article, because (as I stated earlier) the text indicating polling of Democrats misrepresents their views. "Large share of Clinton's supporters" gives the impression of a plurality, which is wrong (even with the percentage you added). The question asked in the poll did not even mention "deplorables", so it cannot be directly tied to the comment. I've also removed the weasel word from the following text about the 47% gaffe, and separated it out. Please don't archive this discussion until the text is actually agreed upon. You will note I graciously didn't just revert your entire text, which I certainly could've reasonably done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, and thanks for preserving most of the text; my only goal is to get something acceptable done so we can all move on. Do you have a suggested wording for the phrase you disagree with? — JFG ^talk 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

My contention is that the phrase should be omitted entirely, which is what I have already done to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I think it's significant because it addresses one concern that was expressed in the RFC discussion, namely that of recentism. But I won't push it unless we get consensus support. Fellow editors, any other opinions? Should we have a phrase reporting on voter feedback a few weeks after the incident? — JFG ^talk 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, my main problem with the proposed inclusion (aside that it was really just news for a couple days and now it's more or less outdated) is that it omits the second part of the quote. To paraphrase, what she said was that half the Trump supporters are deplorable racists etc., but the other half are people who have a legitimate grievance and who's economic situation has been ignored. The "but the other half" part is important to understanding the meaning of the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Do you have a suggestion how to include this second half in a concise manner? Perhaps add "She further mentioned that the other half had legitimate grievances to address." after her direct quote? — JFG ^talk 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is not to bother with this stuff at all. Just leave it out. And seriously, tacking on a weak ass sentence at the end of a quote purposefully taken out of context and pretending that's "balance", where that added sentence actually summarizes what the quote was really about is pretty much the definition of violating POV and WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: You reverted my revert to the proposed consensus version, so I can't revert back because of WP:1RR. However, the version you restored, as altered by two prior editors FallingGravity and Wikidemon, had not been discussed by them. We are trying to build a consensus version here and I have taken into account all incoming comments before adding the text to the article. Please make your suggestions here before intervening further. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: you have a difficulty -- this edit removes quotation marks from the section title, something you have now done twice in the last 24 hours. Hence, a 1RR violation. I suggest self-reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a purely cosmetic change. Any comments on substance from your side? — JFG ^talk 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the RfC is still open. Though the "include" votes outnumber the "exclude" ones it's hardly a slam-bang. Even if there is consensus to include the material, that hardly argues for an entire heading and two paragraph long "controversies" subsection. It's incorrect to characterize it as primarily a controversy, that's beginning to make the controversy section into a coatrack. Rather, it's part of the usual back and forth sniping between candidates leading up to an election. The proposed text is not good. It contains excessive quotations and position statements, as well as unencyclopedic opinion. "Millions of Americans" is campaign-style rhetoric, not encyclopedic tone. "Expressed regret" is inaccurate, as is inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage. "pointed the label back at Clienton" is inaccurate. "A rallying cry" is unencyclopeidc tone. It shouldn't be called a 'gaffe', and the fact that some sources made an inapt comparison to Romney's 47% of Americans comment is not relevant to the campaign. I don't think it's reasonable to have a so-called consensus discussion in the middle of an RfC, much less insist that a version people are editing in the article in the meanwhile represents consensus, which is why I'm waiting to participate until the RfC is closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Even if this is included the "millions of Americans" part needs to go, as it's pure editorializing. Second, some of those "include" votes were/are based on the notion that "this is like Romney's 47% remark". That was WP:CRYSTALBALL when those !votes were made. Now it's pretty much obvious that that is not the case at all. It's nothing like that, people got over it, most people, outside the far-right blogs and faux-media moved on, a large number of people actually seem to agree with her. So maybe the RfC should be restarted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here's the obvious point: JFG is a contributor to the RFC, right? Then WTF is he doing "closing" the RfC? And then pretending that his edit is a "consensus version"? Get real dude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OK guys, relax, I'm just trying to reach closure on this discussion. Given that the RFC attracted plenty of comments and no new editor weighed in after September 23, I felt justified in moving forward. As some of the participants noted, these events are time-sensitive and it is not mandatory to wait 30 days if the discussion has essentially stopped for more than a week. Regarding the decision to include, I'm happy to let some uninvolved admin assess this, however consensus on inclusion looks pretty obvious. I get it that you'd rather have no mention of this event in the article but it looks to me like the community has decided that it's worth mentioning (and I would recognize that even if I'd !voted against). Regarding the exact text to include, I started a process to improve on the OP's suggestion taking into account remarks made in the discussion and I incorporated the feedback I received. This is called consensus-building; if you want to help, you're welcome to participate and make suggestions. It's not enough to just criticize every part of the text you dislike without submitting anything constructive. Attacking my integrity won't help either. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to wait 30 days, but an (experienced) uninvolved editor should properly weigh consensus and close the discussion. Also, material was added in addition to the proposed text in the RfC. The first time it was removed, it should have stayed out until consensus was formed for its inclusion, per the prominent edit notice.- MrX 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct. And somebody just posted a close request to that effect. In the meantime, I'm still open to constructive suggestions on the exact text to include, because the OP's text was deemed insufficient by several commenters. — JFG ^talk 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

First, you're not being "attacked", you're just being criticized for trying to close an RfC in which you've been quite active, which is pretty sketchy. Second, there's no "time sensitive" issue here unless someone's purpose for including this material is to try and influence the outcome of the election - but this is an encyclopedia, not a god damn tabloid, and that kind of approach sort of betrays the intention of WP:ADVOCACY. Third, stating that only minor alterations to your proposed text constitute "constructive" discussion, while rejecting this POV nonsense wholesale is not, appears to be a (fairly transparent) attempt to manipulate the discussion by framing it in a way which makes meaningful disagreement with your position impossible a priori - and that's an underhanded tactic. Fourth, it's worth recalling at this point that this RfC was started by a user who is now topic banned from this area, and for good reason. That sort of cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole process (the fact that this RfC was disruptive to begin with has been noted by several users above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I refute any accusation of partisanship. Please note that in this discussion, and in many others related to the election, I have been working towards consensus by including relevant comments made by both supporters and opponents of the proposed inclusion. Your position that nothing should be included has been made loud and clear, but it doesn't reflect the wider community opinion at this point. So your best way forward would be actually proposing some concrete alterations, and accepting that other people will suggest different ones until we reach a formulation that nobody is super happy with but everybody can grudgingly live with. You can't with a straight face call "POV nonsense" a well-sourced summary of what has been actually said by both political sides and numerous serious commentators about this incident. Even when I try to take your remark into account, you blast me for "tacking on a weak ass sentence" (a sentence describing exactly what you asked to add) and you fail to suggest any alternative except "leave it all out". If you want your arguments to be heard, please work with the people who are actually listening to you. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the deplorables material because we have not yet worked out a consensus text, as indicated in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What is our proposed text so far? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The accusations and commentary about Trump and his supporters engaging in racist, sexist, etc. behavior are a biographical and campaign issue for Trump, not Clinton. Clinton's saying the same thing as everyone else is certainly not a controversy. The only controversy part, if it can be called a controversy, is that she said half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, when the actual number is less than half or perhaps they are not so deplorable. So if this is going to be described as a controversy the content would be roughly that Clinton described Trump's supporters as deplorable, and after initially bristling at the statement Trump and his supporters coopted it as a matter of self-identification. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Building a consensus formulation, round 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Acting upon the RfC close, I'm now restarting the consensus-building exercise towards a good enough formulation. Starting with the proposed version as amended earlier. Please comment below and I'll incorporate changes as they are adopted. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as potentially insulting to millions of Americans. Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012 and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well. The following day Clinton expressed regret for saying "half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices". The "Deplorables" moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters, with the Trump campaign inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement.

References

I suggest 48 hours of further comments and consensus-building, i.e. until Tuesday 18 October 12:00 UTC, after which the text will be included and follow the normal editorial process. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a number of problems with the proposed text. I don't think we should have any of it, frankly, but in the interests of trying to work constructively I am offering an alternative. Criticism came almost exclusively from political opponents, according to the sources used, so that needs to be stated. "Millions of Americans" does not appear to be supported by the sources used, and is vague and wishy-washy anyway. Most of what follows from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" does not have anything to do with the Clinton campaign. As I said in the previous discussion, the "polling data" misrepresents the views of Democrats, because the question asked in the survey did not match what Clinton said. Finally, I've removed the weasel words (again!) from the Romney comparison and rearranged the end to make it read better. I have no objection to the sources used, so I have not included them. So here's my suggested text:

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's remark was criticized by political opponents and compared to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe. The following day, she expressed regret for saying "half" while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".

Finally, I respectfully suggest you retract the arbitrary 48-hour deadline you imposed. It should not be added to the article until there is consensus, however long it takes. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Thanks for your input. I agree with attributing criticism to her opponents, namely quoting Trump himself as the sources do; see my edit. Some editors would like to drop the first sentence mentioning her prior alt-right speech (see below #Deplorables section); what do you think? The WaPo piece titled "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach" looks significant enough that we should include it, perhaps with a different wording: the rejection of this blanket characterization by Democrats as well as Republicans is the key theme of this report. I suggest trimming things to "deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and letting readers refer to the source for details. Finally, the appropriation of the "deplorables" moniker by Trump supporters is well-documented and has endured to this day, so it deserves inclusion. I'm open to wording changes and extra sources for this part, which now comes last in the proposed paragraph.

The 48-hour deadline is here to ensure that we move forward; we have already waited for the full 30-day RfC period and we can't let this glaring omission about a significant campaign event drag on until everybody's happy with the text (that will never happen). Yes it's arbitrary but I'm confident that, with a spattering of good faith from all involved, we'll reach consensus on some kind of mention fast enough, then normal editing can resume. — JFG ^talk 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are moving in the right direction, User:JFG; however, I still feel strongly that you cannot use that poll to link the views of Democrats to the "deplorables" comments. The question asked in the poll was way too unspecific to make a direct link, and the RS only vaguely refers to it in the headline (from which you presumably took "approach"). I would still favor excluding polling data completely, especially since it was only a single poll. I also think everything from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" onwards has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, but in the interests of getting this done I am no longer going to consider this a dealbreaker. As to the first sentence, I think it does give useful context, but to be perfectly honest it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as newsworthy. It would be fair to say I'm neutral as to its inclusion/exclusion. In summary, remove "and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and you have my support. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I removed the part you opposed and inserted the text into the article. Thanks for your assistance. — JFG ^talk 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• USER JFG: Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk? You edited the closed RfC by adding an official-looking comment to the admin’s closing notes, and you seem to be trying to impose your views by arbitrarily closing an ongoing discussion, starting a new one, and setting a deadline for conclusion of that discussion or else. The RfC close clearly states "… that there is no consensus for including the material in the proposed form …", and here’s your "new" proposal, exactly as proposed before and strongly objected to by numerous editors. Here’s my proposal for a neutral version:

Speaking at a New York LGBT fundraiser for her on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said that "… just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables[]" because they are "… racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic …". She continued to say that "the other basket … are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down … and they’re just desperate for change." Trump said the remarks showed "her true contempt for everyday Americans;" some of his Twitter followers added the attribute "deplorable" to their names. Truth-o-Meter The following day, Clinton issued a statement saying that she regretted saying "half" and continued her criticism of a Trump campaign built "… largely on prejudice and paranoia …". Time

Several of the other sources should also be included, TBA if and when the time comes. Signing off with a not-quite-out-of-context Trump quote: "And some, I assume, are good people." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not "in charge" or "imposing my views", I'm just trying to reach consensus and move on. I separated the discussions to clarify what was debated before the RfC close and what is being debated after. Editors who "strongly opposed" typically wanted to include nothing; now the community has decided that this event is notable enough for inclusion and we are collectively refining the text. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!). See also my remarks at the end of the new "Deplorables" section (currently last one on this Talk page). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This sentence was added for context per request of another editor; I'm only curating here, not misquoting or misinterpreting; please WP:AGF. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You have no respect for consensus, you just edit things your way after everyone has moved on. Fine, enjoy yourself; I'm not going to fight over this, but let it be clear that I have no respect towards your attitude. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

JFG, as User:Space4Time3Continuum2x says above " Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk?" You made a proposal and now you insist that just because you made it it's "consensus". It's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is closed, folks. Please do not extend it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specific wording

This subsection now redundant, as superseded by section immediately prior to this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since a previous RfC was closed with a consensus of include, but no consensus on specifics, and it was subsequently abandoned and never implemented, here is the specific wording proposed by E.M.Gregory as c/e by Sandstein. Those voting to include please also comment on whether you would support this specific version. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that... Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America." According to New York Magazine, this was the 3rd time that Clinton had referred to Trump supporters as "deplorable," but the first time that the Trump campaign made "a big deal," out of the description. References Pinging include votes: @CFredkin: @Zigzig20s: @The Four Deuces: @Sir Joseph: @Yoshiman6464: @ProfessorTofty: @SaintAviator: @MrX: @JFG: @Kierzek: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Comment - How is this comment from @Timothyjosephwood: not an egregious violation of WP:CANVASS? Also, the RfC doesn't looked closed to me. There shouldn't have been an RfC. The initiating editor abused the process, which has become S.O.P. for conservatively-minded editors on Wikipedia lately. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Because those I pinged had already voted to include, and those who have voted against inclusion in principle are assumed to also be against this wording. This isn't bringing anyone new to the conversation; it's asking for further clarification from those already around. Do use a bit of common sense please. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC) No, that's doesn't explain it at all. You are specifically drawing attention to this new section to the people you feel will support it, and not to others. That's textbook canvassing and totally inappropriate. Don't do that, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Spare me your vitriol. This was an effort to clarify whether support votes were in support of the wording in general, or the specific wording proposed by either the originator of the RfC or as added by EMG. Spit your venom somewhere else. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I don't get it either. The whole thing looks like a procedural mess that can't really be fixed at this point, but might as well inform the other participants who were not yet pinged. Am I correct that there is no closed RfC with a consensus to include? @Muboshgu:j @Brianga: @E.M.Gregory: @Nomoskedasticity: @Steve Quinn: @Scjessey: @Volunteer Marek: @My very best wishes: @Snooganssnoogans: @FallingGravity: @Clpo13: @Heterodidact: - Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)- Wikidemon (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC) RFC closed? I don't see where the RFC has been closed by an un-involved Admin or editor. Also, it appears to me that RFC consensus strongly supports exclusion of the proposed version by CFredkin. And, Josephwood demonstrates a blatant case of canvasing. The RFC should not have happened in the first place - it now appears to be an end around of the first step of the process - talk page discussion - which was obvious - but people went along. Steve Quinn (talk) The closed RfC I was referring to was this previous one on a different proposal. Because it did not reach consensus on specific wording, but rather on inclusion in principle alone, it was never implemented. As soon as interest died down the talk devolved into the same three or four intransigent editors on either side who have forgotten that WP isn't a forum for political debate. Also asking for clarification on votes re: wording is not canvassing. Please read policy before you accuse someone of violating it. TimothyJosephWood 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I think it's safe to say everyone here has read the policy. If people didn't keep violating it, you wouldn't have to remind everyone to reread it. Incidentally, the bungled RfC you refer to was already implemented as of the time it was started, which is why there was no further action. It was one of the most pointless among many pointless out-of-process RfCs. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Ignoring the nonsense accusations by exactly the intransigent editors I refer to, the RfC was not and has not been implemented despite the efforts by both these exact accusatory editors to misrepresent it, for you personally, now at least twice. TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Maybe if you and your editing colleagues didn't spray Wikipedia with unnecessary RfCs and used "regular order" instead of underhanded tactics like canvassing and forum shopping, we wouldn't be in this ludicrous mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC) For the record, unlike yourself and WD, I actually edit articles not related to HRC and the 2016 election. My !voting record here has also been fairly split between including and not including content based on its merits, and if I didn't get the overwhelming impression that a few obsessive editors were using this talk to strong arm any dissenting opinion, I wouldn't be here at all. If you think I'm canvassing then report me. If not, then get off it, and stop confusing Wikipedia for your twitter feed. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC) TJW, as I have cautioned you before you have become part of the problem here and not part of any solution. You admit above that you have come here to do WP:BATTLE against a perceived pro-Clinton cabal. You have been egging on editors to abuse process, and now in that same post, misrepresenting the history of other members of the community, "for the record" as you put it. That is unwelcome, and will come up in arbitration enforcement if there is any. Pipe down already, please. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC) TJW, according to the user stats I have edited over 6,000 unique Wikipedia pages. I've been editing on Wikipedia for over a decade across a wide range of science and political articles. Don't question my commitment to the project again. Your actions above speak for themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Oh no, I wasn't questioning your commitment to the project, I was questioning your exceptional commitment to Clinton articles. Additionally, the continual disruptive attempts to discredit every successive RfC are part of the problem, as is the continued general incivility, stonewalling, deleting other's comments, and the like that makes continued RfCs necessary. TimothyJosephWood 10:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Sure - except that "New York Magazine" should be in italics (New York Magazine). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I think it's a somewhat inferior version than the one proposed in the RfC above, and not as neutral. As usual, I oppose any quote with the middle of the quote omitted as indicated by ellipses. - MrX 21:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I think this needs the additional context of Hillary's August "alt-right" speech, which is clearly related. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Not this version. This version makes it sound like she was right to dismiss millions of Americans as deplorables. Does she want to be the president of all Americans, or only the chosen few? I also think we should add some info about Trump's campaign ad about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC) It's not for us to make it sound like she was "wrong". And no to adding Trump's ad, that's political back-and-forth that's utterly predictable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Well, it's not for us to claim she was right to insult millions of Americans either, by picking out one specific reference out of thousands. And I disagree about the ad. It shows that it's become a huge campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I think we should also add Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's criticism of the "deplorables" remark. He said, "When it comes to an election, your job as an opposing candidate is to try and inspire and enthuse people to follow your policies and your candidature, rather than slagging off people for supporting the other candidate. She was right to apologise.”".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Are there more international reactions we could add?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Why should we include any international reactions to this comment? They aren't relevant. And as it's not for us to claim she was right, it's not for us to claim she was wrong, or push the POV that she was, as you're suggesting by mentioning Sadiq Khan. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC) She's running for president, which means she will have to deal with international leaders. She appears to have made an international faux pas. (In the same way, Trump's temporary Muslim ban includes the international reaction.) And please assume good faith; I don't accuse you of bad faith, so please be civil. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Bit Lame Agree with Zig Zag. It was a hugely Foolish thing to say. SaintAviator lets talk 22:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose – I approve the RFC wording by CFredkin: clear, concise and neutral. Possibly add GAB's suggestion above from latest developments: The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump supporters. (with his citations) — JFG talk 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I oppose everything, because this is a dreadful mess. I move that we delete Wikipedia and start again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC) TMI. How about On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." According to... All that other stuff is just sensationalizing, right? So delete it. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose this wording. It doesn't improve much on the previous wording as it leaves out even more from the original quotation, most notably the "grossly generalistic" bit. Additionally, there is no mention of the other "half" of Trump's supporters that Clinton described or her subsequent comments. FallingGravity 01:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Pointlessly redundant. Our readers are not morons. If we used this quote at all, just use the quote, don't restate exactly what the quote says immediately before quoting it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Romney comparison

An editor has restored a statement, not supported by the sources cited, that "Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012.". Four sources are cited.

• The first[18] is an NPR piece that says only that the comments "remind of" remarks by Obama, Romney, and Paul Ryan. It then goes on to compare and contrast statements by various candidates about their opponents' supporters. It is not fair to say that the main point of the piece is that Clinton's statement is like Romney's,. The piece does not say that commentators have compared the two. It is a piece by a journalist described on various NPR sites as "NPR's lead editor for politics and digital audience".
• The second[19] does not describe the deplorable's comment at all in relation to Romeny, or claim that political analysts do so. Rather it quotes "Republican pollster Frank Luntz" saying so.
• The third,[20] likewise, does not discuss the comment in the context of Romeny or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that it "struck some Republicans as similar".
• The fourth[21] also does not compare the two comments or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that voters polled about the comments rejected them in about the same proportion as Romney, but then goes on to say that "it's not clear" that the Clinton quote would have the same kind of effect on the election, because"Romney's comment might have alienated people who actually might have voted for him" — hardly a comparison.

So of the four sources, only one, arguably, claims that Clinton's comment is similar, but it is hardly the only comparison or main point of the story. Using it as a primary source to generalize about what political commentators say is weak, particularly when the other three sources, whether or not their authors are political commentators, bring Romney up in the context of political opponents and voter reactions, and do not say the comments are similar. If it is true that political commentators claimed similarity we would need sources to support that. Either way, I don't think the sources support that bringing up Romney is the most pertinent public reaction to the quote. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the reinserted sentence is not supported by the sources, "… if you read beyond the headlines and first paragraph" (to quote the reinserting editor’s edit summary), so I’m now boldly going with my initial inclination and removing it. Please, do not reinsert it until this matter has been discussed. Other sources to consider:

• [22] making the case for two key differences and ending on "wait and see".
• [23] is an entire list of differences, too many to repeat here or put in the article.
• This [24] is a Slate blog but if the Bloomberg article, which doesn’t contain much more than one Republican pollster’s opinion, is acceptable as a reliable source then so is this, which refutes the same pollster’s opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables vs 47 percent

During the RFC on Clinton's "Deplorables" comment, several editors quoted sources comparing this event to Mitt Romney's "47 percent" remark in 2012. An attributed statement was accordingly included in the consensus text and sourced to no less than four reputable press articles:

Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012.

Later on, this sentence was removed from the article by Wikidemon, arguing that it misrepresented sources. I restored the phrase after double-checking the sources and I commented that the text was absolutely supported by sources, if you read beyond the headlines and first paragraph; this was reverted again by Space4Time3Continuum2x saying not supported by the sources. So let's check what the sources say:

1. NPR: The remarks also remind of inflammatory remarks in recent presidential elections on both sides — from Barack Obama's assertion in 2008 that people in small towns are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion," to Mitt Romney's 2012 statement that 47 percent of Americans vote for Democrats because they are "dependent upon government" and believe they are "victims," to his vice presidential pick Paul Ryan's comment that the country is divided between "makers and takers."
2. Bloomberg: Republican pollster Frank Luntz described Clinton’s comments as her “47 percent moment,” a reference to Republican Mitt Romney’s remarks at a private fundraiser in the 2012 campaign.
3. New York Times: Prof. Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University, said in an email that the “deplorable” comment “sounds bad on the face of it” and compared it to Mr. Romney’s 47 percent gaffe. “The comment demonstrates that she (like Romney) lacks empathy for that group,” Professor Mercieca said.
4. Washington Post: On the other hand, it's not clear whether this comment, even if people don't like it, will have anywhere near the effect that Romney's "47 percent" comment was supposed to have. That's especially because Clinton has backed away from saying it applied to half of Trump supporters and, as I noted two weeks ago, the fact that Romney's comment might have alienated people who actually might have voted for him. Clinton's comment was about people already backing her opponent — a key difference.

References

All the cited sources make distinct comparisons of Clinton's and Romney's comments, or quote political analysts comparing and contrasting the statements, so the reverts arguing bad sourcing were totally unjustified and we must restore the phrase. — JFG ^talk 00:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• See the above subsection, where I refute each of the above sources. All but one are neither primary-sourced examples of political analysts making the comparison nor are they secondary sources stating that political analysts have made the comparison. The one example of a political analyst discussing the Romney quote, the NPR piece, compares and contrasts the two. Saying it compared the two is misleading, because that creates the false impression that the source concluded that the two are similar, when in fact it goes over a bunch of different statements and does not conclude that any of them are particularly similar. By the way, could you point to any consensus reached on this? I don't see it, and the ongoing discussion / reversions by multiple editors suggest there is none. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: Sorry I had not noticed your comments before posting a new section; thanks for consolidating. To the meat of the matter:

1. NPR: You agree with me that this piece makes a comparison, and you note the author is billed as the "lead editor for politics and digital audience" at a major respectable news organization — that fits the definition of "political analyst" in my book. If you disagree with that, we could say "Political analysts and journalists", but frankly that looks heavy and superfluous. You also say that this comparison is not the main point of the piece; I agree, and I didn't claim it was. The proposed text simply states that this source and others do make the comparison.
2. Bloomberg makes a direct quote of Frank Luntz saying that Clinton just had her "47% moment". As a professional pollster, he is unambiguously a political analyst.
3. The New York Times quotes Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University, making her own comparison. She is a political scholar.
4. The Washington Post writer makes a detailed comparison, two weeks after the incident, and remarks that Clinton's statement disparages her opponents' supporters whereas Romney's alienated his own party base. How stupid of Romney! How clever of Clinton! Can we call this journalist a political analyst? Well, he just made a brilliant comparative analysis of Clinton's and Romney's statements for his readers, so that's settled.

With these comments, I stand by my determination that all four sources support the statement Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012. We do not say how they compare it or what they find similar or different: the fact is they all noticed a parallel and expressed their view of such parallel, providing ample evidence to document the existence of such parallel in our encyclopedia. I would be happy to say "compared and contrasted" instead of just "compared" if that makes it sound more neutral to you. — JFG ^talk 06:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x kindly cites three more sources, noting that they emphasize the differences between the Romney and Clinton aspersions. Whether sources notice a similarity or notice a difference, they all compare the statements, by a very literal definition of the verb "to compare": Estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between., so this further reinforces the proposed text. — JFG ^talk 07:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the sources, one of the biggest differences between Romney's and Clinton's remark is that Romney was talking about 47% of the population, while Clinton was talking about half of Trump's supporters, and that Romney's remark may have alienated voters who might otherwise have voted for him. The voters Clinton's remark might have angered or did anger would not have voted for her with or without those remarks. In other words, the sources compared the remarks and determined them to be different in both content and effect. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I still support JFG's interpretation of this. The "deplorables" comment and the "47%" comment were frequently mentioned in tandem in mainstream media sources, particularly on cable news. While there are differences, as Space4Time3Continuum2x notes, there are also similarities which are apt. Both statements involved sweeping generalizations, and both individuals apologized for doing that, which is why comparisons were made. The sources presented by JFG seem to support this view, and I think it is notable enough to give the "deplorables" comment a little useful context. And to Wikidemon, I should say that JFG and I were on opposite sides of the issue and we came together to find a text that satisfied our opposing views. Space4Time3Continuum2x objected to language at the beginning of the proposed wording we worked out, but that language came from the RfC discussion and was otherwise not in dispute. The continued silence of others led JFG and I to believe we had a consensus, which is why JFG has claimed such above. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that "compare" has two opposite meanings. One is to distinguish the difference between two things, and the other is to claim a similarity. As is, the unadorned verb suggested that political commentators opined, on their own behalf, that the two were similar. One could say more accurately that political commentators distinguished between the two statements and reactions to them by the public and by political operatives. But there is almost zero encyclopedic significance of a commentator saying that the two things were different. It would be like adding to the article about apples that many people have commented that they are not oranges. So what? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains that many people were reminded of Romney's gaffe when they heard Clinton's utterances on that day. Human brains are extremely well-tuned to pattern recognition; the conscious explanation of why we sense a pattern comes after the gut feeling. We can't deny the widespread human reaction that prompted various analyses of the similarities and differences. To address the potential ambiguity of the verb "compare" alone, we can use "compare and contrast" as I suggested above. Would you agree to this? — JFG ^talk 20:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Here’s a journalist’s analysis, and here is Romney’s own analysis, both from four months after the election. Maybe this should be revisited in a few weeks or months, after the outcome of this election has been dissected and analyzed. The excitement was short-lived (2 days?), except in the Trump camp (odd how all of them - including Trump - seem to have claimed the deplorable basket for themselves and not the "decent, hard-working, feeling left behind" half of supporters). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables

Still no mention in the article while it is still being brought up on the Sunday morning political talk programs. NBC, Meet the Press, interview with Joe Biden. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The absence of coverage of the "deplorables" controversy is a fault with the article. I suggest adding it very briefly, and building coverage tentatively.

JFG's version (above 10:40, 16 October 2016) above reads OK to me. Scjessey's version (14:04, 16 October 2016) reads on the short side. Scjessey glosses GOP and Trump responses ("was criticized by political opponents and compared"), I would think a little more information is warrented, one or two sourced examples of the criticism. At this point, I see no justification for having less than Scjessey's brief version as written, with expansion only as explicitly agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

JFG's version is definitely not okay. It contains a bunch of opinionated and POV material. A minal version would be something like this:

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech in which she said that "half of Trump's supporters [were] what I call the basket of deplorables." The "Deplorables" moniker was later adopted by Trump and his supporters.

- Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon, of course the material cited will include opinion and POV. The NPOV requirement does not preclude sources containing it. JFG's version is arguably excessive, but yours, devoid of reference? The second sentence is too terse, almost unintelligible. Was how adopted, and to what effect? There are no words commenting on the reception of the speech. Yours is excessively brief. But do put it in, because it is certainly not too much. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Which of the following references are acceptable?

• Clinton's denunciation of alt-right in NYT and association of Trump with it.Deplorables in context, NPRDeplorables speech BloombergDeplorables comment NYTWalkback TimeDeplorables Trump tee shirts USA TodayPushback by Trump and supporters, The HillTrump ad about deplorables remark, PoliticoPublic reaction, Washington Post

References

User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Fred, they could all arguably be considered acceptable, but together they are excessive, and generally they are all too close to be called good sources. Are there any considered pieces of writing, written at least a week later? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!). Also, after JFG trying to impose (again, IMO) his views and his deadline on this topic, why are you now starting an additional thread on this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Correct. That reference is about another matter, her association of Trump with Alt-Right. Should not be used for deplorables section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the August 25 alt-right speech was added per request of Muboshgu who argued that it provided appropriate context to her September 9 address. I'm only trying to build consensus by curating suggestions from various editors. I'm getting a bit tired of being accused of "imposing my views". — JFG ^talk 09:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if it comes up in the debate tonight. If it does, it certainly has stuck and I will try to put something in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it didn't. The treatment already in the article seems satisfactory for the time being. I recommend this section be archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Frankly, this part of the article has been ruined. We now have an overlong quote from Clinton that really isn't necessary, and it is overcited to the point of absurdity. What should be nothing more than a small paragraph mentioned a Clinton comment that achieved notoriety has morphed into a veritable tome that crosses the undue line. We can do better. I suggest we return to the text JFG and I worked out together and implemented with this edit and then try to address any concerns editors have on this talk page, rather than edit warring over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead[25] and shortened the quotation, most of which was an attack on Trump and not about the deplorables comment. I also removed the statement that political commentators compared it to Romney's 47% statement, which was unsupported and in fact contradicted by the cites. The cites variously said that it was not like Romney's 47% comment (because it did not alienate potential votes for her), that it remained to be seen whether it would affect voters, or that Republican operatives — not commentators — were comparing her statement to Romney's. If anybody really wants to wade through the sources I think you'll find that they only compare in a "compare and contrast" sense, and conclude that despite the quote being reminiscent, it is actually in contrast. So not terribly helpful to explain things to the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Scjessey. I just love to get tarred with the weasel brush, but you may want to take another look at your Wikipedia Xref: "… views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Also, it seems that your wording was unsupported not only by my additional sources, which you removed, but also by those already there. I support Wikidemon’s removal of the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that I already agreed to Wikidemon's version, was there a point to your comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Two points, actually: Objecting to the unwarranted weasel accusation and to the snarky summary dismissal of a viewpoint in your edit summary. You may have considered the comparison to be unimportant but that doesn’t make it so, whether you remove the "eleventy billion references" or not. Admittedly, I was already peeved about you and TFG ignoring both my text proposal and my objection to the arbitrary - and short - deadline. Funny thing is, I considered removing the "gaffe" sentence altogether but decided to be polite, leave it in, and merely change it to reflect the sources more accurately. Oh well, I’ll know better next time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much any use of "many" is as a weasel word. And I also objected to the short deadline. At this point, it looks like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Basket_of_deplorables seems good enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Khan ad

Are these two sentences about a recent Clinton campaign ad featuring Khizr and Ghazala Khan, placed under the "Advertising" section, worthy of inclusion? My initial reaction is "yes," because

(1) the ad got a significant amount of media attention (CNN and Washington Post are cited, and dozens more news sources have articles of their own about it, e.g., NYT, CBS, Politico)

(2) TV advertising is a critical thing in campaigns, and this ad is running in seven "battleground states"; and

(3) the length (two sentences) seems proportionate and the placement (under "Advertising") seems reasonable.

Thoughts? I am courtesy-tagging @JackGavin:, who added the material at issue. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. Khizr and Ghazala Khan is a notable story, but it was not even mentioned on this page. Why? Of course it must be mentioned, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, because there was no consensus, but you reinserted it without consensus. When we edit, there is a message saying, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.". Does this mean you are allowed to reinsert the content without consensus? I am genuinely confused. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, why would we try to turn this article into a campaign ad, by giving undue weight to her own campaign ads?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to actually make a substantive argument, not just make a flat assertion ("it's undue") or rely on circular reasoning. In other words, Wikipedia policies aren't magical incantations; you have to actually explain why you think a policy applies.

To the point: (1) do you really believe that two sentences in a lengthy article is "undue," and if so, why?, and (2) is there any reason whatsoever to believe that discussing a campaign ad, with citations to the reliable sources that do the same, is somehow equivalent to "turn[ing] this article into a campaign ad"? Neutrality^talk 03:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is undue weight and POV. It's advertising, basically (by definition).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is merely making an arbitrary assertion. You offer no actual reason to believe why it is "undue weight," "POV" (how??), or "advertising." Neutrality^talk 03:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A campaign ad is advertising is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously not understand the distinction between describing/discussing a campaign ad and being a campaign ad? Neutrality^talk 03:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's undue to discuss POV content like a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That is, simply put, a stunningly inaccurate understanding of NPOV. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe that "The Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza described the ad as "remarkably powerful,"" is NPOV? Really? Will it be similarly NPOV if we quote another critic calling it, "remarkably horrible"? I mean please. Give me a break.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. He's a very notable commentator, the source is reliable, and it's given in-text attribution. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like it" (and maybe "the media is biased against me"). But that's not a policy-based rationale. In any case, this back-and-forth clearly does not seem productive. I will wait for other editors to chime in. Neutrality^talk 04:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is POV to add "screaming fan" opinions, especially from someone who works for The Washington Post: they've endorsed HRC for POTUS! We can cite them for NPOV content, but not when they express their opinions.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong on every count. The editorial side of a newspaper is separate from the newsroom side, and so the endorsement is completely irrelevant. Cillizza is a political reporter, not a "screaming fan." "Powerful" is a completely fine descriptor even in a straight-news story. And since we give in-text attribution, it's irrelevant whether it's an "opinion" anyway because we clearly attribute the opinion. Neutrality^talk 04:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you think "powerful" is NPOV. It's not a neutral term by any stretch of the imagination.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Other sources besides The Washington Post also describe it as powerful [26][27][28][29]. As long as "powerful" is attributed to one of these sources, it is appropriate to include it.- MrX 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the ad is noteworthy and the material is worthy of inclusion, especially given the related controversy. It has been extensively covered by major news organizations: CBS News, CNN, USA Today, Time, Fox News, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post. While a campaign ad is obviously not neutral, we are certainly able to discuss it in this article and explain to readers why it's noteworthy without violating the NPOV policy. The proposed text presented by Neutrality does that without any problems.- MrX 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to say it's powerful? Some might think it's horrible. We shouldn't add judgements, even if they are direct quotes from commentators. Or if we do, we should add both sides.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Because our readers need some context to understand why this ad stands out from all the others and because several sources have independently used that same adjective. I'm not sure what other side you are referring to, but Ive shown my four sources, so can I see yours?- MrX 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear, this is an admin's wet dream, that little edit war over those 1,349 bytes; I was wondering who the first 2R victim was going to be. I'm glad all of y'all thought the better of it.

  Allow this admin to make a few comments. a. "Since when has Wikipedia become a mouthpiece for political ads?" (I'm quoting JFG.) It is not, and that sentence is crooked to begin with. Reporting on an ad does not mean you're a mouthpiece for the campaign. You were not the only one confusing these things. b. if y'all decide on including the ad, I suggest you leave out a bit of the detail in the description of the ad. c. if a notable person describes the ad as "powerful", and it's well-sourced and all, and you include it with proper attribution, then it is not Wikipedia saying the ad is powerful. Zigzig20s, this is you again (besides the aforementioned confusion), and this "other side" stuff makes no sense: do you want to find a commentator who says it is not powerful? This confusion between attributed statement and statement is really elementary. So "Why do you want to say it's powerful?" completely misses the point, to the point of CIR. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be reporting on campaign ads, but if there is consensus to do so, I rest my case. Whatever.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we add who paid for this ad--which Super PAC or donors?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a great ad, and it certainly has received media coverage; however, I am not personally swayed by the arguments for inclusion. It seems rather incidental to the campaign in general, and there's no evidence in reliable sources that it has been "effective" in moving the election needle. This puts me in the awkward position of being on the "same side" as Zigzig20s on this matter, albeit for different reasons. I may need a lie down. I'm not going to object to its inclusion, but I think at this point it is better left out of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hells bells, I think I just entered the twilight zone.- MrX 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL "compromised account". Consider this proof to the right wing whack jobs that I really am a neutral editor ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nuanced position – We can perhaps mention the existence of this particular ad as notable, but we absolutely shouldn't insert a value judgment about its "powerful" quality, even attributed. Several editors think that Chris Cillizza's opinion is worth mentioning; well, why wasn't his opinion worth mentioning when he wrote back in February that 1 in 5 voters considered Hillary Clinton "dishonest"? This was rightly considered undue by RfC. So, this reporter can be lauded for his capacity to make positive or negative statements about the candidate, and to uphold neutrality our editor community should take both or none. I'd rather we take none. — JFG ^talk 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Content of the unreleased/leaked Goldman Sachs speech transcripts

Some discussion

We were having a discussion about the content of the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts earlier, but it was closed by an editor (who also closed another topic shortly after), and I was asked to re-start it here. I am confused, but happy to do as I'm told. Tentatively, I suggest adding, "Clinton campaigned for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite.". The source I am using is:

• Walters, Joanna (October 9, 2016). "Clinton campaign fends off questions about WikiLeaks 'speech excerpts'". The Guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

We could also add:

Years later, however, Clinton told her Goldman Sachs audience it was “an oversimplification” to blame “our banking system causing this everywhere”, the email excerpts show. “There’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened,” she said in a 2013 speech, according to the leaked excerpts, “with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? “You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure we do it right this time.”

— Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speech, as quoted by The Guardian

Would that be OK? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A hideous misrepresentation. The sources say nothing even close to what you suggest. Neutrality^talk 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it please? I am happy to hear suggestions--that's why I started this topic. Of course, as long as she won't release the full transcripts, it is hard to know exactly what her policy positions are--but this is as good as it gets until she does, so we should include something. Thanks again for your interest.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the longstanding language that is already in the article: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks. The speeches, and Clinton's not releasing their transcripts, would be raised as an issue by her opponents during the upcoming primary and general election campaigns." Neutrality^talk 03:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're off topic. This is about the content of the speeches, as the title and first sentence suggest. Specifically, her various policy positions on financial regulations or lack thereof. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this failure to understand on your part is willful or not, but Clinton's "positions on financial regulations" is described at political positions of Hillary Clinton and in multiple primary and secondary sources. There is little or no direct tie between that issue and "the content of the speeches" and no reliable source that I have seen indicates anything solid to the contrary. Neutrality^talk 03:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read The Guardian? Please see above (and direct quote). This is happening in the midst of her campaign, so I believe it is relevant to her campaign, as per RS weight. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article does not indicate that Clinton's speeches was at odds with her publicly stated and well-known positions on financial regulation. So no, we're not going to shoehorn in some innuendo into the article that isn't clearly supported by a reliable, cited source. Neutrality^talk 04:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And I quote from The Guardian: "Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, similarly struggled to answer questions about the purported excerpts, including a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs bankers which discussed Clinton having a separate “public and a private position”.".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And the article goes on to say that this could have been a reference to a public position and what a person is willing to concede in a legislative-negotiation context. You want to insert text based on a distortion, or at the very best a stretching, of the source. I'm not going to engage with you anymore on this point because it's an absolutely fruitless endeavor. Neutrality^talk 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Mook and Podesta try to pretend there's no difference, but The Guardian suggests otherwise (see quote above). Now from The New York Times:

• "Most strikingly, Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents. [...] In a January 2016 speech in New York, amid her tough primary campaign with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend the Dodd-Frank Act and expand financial regulation to new territory, such as hedge funds and high-frequency traders.":
• Chozick, Amy; Confessore, Nicholas (October 15, 2016). "Hacked Transcripts Reveal a Genial Hillary Clinton at Goldman Sachs Events". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

Also:

• "In a separate speech to Goldman Sachs employees the same month, Mrs. Clinton said it was an “oversimplification” to blame the global financial crisis of 2008 on the U.S. banking system.":
• Barbaro, Michael; Chozick, Amy; Confessore, Nicholas (October 7, 2016). "Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk

• A suggestion. I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here. I think three first short paragraphs immediately after the title "Post-2008 election" are well sourced, but their meaning and relevance to the page is impossible to understand for a casual reader like myself. Adding what was suggested above would make this even less understandable for a casual reader. I would suggest to remove these three short paragraphs and consolidate the remaining much better text ("Decision-making process" and "Expectations") under the title "Post-2008 election". My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we delete all the content about the speeches? Sorry, we had an RfC which led to clear consensus for inclusion. What we may need to do however, is flesh it out with more information about the content of those speeches, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what consensus for inclusion are you talking about? If about that one, it did not result in anything, and it was not really about the text I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is there. User:BU Rob13, can you please explain this to the editor above? They want to delete it--after we went through with the RfC and you had to put your foot down to make sure the RfC was not ignored.

But now we have moved on to another issue--the content of the speeches--specifically, her public and private policy positions on financial regulations. Can we please stick to discussing this?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. The consensus was to include Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs somewhere, but it is completely unclear from the text why this became an election issue. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the admin who closed the RfC and put his foot down to stop the dithering will explain this to you. I don't have the patience. We've agreed to include it; there's no need to discuss this endlessly. You could have participated in the RfC in the first place, but one person wouldn't have made a difference. I suppose you could unclose the topic at the top of this page and re-start the conversation there if you want.

But for this topic here, I want to focus on the content of the speeches please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest a slightly different approach than we have had so far. Perhaps you could find, let's say, three strong sources that discuss the content of the speech in the context of the election. Then we can take a quick straw poll to make sure we have consensus for those sources. Then we can work on some wording that summarizes those sources. How does that sound?- MrX 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I already added one from The Guardian and two from The New York Times above, all of which were published in the context of the election. Now, I don't necessarily expect us to reach consensus today (we are all busy in real life). If there is no consensus within a week, another RfC may be in order, as BU Rob13 suggests in the previous topic (before it was closed as I was asked to start a new topic for the content). I do think it would help if we could get more editors than the usual suspects on this talkpage, as shown by the last RfC, which led to consensus for inclusion, but I will let you think about it. Perhaps we will reach consensus quickly this time, as per RS. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty distilling a summary from the NYT articles, but I think it can be found in these paragraphs:

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms during the Democratic primary contests, when her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, intensely criticized her for accepting roughly $225,000 per speech.

But on Saturday, transcripts of three appearances at Goldman Sachs events were released by WikiLeaks, part of a trove of thousands of emails obtained by hackers who illegally breached the email account of one of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides.
...
Excerpts from some of her speeches had previously been released by WikiLeaks, shortly after a recording surfaced in which her opponent, Donald J. Trump, made crude remarks about women. The Clinton campaign has refused to verify the authenticity of the transcripts, which came from the hacked email account of John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. The campaign has blamed the Russian government for the hack and WikiLeaks — whose founder, Julian Assange, is a critic of Mrs. Clinton — for releasing the emails in a coordinated effort to help Mr. Trump, a view echoed by the Obama administration.
— New York Times

We could also mention that she "did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation" and that the US has officially accused Russia of hacking to influence the election.[30]- MrX 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the main issue is Dodd-Frank. This topic is about her “public and a private position” on financial regulations. It's not about Russia (they've denied it, and so has Trump) or Sanders (who is already included in the article). This is tedious. I'm tired now.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two topics coming out of these speech transcripts: financial regulations and open borders. Each time there is a public and private policy position, as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We could create another section about Wikileaks. I guess it's become a campaign issue at this point. But I think that's off topic here. We can start another topic to discuss that. otherwise we'll get confused.Zigzig20s (talk)

WRT private and public policy positions, I believe you're referring to "Citing the back-room deal-making and arm-twisting used by Abraham Lincoln, she mused on the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues." You seem to be conflating that and the fact that she is running for president to mean that she has private and public positions, which is not a supported by the sources. In fact, it's a Trump campaign/Breitbart spin that has been refuted by other sources if I recall correctly. I am steadfast in my belief that if mention any Wikileaks material it has to be done in the context of the wantonly illegal actions by Russia to obtain the material. Of course Russia has denied it. It makes no difference whatsoever what Trump thinks of it.- MrX 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read the articles I posted above. I have zero personal opinion whatsoever about HRC. The only thing I care about is policy, and The Guardian and The New York Times suggest she told the American public she was for financial regulations only to tell the opposite to Goldman Sachs. As for the origin of the leaks, we are not the mouthpiece of HRC's campaign. Of course it matters if Russia and Trump deny it, and we should mention that if we are going to bring up Russia. But I think we should simply focus on the content of the transcripts: her policy positions. Besides, come to think of it, if she wants to stop blaming it all on Russia, she is still free to release the full transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to read the article. My comments above, including direct quotes from the articles would seem to indicate that I have read the articles. I have.

Assuming that the Wikileaks documents are authentic, her comments to Goldman Sachs three years ago cannot reasonably be interpreted as policy statements nor are they the "opposite" of supporting financial regulation. That seems to be your original research. I decline to argue about Russia's role, and will let other editors comment about the extent to which that material should be included.- MrX 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times says she defends Dodd-Frank in front of the American public and dismisses it in front of Goldman Sachs. We had a long discussion about Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton and some of it would be relevant here. I think it may be easier to split our topic discussions into: 1) financial regulations 2) open borders 3) Wikileaks. Otherwise we'll get confused. I'm out for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I see I didn't miss anything while I was out of town for the weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take another look at some point, but I don't see any cause right now to include anything about the content of the emails, or the speeches, in the campaign article, based on the relative lack of interest by the sources, and the reporting that there was nothing particularly noteworthy to be found. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, opposite views on financial regulations and open borders, depending on US voter v. Wall Street. Lots of RS. Who is the real HRC?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. The key point here is that while we had a consensus (confirmed by the RfC) that the existence of Wall Street speeches became a campaign issue (largely in the primaries), the actual content of those speeches (and related emails) does not seem to be a campaign issue at all. One could argue it (the content) has led to a few awkward answers from campaign surrogates when quizzed about certain aspects, but there's nothing to suggest in reliable sources that it has become a problem for the campaign. In fact, the media has overwhelmingly focused on the Russian connection to WikiLeaks, rather than the material released. None of that seems to have any relevancy to this article. I get why Zigzig20s wants this stuff in the article, but there's a cast-iron consensus for exclusion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't be the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign though. That would be POV. Who cares what they think? There is enough RS to include this. The Wikileaks controversy is a separate issue from the content of the secret speeches in my view; it should probably be included too, though in a separate section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How are "we" being the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign? That's just a ridiculous statement to make, which nobody is going to take seriously. And "the WikiLeaks controversy" really has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. As you say, it is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record. But repeating what the attractive Robby Mook wants us to say (blaming Russia instead of addressing her apparently opposite policy positions on financial regulations and open borders) would make us his mouthpiece, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Now, the Wikileaks stuff happened in the midst of her campaign, with info regarding her campaign, so of course it's relevant to her campaign. There's enough RS for its inclusion, too. There is also the anti-Catholic stuff, which we could include.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant to your interpretation of the campaign. I am wondering if we have a competence issue here. Nor do I see why you called him "the attractive Robby Mook". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not me. Please stop trying to personalize everything. This has nothing to do with me; I am a nobody. It's RS. Are you questioning The Guardian, The New York Times, etc.?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, I see that you've commented on Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton. So you know many editors believe this is relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, please, your comments seem to have degenerate to making thinly veiled personal attacks on editors ("I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record").Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing personal whatsoever about editing Wikipedia. Please don't over-interpret and stop trying to personalize everything. I don't have time for this. I can help a little bit with content--that's all I care about--but I am overworked this week. I'd rather you reached consensus for inclusion by yourselves frankly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if the proposing editor doesn't have time for this, I suggest we mark this discussion closed for lack of consensus / withdrawn. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because there are other editors bound interested in this, as per weight of RS. My Gosh. Please stop trying to close topics when you don't like them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, it looks like it's you versus the rest of the community. All of the other editors in this thread disagree with you, making this a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing it. I just have business meetings to prepare in real life, which take precedence of HRC's campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of editors were interested at Talk:Hillary Clinton. Just leave it open and in the unlikely event that no other editor comments on this, it will get archived by the bot anyway. But I doubt it, given the extent of the RS. A couple of editors actively watching this talkpage don't own it; let the community argue for inclusion. Let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need the only objector to withdraw his/her objection to close. I suggest someone uninvolved close this counterproductive thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I suggest you let the community come together and discuss this. There's a reason why we have a bot archiving discussions after a while. We are under no obligation to respond to topics within a couple of hours. We are not on anyone's payroll; we do this as volunteers. Most of us have full-time jobs. Give the community a week at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you would have more luck with your POV pushing if you didn't reply to every single comment. Just a thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is completely NPOV, as per weight of RS. Please assume good faith. When I stopped replying, you wanted to archive it within 40 minutes. This is ridiculous. I am horrified that you're trying to close anything you don't like. We have a bot for a reason. Please let the community breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no deadline. It seems to me that after Sanders' many many calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, and after the significant media coverage of the public/private dichotomy that this is a relevant encyclopedic issue for the article HRC presidential campaign. I would note that the allegations of Russian influence on Wikileaks are duly noted on the Wikileaks page (which I have edited in order to add comment from an EFF board member critical of mass email hack dumpings). It would seem to me that both sides of the issue should be presented and that this discussion should not be closed. I too am busy, but seeing the same coterie of editors pushing here as elsewhere (cf. Talk:Clinton Foundation) I can only smh that this (in addition to Volunteer Malek's violation of 1RR on the page in question are tolerated by the WMF.SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not reading the actual discussion before commenting, given that most of it is a waste of time. Quick summary: There was an RfC to include "Goldman Sachs" et al, language was worked out, consensus was agreed and it was added to the article. This section is about Zigzig20s' obsession with also including the content of the transcripts, for which a strong consensus for exclusion exists because it isn't really relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We are allowed to have a discussion about the content here, whether you like it or not. User:SashiRolls agrees that "the public/private dichotomy [...] is a relevant encyclopedic issue", so your so-called consensus is over. Don't close this. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And I have zero "obsession" whatsoever. Once again, there is nothing personal about this at all. I only care about relaying content from reliable third-party sources. But this is beside the point. Editors want to discuss this. Let it go and let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not the one who called for this section to be closed or archived. I just think you are wrong about it. I have no problem with letting this discussion mature, as long as you give other editors a chance to have their say and stop replying to every single comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to do, since I am overworked in real life this week anyway, until y'all threatened to close this topic within 40 minutes.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, what are you going on about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

this SashiRolls (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You've pretty much guaranteed nobody will take you seriously by doing that. Need me to call a whambulance? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon closed this discussion, but I don't think it is an appropriate closure, so I have unclosed it.

It's not appropriate because there is an active discussion going on. The discussion was only 44 hours old, garnering pages and pages of debate from eight editors, the last contribution just 4 hours before the closing. There is plenty of evidence at least one editor has more to say. And maybe there are others who care and haven't had a chance to comment yet. 44 hours is pretty short for some busy people.

The closing statement said, "Closing after no consensus found, without prejudice to any future content proposal on the topic; proposing editor is declining to pursue proposal for now", but that's not a reason to close; A reason to close would be consensus has been reached. Or the topic is dead so new commenters should be warned not to waste their time. If the proposing editor is declining to pursue the proposal for now, and no one else wants to, the discussion will just pause or stop on its own; no closure is needed. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody please re-close, and can everybody please try to avoid any WP:POINTy process games? Giraffedata and everyone else, if you have a content proposal to make on the subject would you kindly do so in a new section that explains the proposed content change and avoids the above infighting, sniping, and so on? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Before doing so, please review WP:Closing discussions and you will probably reach the conclusion that it is not acceptable to tag this discussion as closed. Closing is a form of weak arbitration where someone, necessarily objective and uninvolved, reviews the discussion and declares that a consensus has been reached and the discussion has served its purpose. We don't have a mechanism on Wikipedia for just closing down a discussion because it is stupid or pointless; on the contrary, we never stifle discussion. People who are bored by this thread can just ignore it. If there aren't at least two people who want to discuss, the discussion will just stop on its own. If someone is "discussing" something to the point of being disruptive, the proper procedure is to get a ban of that editor. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not even close to how it works. If you'd like to entertain a meta-discussion of how to deal with talk page disruption there's probably a better place to do it than here, and a better way than jumping into a disruptive discussion to make a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find only a passing mention of her Goldman Sachs speeches in the article. It was a focal issue in the primary campaign which regained prominence upon their release. I've excerpted coverage of just one of her comments from that speech (on Dodd-Frank) from top RS.

The part of her remarks most likely to be politically problematic concern financial industry regulation. In an Oct., 2013, discussion with Tim O'Neill, who is the co-head of investment management at Goldman Sachs, Clinton appears to suggest the impetus for the Dodd–Frank Wall Street reform legislation was at least partially "for political reasons." ... Clinton also said that "there are so many places in the country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping." This is far softer language than Clinton uses on the campaign trail. She often praises Dodd-Frank and says she wants it strengthened.

-NPR

Most strikingly, Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.

“I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all,” Mrs. Clinton said of the overhaul.

Mrs. Clinton took a far stronger line in public, particularly after she began her second bid for president. In a January 2016 speech in New York, amid her tough primary campaign with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend the Dodd-Frank Act and expand financial regulation to new territory, such as hedge funds and high-frequency traders.

-NY TImes

In an October 2013 speech to the financial firm, Clinton implied that action was necessary to curb Wall Street street abuses "for political reasons."

-CNN

Clinton claimed the backlash and resentment toward Wall Street was a “misunderstanding” and said banks weren’t performing as well as they could out of fear of regulations. “There are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations,” she said. Clinton then said Dodd-Frank was enacted for “political reasons.” Had these speeches been exposed during the Democratic primaries, they would have had severely negative implications, and undermined Clinton’s self-portrayal as a presidential candidate who will rein in Wall Street.

-Observer

Most strikingly, Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.

-Boston Globe

Are editors honestly suggesting this is non-notable, especially relative to statements like "She criticized Bernie Sanders for calling the Human Rights Campaign 'part of the establishment'" which the article includes? For a politician who hasn't suffered from lack of criticism I have a hard time finding any of it in our article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem unimportant and without much general interest from mainstream sources or the population as a whole. You have it backwards. If you wish to propose that there is some content to include in the article, would you kindly propose some content and to save a cycle perhaps explain why you consider it justified? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I presented coverage in top RS and your response is "it seems unimportant" ? Well, good on you for having an opinion! I'm not proposing an addition though I believe Zigzig20s was. You're suggesting the discussion should be closed, I'm suggesting it should not be. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an opinion, a summary take on the sources so far proposed after a number of months watching this unfold. Other editors and I are not inclined to repeat the entire discussion from the starting point every time the same editor makes yet another proposal to include the exact same content. So you're jumping in to thwart other editors as a process game rather than to make a good faith proposal for improving the article? Swell. Welcome to the talk page. Again, I ask others to close yet another train wreck here, and if anybody wants to actually help improve the encyclopedia, please go ahead and propose some content. - Wikidemon (talk)

It's new content. The content of the speeches is new. HRC hid it for over a year despite repeated requests from her opponents and the public at large; we have excerpts now, and as User:James J. Lambden suggests, enough RS to include this. We had to go through the palaver of an RfC to include the mere fact of the speeches in the article, and the overwhelming majority of the community (not the editors on this talkpage) was for inclusion. Do we need to start another RfC to reach consensus for inclusion of the content of the speeches too? Perhaps. What we learned from the previous RfC is that the editors on this talkpage do not necessarily reflect the overwhelming majority of the community. Now, as User:Giraffedata suggests, "It's not appropriate [to close this topic] because there is an active discussion going on." and "no closure is needed." If you don't like this topic, nobody is forcing you to keep looking at it. You can "close" it in your head by looking at other pages. But please respect us. We want to discuss the inclusion of content as per weight of RS here, and there is no deadline. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no active content discussion going on. Or were you lying, or just flopping, when you said you were not going to pursue this discussion because you had better things to do? This is becoming pathological. Please, either make a meaningful content proposal for this article or get off the pot. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't insult me ("lying", "pathological"). Totally unacceptable. The meaningful content proposal started at the very top of this thread with direct quotes about financial regulations from RS; User:James J. Lambden suggested some more; there is no need whatsoever for you to micromanage this. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Let us breathe and work on this as a community.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your initial proposal was thoroughly rejected yet again as "egregious", "innuendo", and a "hideous misrepresentation", so after bashing the community for a while you said you were withdrawing. Were you telling the truth or not when you said you were going away to deal with work? You keep saying that. This has become a pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I spent some time reading what RS tell about the meaning of leaked emails like this. Here is the problem: this is all too open to different interpretations, mostly about her personal character, and does not include anything outright illegal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

* Suggestion - This is aimed at Zigzig20s, James J. Lambden et al. Rather than just list quotes from sources and argue about whether or not they can be culled for material, how about making an actual content proposal for us to consider? Submit some actual text with the appropriate references and then try to win a consensus for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we add a direct quote from The New York Times to avoid Wikidrama, perhaps just, "According to The New York Times, excerpts from her Goldman Sachs speeches showed that, "Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.". User:James J. Lambden: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I can sort of see where you are coming from with this, but has it received significant coverage? Apart from the NYT article, I am having a hard time finding anything; therefore, I must conclude it isn't noteworthy enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's received a lot of media, as User:James J. Lambden pointed out earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing above is acceptable. I think a paraphrase would be better unless that prompts objections. "political reasons" should stay in quotes. I'm somewhat baffled by the no-significant-coverage claim – see my excerpts above which I pared down from a long list of RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot support this unnecessary addition that adds nothing to the article. BTW, there is duplicative sourcing in that list ("strikingly..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Pantsuit Power

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we fit the below text somewhere in the article?

Thank you, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Choreographers Celia Rowlson-Hall and Crishon Landers with the help of film producer Mia Lidofsky created a flash mob dance video on 2 October 2016 in support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 set to the music of Can't Stop the Feeling! by Justin Timberlake — with all of the dancers wearing pantsuits in reference to Hillary Clinton's outfit of choice. They called the event #Pantsuitpower Flashmob for Hillary. The video became popular, with coverage in news media including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Vogue, — and garnering over 2 million views on Facebook. From New York City, the Pantsuit Power movement then spread to Raleigh, North Carolina on 23 October 2016 with another flash mob.

Very interesting, but not really significant enough to be part of the telling of the story of the campaign. Perhaps you could find some other article where the content fits better, or even consider a stand-alone article about this if there is enough sourcing to make it independently notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if there's more flash mobs cropping up in multiple groups? You really think it's enough for its own article [31] [32]? Where else or what other articles could it fit into? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Declined, per WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New email issue - reversion explanation

I've reverted additions to the article that concern today's letter to Congress from James Comey about emails from Huma Abedin using Weiner's laptop. There's no indication that the matter has become a "campaign issue", and so little information is actually known about the matter it is a textbook example of recentism. Let's monitor the story, and let it develop at Hillary Clinton email controversy. If it becomes a campaign issue, we can revisit the matter with some proposed text on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose the reversion. The whole campaign is recentist; RS suggest it is a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised you would have this opinion. While the facts of the matter are backed up by reliable sources, their relevance to the campaign is not. Sources are all now saying the emails are inconsequential, so I was absolutely right to be concerned about recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources tend to disagree with your assessment, for example:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into newly discovered emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s just 11 days before the presidential election, reigniting a massive controversy that has haunted the Clinton campaign for months.".

Revesz, Rachael (October 28, 2016). "FBI in new Hillary Clinton email investigation 11 days before presidential election". The Independent. Retrieved October 29, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose reversion this is clearly a big issue, it is blatant chicanery to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• 74tyhegf, your restoration of the text violates WP:BRD. Please self revert and discuss sensibly, preferably without accusing editors of "blatant chicanery" and focusing on the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly a campaign issue, so the wholesale removal of the topic is inappropriate. However, much of the detailed information in the news coverage comes from FBI leaks. This, is, in effect, use of anonymous primary sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You have not answered my point about recentism, which was the basis for the reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Emails Found in Weiner Inquiry Jolt Race" is The New York Times headline. "Recentism" is not a valid reason to revert well-sourced information, ..."up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think the material should be restored. It is well sourced, it is neutral, it is brief, and the information certainly has become a campaign issue. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey has not explained how recentism applies. The story is dominating the 24 hour news cycle in the last days of the campaign. Put it back. TFD (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Er... that's a pretty dumb statement. Did you actually read recentism? "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view..." et al. What we have here is an event that just happened and that we know very little about. It is irresponsible to put it into the article, particularly with all sources now suggesting it is a Nothing Burger. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, calling the statements of other people dumb may be an effective tactic on Reddit, but here it is just disruptive. It masks the fact you have no case and are resorting to an argumentum ad lapidem. A reasonable response would have explained how "recentism" relates to the information. It's not some sort of chant that makes unpalatable information go away. The email controversy is not "an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The Clinton campaign itself is a recent event and what happens in its final days is significant if it becomes the focus of the 24 hour news cycle. In a perfect world of course the mainstream media might have ignored the story, in which case we would have excluded it. TFD (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Recentism does not apply here. Comey’s letter has been characterized as historical by most sources and because of the unprecedented release it will surely be noteworthy for many years. Leaving the Email section ending with “The probe was concluded on July 5, 2016, with a recommendation of no charges” is wrong in light of the reopening of the investigation. Calling it a “Nothing Burger” is just wishful thinking among Clinton supporters. I restored the material with reliable source and tagged the section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is a WP:BRD issue, and just saying "recentism doesn't apply here" doesn't make it so. Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton, unless you count a "six degrees of separation" situation, and Wikipedia does not do guilt by association. This is a matter for the Comey article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton???

Read the Headlines

NYT

Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

CNBC

FBI probing new emails related to Clinton case

Washington Post

Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry

New emails disprove Clinton’s story

USATODAY

New emails under review in Clinton case emerged from Weiner probe

WSJ

FBI Reviewing Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Server Probe

CNET

FBI uncovers new Clinton emails relating to server case

PBS

10 things we learned about Clinton’s emails from the new FBI documents

Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Those are dated sources, largely. The new information that has come to light (which is one of the reasons why WP:RECENT is a thing) indicates it has nothing to do with Clinton or her campaign. Please stop cherry picking. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have consensus apart from the clinton whipping boy so im going to go ahead and add relevant information. saying "sources" or "reliable sources" back up your point is ridiculous when you dont even provide the sources you are supposedly referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And I've given you the appropriate warning for edit warring. I'll ignore that disgusting personal attack just this once. And I don't have to provide sources to prove a negative. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be consensus about adding it. This is edit warring. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

dude, you just said "Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton". so put up or shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

'“This is like an eighteen-wheeler smacking into us, and it just becomes a huge distraction at the worst possible time,” said Donna Brazile, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a close Clinton ally.' NYT User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that it will probably be relevant to the campaign. Even if it dies out and goes away tomorrow, say, because the FBI were to say that it has nothing to do with Clinton and no new privileged emails were found, the fact that it happened might still be of enough relevance to mention. However, we do not yet know what to say about it, that picture has changed every few hours. Which is kind of the point of WP:NOT#NEWS. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is clearly, at best, a "wait and see" situation. This article is meant to represent an overview of the entire campaign, and it would seem that this is of extraordinarily low significance in the grand scheme of things. And the sudden flood of editors who have not been active here for a long time is an indication that the good of the project may not be their first concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey - so using mainstream media is cheery picking; and you have [secrete] sources that show it has nothing to do with Clinton; and the flood of editors shows their intent is not good. Wow! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good analysis of this matter by The NYT. Probably more detail than we want in the article now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Leading off on Washington Journal on C-SPAN today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Vox puts everything into perspective. It is a Comey story, not a Clinton story. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign 2016 issue. That's what it is. Even the BBC agrees.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree to "wait and see". Unrelated case resulted in FBI’s discovery (on hardware shared by Clinton aide and aide’s sleazy spouse) of emails that may or may not be emails sent from or to Clinton’s private email server and - if so - may or may not have not been vetted by the FBI in earlier investigation and - if not - should or should not have been classified as "confidential/restricted/classified etc." and - if they should have been - possible violation of law or not. Vaguely worded FBI announcement resulted in 24-hour breathless Breaking News headlines reporting on "unrelated case resulting in FBI’s discovery etc. pp.". May or may not be connected to email controversy. May or may not transform into information at some point in the future. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR. Instead, reliable third-party sources suggest this is absolutely relevant to her campaign. Even HRC talked about it in a speech.--Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this information should be added with emphasis on the campaign's response. ^Falling_Gravity 16:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No OR involved, just content from reliable sources boiled down to the facts known so far (the Vox piece cited above, also Kurt Eichenwald's Newsweek piece on 10/29/16, among others). I just don't see how this is even a Clinton email story, much less a Clinton campaign story at the moment, or how it could be worded to make it encyclopedic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would support adding information about this issue (obviously), but I'd oppose referring to where the texts came from (the whole Weiner thing). Sourcing a rather serious claim (that Weiner may have been involved in this scandal) can't be sourced to "anonymous sources" as per WP:BLP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Correct. as above, sourced in FBI leaks. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

All the Sunday morning news talk shows were devoted to this topic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Morning Joe this morning. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Add it. Add it now. Currently our paragraph on the email controversy ends with "The probe was concluded on July 5, 2016, with a recommendation of no charges, a decision that was followed by the Justice Department." That is misleading - virtually false - given the recent development. If we don't update this with a sentence, we are guilty of misleading readers. And nobody has come up with a valid reason for suppressing it, just a vague wave toward WP:Recentism which obviously does not apply here (and which BTW is an essay, not policy). --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. At this point there is clear consensus to add something - nine people in favor, three or possibly four against. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I propose the following sentence be added to the end of the email controversy section: But on October 28, 2016, Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case, adding that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant".

References

I think this is the minimal information that should be added; more could be said, particularly about the reaction of the campaigns or the effect on the campaign (since this is the campaign article), but let's keep it to a sentence for now. The word "But" is optional; we can leave it out if people think it is somehow non-neutral. Please comment - should we add this, or tweak this wording, or not add anything? --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded Add that the case was reopened, and debate further wording and details. The question of inclusion itself seems fairly self evidently open-and-shut give the sheer weight of coverage the matter has received. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Looks good For a start. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is the wrong article for such speculative recentism. Hillary Clinton email controversy is the only place this matter deserves coverage for the time being, unless it can be shown at a later date that this has had a significant impact on the presidential campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Per MN, the new information makes the prior/current wording simply wrong. Also, per WP:DUE, the relevant metric is the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, not the relative impact on the campaign. TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Huh? My opposition has nothing to do with prior/current wording. It has to do with the fact that to date, it has little relevancy to the campaign, so this is the wrong article to cover it. No evidence has emerged that it has changed voter opinions, or changed the way the campaign has functioned. This is a story about Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin and James Comey, and it is not yet a story about the Clinton campaign, and may never be. This is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that an overwhelming majority of the coverage appears to think it is indeed an issue about the Clinton campaign. So your opinion about the true nature of the story is duly noted, but does not however appear to be particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The case was not "re-opened" as the FBI does not "close" cases, in case new evidence comes up later. This seems to be more about Huma so far than Hillary, at least until the emails have been reviewed. Agree with Scjessey above. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is true. The proposed wording does not say "re-opened". --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood states above "Add that the case was reopened". 331dot (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of another. My point is that given the coverage, the material is due, and should be added to correct the current wording which is incorrect as a summary of the conclusion of email related issues. However, we should add what is minimally required to correct this, and gain consensus on further details. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So, 331dot, given that the proposed wording does not say "reopened", which I agree it should not say - are you now OK with adding it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you could say that I oppose adding it at this time, at least until the emails have been reviewed and we know what is going on. The article on this whole scandal, I believe, is the better place to mention all of this until then. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a moving target. Every few hours the issue changes. As of the moment, a mention would have to frame Comey's statement as something unprecedented and controversial, that the Clinton campaign jumped on. Also that it did not bear on the substance of the email issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, it is that aspect of this issue that is probably the only thing that is relevant to this campaign article. There's some back and forth from the mainstream media about the reaction of the campaign to Comey's faux pas. The reaction of the campaign may end up being the notable aspect of Comey's gaffe that might get it into the article. It's still early days though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - It's brief, relevant, WP:DUE, and it doesn't speculate about possible outcomes.- MrX 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The brevity and ambiguity of the FBI's letter is what makes it a campaign issue, and is why it has dominated news coverage over the weekend. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of reverting everyone who tries to mention this bombshell, allow something to be added to the article, then discuss better wording here. It's been almost three days since this major news hit Clinton's campaign like a ton of bricks, and it's a little silly that every mention of it being added to the article is being removed. TweedVest (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a proposal under discussion. Please don't circumvent that discussion by inserting your own preferred version into the article. - MrX 17:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't "subvert" the discussion. Once a consensus is reached you just replace it. You don't think it's silly that three days after one of the biggest bombshells of this election campaign, it's not even mentioned in the article yet? Wikipedia doesn't work. TweedVest (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Generally, changes to an article are tabled while a discussion is ongoing regarding consensus for those changes. This is the case with very few exceptions, such as apparent WP:BLP or WP:CV violations, which this is not. TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• If that's the case, you just confirmed for me that Wikipedia fundamentally does not work. TweedVest (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Okay? TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above there were nine people in favor of adding something and three (possibly four) against mentioning it. In the discussion about this particular wording, we have five in favor and two (possibly three) opposed. Are we at consensus to add it yet? --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a decent consensus to me.- MrX 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Put me in the include column. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to represent current status of this affair, MelanieN. — JFG ^talk 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall, I find the argument that it should be included in the main article unconvincing, since it already is, and the section is intended to be a summary thereof. There has been little or no substantive argument that I can tell to the effect that a single sentence to summarize three paragraphs in the main is somehow undue, which is the core issue. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added it. We now have information in the article that the FBI is looking into newly discovered emails which may or may not be significant. I would propose we leave it at that until the effect on the campaign, if any, becomes clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support Certainly we must mention that the investigation has been resumed. TFD (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support It is obvious that there is overwhelming consensus to add the Comly letter to this article. Minority objections of “Recentism” and it has “nothing to do with the campaign” have been considered and rejected. I agree with most editors that references to Weiner/Abedin should not be included because they are attributed to anonymous sources. I agree that we should refrain from using terms like “reopen” etc. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I can't say that there has been consensus here, not after 72 hours of a few editors debating a rapidly changing narrative. It's pretty obvious that this is relevant in some way or another to the campaign, although we cannot be sure now what that is or whether the current wording is fair. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't think that we have a consensus. For now, I have removed the introductory "but" which IMO is definitely non-neutral, i.e., editor stating personal opinion. I've also added how and where the emails were discovered, per the source. Adding the sentence without this info that the source reviews at length IMO is also non-neutral, i.e., the sentence seemingly suggesting that someone was hiding the emails somewhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a well written addition. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We still don't have a consensus, and MelanieN has jumped the gun (as usual) and put it into the article; however, in the interests of article stability I am not going to remove it unless it is agreed here that we should. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

At the time I added it, the discussion about this particular wording had seven in favor, two (possibly three) opposed. Based on discussion since I added it, it is now nine in favor, four opposed. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Two-to-one should suffice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work that way. Consensus is an evolving agreement among editors about things. We don't take spot polls to lock in the wording of articles. That's like saying that Hillary Clinton has consensus to win the electoral college nine-to-four because the first 72 hours of write-in ballots gave her that advantage. As long as this issue and the reliable sources describe it continue to unfold, we can and should accept that editors may differ as to how to describe it. The outcome of the election, only seven days away now, will make a significant difference in how this is treated, as would the FBI's eventual decision to investigate, not investigate, make recommendations, or simply go dark as they usually do, as well as whether the FBI director stays on or is drummed out over it, whether it creates a new precedent for federal investigators making announcements, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the wording discussed should stay forever and always regardless of how events unfold. TimothyJosephWood 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But plenty of people are arguing we shouldn't have anything until it becomes clear how significant is. As usual, there are editors who simply can't wait to shove stuff into the article that will reflect poorly on its subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe there were three. Despite what you might believe, most experienced editors make decisions based on criteria other than whether it makes someone look good or bad. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec x2) Reply to Wikedemon: Many of the commenters in the first part of this discussion felt that we should add something NOW - not dither around to wait for events to finish "unfolding", or to wait until after the election for heavens sake before we can even mention it. That do-something-now feeling is why I proposed a wording which deals only with the Friday letter. The fallout from it will continue to unfold, possibly for months, and we can hold further discussions about what to add and when. But the Friday letter is a historic fact and needed to be documented here. As also noted above, it was misleading to have our article state that the FBI finished its investigation in July, end of story, giving added urgency to the need to add an update. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Scjessey: the "plenty of people" who are saying we shouldn't have anything until, well, whenever they feel it finally "becomes clear", which could be never - those "plenty of people" are a small minority (roughly a third) of the people discussing here. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this was not a vote, but it was a discussion - and the minority does not get to muzzle the majority and keep things out of the article indefinitely when there is a clear consensus to add them. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording not supported by sources

The current wording in the article is: On October 28, 2016 Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case, adding that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant"

This is not precisely supported by the citation, as Comey didn't use the term "the case," and its use here is ambiguous, and may imply a negative connotation unsupported by reliable sources (The term "case" can refer to an investigation, to a legal proceeding, or to a set of facts supporting a particular conclusion.)

I would propose the following change in wording, based on Comey's actual letter: On October 28, 2016 FBI Director James Comey wrote to the Chairmen of several congressional committees, to notify them that, in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI had learned of the existence of emails that appeared to be pertinent to it's earlier investigation of Clinton's personal email server. Comey wrote that the FBI could not, at that time, assess whether or not the material might be significant.

References

Cinteotl (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I like it, but would change it a bit and add the updated CNN source I added to the article earlier: On October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey wrote to the Chairmen of several congressional committees that, in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI had learned of the existence of emails appearing to be pertinent to its earlier investigation of Clinton's personal email server and that the FBI could not, at that time, assess whether or not the material might be significant. Might be better than the current two sentences, but maybe running afoul of OR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to strain too much over the language. What you've proposed seems to be as acceptable as what I proposed. In both cases, they're both near quotations of Comey's own words, with no added POV Cinteotl (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections. TimothyJosephWood 12:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I like that and will put it in, in place of what I wrote. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I don't know if you meant this to replace both sentences I had added, or just the first. I used it to replace both sentences. If someone thinks the second sentence (about Abedin and Weiner) should have been kept, please add it back. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The above suggestions do not include some form of the essential phase “the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails”.CNBC So I suggest adding and I agreed to allow investigators to review these new emails to see if they contain classified information and determine their importance to the investigation. Grahamboat (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What the FBI should do is likely not as relevant as what the FBI will, is or has done. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. What the FBI is doing is investigating. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted to current agreed version. Please discuss first before making changes. I think you're paraphrasing the content of the letter incorrectly, and the reference is really dated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this addition is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed by whom? I did discuss. Paraphrasing is subjective, so perhaps we should use a quote from the letter: In his letter Comly said:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Regarding the source being dated – first you claim Recentism now the source is too old! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TMI. It took us days to agree on the addition of a single sentence, with some people arguing that even that much was UNDUE. Putting in the entire quote is giving it way more space/importance than it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this: Comey advisor saying that press had "failed, utterly" to place the letter in the proper context. "“I read the letter. It was in English. It said, ‘I don’t know what’s in here,’” Richman said, paraphrasing Comey." I think that supports our current version? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it is time to close this thread, because (as predicted) it turned out to be nothing. I've removed the text concerning this matter from the article, because clearly it represents undue weight. Basically, it was the equivalent of someone running into an office and saying "there's a fire across the other side of town, so I'm going to check if there is a fire in this building... nope, there's no fire." -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Identification of people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anyone identify the people in the images below (they may or may not be notable)? Taken from a Tim Kaine rally in Philadelphia and transferred from Flickr.

Thanks, MB298 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not what a Wikipedia article talk page is for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Falling poll numbers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ According to this neutral election tracker, Clinton has fallen by 11 points in just over a week in the ABC/Washington Post poll. This is the poll that had given her the biggest lead of all the polls- 12 points. Now she's only 1 point up, within the margin of error. Mention in the article? TweedVest (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No one else had 12 points, that was probably an outlier. I don't think this is the page to mention blow-by-blow accounts of changes in polling data. I think there's a page for that already. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And this says she is holding steady. All depends on who you talk to. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This really is Recentism. Polls during this last week are going to be all over the place, and have no place in this article now. Unless somehow they become relevant, completely wrong or prescient in some unexpected way. As noted after the election in reputable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me. After Clinton mostly leading the polls, sometimes by high numbers, the race has tightened. Recentism is not a problem because the polls in the closing days of a campaign are always relevant. Already we are seeing the Clinton campaign going back to states they had left and taking risks by ratcheting up the attacks on Trump. TFD (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Use the polling averages from RCP, HuffPo and 538. Never use individual polls. RCP has C +1.7, 538 has C +3.2 and HuffPo has C +5.9. All polls see a *narrowing* of the race, and I think it's fine to describe it as such but to note that she still maintains a healthy lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are rolling averages and anyway within the margin of error, so "healthy" is an unsupported opinion. Nate Silver now puts her odds of winning at 70 to 71%, as opposed to 80+ a week ago. TFD (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We can find a better word than "healthy". Perhaps it's enough to say that she is in still in the lead after noting that there's been a 'narrowing' and then provide the different polling averages. As for Nate's model: among the other five forecasters who put a numerical value on the candidates' chances, her chances between 84%-99%. The Upshot shows the other forecasters here[33]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Polling numbers are changing daily and varying widely from one poll to another during this final week. I don't see any way that an encyclopedia can report this kind of thing in any meaningful way. IMO we shouldn't try. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggest closing before this wastes any more time. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to close it. Election will be over in a few days and we can add material about how good or bad they were. I think there is a general consensus on the news outlets that there has been a tightening of the race. We can put that in later, or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree to closing. (I misunderstood Fred Bauder's Nov 2 post. When the election is over, hopefully the only numbers that matter will be the final vote tally (barring lawsuits, knock on wood). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twitter flight

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for speculation, nor is original research allowed.

Is Twitter considered an ok source or is it a primary source? It appears that within hours of each other today, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, Michele Obama, George Soros, Joe Biden, and John Kerry all unfollowed Hillary Clinton's official Twitter account. TweedVest (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC) You'd need a secondary source to suggest adding anything like that to an article, and I find that insignificant even if it's true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Those high-level Democrats and Clinton supporters have been retweeting her tweets throughout this election. For them to suddenly unfollow her, all within a few hours of each other, is really bizarre. If it's legit and not a hack, then something big is up. TweedVest (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC) And Huma Abedin's account just unfollowed Ms Clinton. What's going on here? TweedVest (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Mike Cernovich just tweeted that it's a bug/false alarm. TweedVest (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC) That's what I expected. If they rescinded their endorsements, that would've been something. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary results

According to The Green Papers, Clinton led all candidates in the primary with 16,914,722 votes; however, not every state keeps track of the popular vote.