Talk:Political positions of Hillary Clinton

Views on capital punishment

What about her views on crime and capital punishment?

Against it and for it, respectively.

Immigration and vouchers

Sen. Clinton slams GOP immigration bill Look at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/08/sen_clinton_slams_gop_immigration_bill/

Clinton raps vouchers Look at http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill224636775feb22,0,1447657.story

Look at http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_content/2006/03/032706ov_sob_hilary.php

Look at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060406T220000-0500_102071_OBS_SENATOR_CLINTON_SAYS_IMMIGRATION_BILL_WOULD_MAKE_HER_A_CRIMINAL.asp

Hello! Iraq War?

Hello! Iraq War? Why is this not talked about here?

It's in the main article, under the U.S. Senator section.

It is buried in the Senator section with a lot of other stuff.It should be here, in her own words, so all can see clearly now.205.188.116.66 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-doubt

Why is it important to say, "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since"? Otherwise, would you think that she hasn't thought about it? Nbauman 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indicates tendency towards certitude versus capacity for self-doubt. Some people say, 'Once I make a decision, I never look back.' Wasted Time R 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate a capacity for self-doubt, it asserts a capacity for self-doubt. It's meaningless verbiage. Any politician, including GWB, could insert that in any speech about any controversial issue. It's a rhetorical throat-clearing. I've edited articles for publication, and I've gone over thousands of documents marked up for editing and seen how people revise them. This is the kind of phrase they edit out. This is what they call padding.

This article is a good job of collecting notes, but as an article, it's repetitive, poorly organized and too long. If you don't edit out phrases like this, it will never be readable. Nbauman 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See below.

Should this article have critical analysis?

This is just a collection of excerpts and direct paraphrases from Clinton's speeches, right? There's nothing critical, no analysis, right? Should there be? Nbauman 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you go back into the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton archives (back from when all the subarticles were in the main article), you'll see the genesis of this section/subarticle. One of the main and most prolific HRC editors, User:LukeTH, felt strongly that politicians' articles should have a section that just presents their views, unadultered by commentary, analysis or controversy. Hence the HRC articles overall have three parts: straight biography (factual description of her life), political views (as just explained), and controversies (where everything contentious would go, now contained in two subarticles).

Now, I'm not sure if this is really the best structure, and I'm not sure if any other political figure articles ever followed this schema. And LukeTH has since disappeared from Wikipedia.

If you accept User:LukeTH's position, it can't be NPOV. It's a collection of her own speeches, which for any politician is necessarily self-promotional.

Clinton has taken positions on controversial issues like single-payer health care, and convinced some people that she believes in single-payer, while brushing off single-payer advocates like PNHP. I continue to meet people who believe that she supports single-payer, when she has clearly stated that she rejects it. These are facts, not opinion. There's nothing about health care in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies So where do these important facts go?

If someone comes to Wikipedia for information about a candidate who asks them to vote for her, they're entitled to balanced information about her, not just her own promotional material. Nbauman 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But except for lots of quickly-corrected vandalism, the HRC articles have been remarkably stable for some period of time now, so I'm kind of loathe to re-architect them. Wasted Time R 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)material.

They've been stable because nobody has paid any attention to it. If nobody has worked on it, how is that a reason for not letting anybody work on it again?

Nobody's asking you to rearchitect it, I just wonder why you don't want to let anybody else rearchitect it.

At the very least, each section should have a summary introductory sentence, and you should have an overall summary at the top.

Right now, it's simply a collection of speech excerpts cut-and-pasted in. Do you want it to stay like that? Nbauman 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I'm going to revert my edits to the health care section and include her rejection of single payer -- which will make it more NPOV. Nbauman 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nbauman:

1. I agree with you that this subarticle as currently constructed is largely self-promotional. (I won't get into whether that's NPOV or not by WP's definition, I don't especially care.) It's fine with me if you introduce more critical analysis into this article, and/or reduce some of the blather. (If you go way back into the main article history, you'll see that I yanked some really ridiculous motherhood-and-apple items out of the original incarnation of this.)
2. As you say, if you do this, you will need to add an introduction at the top explaining what this article is and how it approaches dealing with HRC's political positions. We don't want this article to be a debating page about policy, for examples, as that's fruitless.
3. Clinton's positions on hot-topic issues like single-payer do not belong in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which is intended for allegations of malfeasance and the like. Issue positions are much better dealt with here.
4. Contrary to what you seem to think, I did not revert your introduction of material on Clinton's stance on single-payer, I merely saw that you repeated the same point twice in your original edit and I removed one of them.
5. I disagree that each of these sections needs a summary introductory sentence. I believe that forces her position on a given issue to be reduced to a single sentence sound byte, which is unwise. These sections aren't that long, in any case.
6. I apologise if I gave you the impression that I don't want anyone else to work on these pages. That's not at all true. Your edits made some beginner mistakes, like introducing your name signature on the real page instead of the talk page. So it may look like your contribution was being edited severely, but that isn't really so.
7. In terms of the big picture, I agree with you that the premise of this subarticle is weak in its current incarnation, and that a re-architecture can make things better. You are welcome to proceed. I will edit things that I think are mistaken, but I will certainly not stand in the way of reshaping this. Go for it!

Wasted Time R 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I returned my changes to the Health Care section. Nbauman 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up several months later — User:Nbauman hasn't done any rearchitecture of this article, and I am assuming further editing of the article should be done according to its original scheme, i.e. to present HRC's views without critical analysis or historical commentary. Wasted Time R 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Model for "Views" page

I think the Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole is a good model for this page. Agree? Disagree? Nbauman 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For the views part, ok (for controversies, no need, already have a page for that). Just make sure that the arguments presented center on something specific to HRC (like your single-payer example above), not something general (such as whether the Bush tax cuts were good or bad). Wasted Time R 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Views of the Military

For those who have already done the research (or have ample time to do it), I would really love to see a section added to this list about her views of the military. Does she support increased spending and funding of our troops (bigger paychecks), downsizing and streamlining the military, plumping up the numbers in all branches even if its via a draft Mo 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. So do it! Wasted Time R 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the order of the sections be alphabetical?

what is the current ordering schema? shouldn't the order of the sections be alphabetical? Jerimee 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The ordering is foreign policy then economic policy then social policy. That makes for smoother flow than alphabetical. Wasted Time R 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also support an alphabetical ordering of the sections. "Smooth flow" aside, it seems to place importance of foreign policy over the others currently. If the three subsections are still desired, we could use them (and actually implement them into the article's format so that they are clear to the reader) ordered alphabetically (economic policy, foreign policy, then social policy). I will also alphabetize each section's various issues ("Flag Burning" before "Prayer in Schools," etc.) An article's intended ordering or format should be clear and easily recognized by the reader. Italiavivi 19:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How did we decide that order would be economic policy then foreign policy then social policy. I myself would order things social, economic, foreign. On what grounds does one change the order, or acknowledge the existing order? Jerimee 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

E - F - S, it's now alphabetical. Wasted Time R 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect Page?

Should maybe this page be protected now? Hillary_Rodham_Clinton's protection.

Diss?

Did she actually say "diss people"? lol.

This article format is starting to get popular now

Earlier I commented that other politicians' articles had not adopted this 'Political views of ...' subarticle strategy, but that is no longer correct. We now have

• Political views of Barack Obama
• Political views of Joe Lieberman
• Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs
• a large Political views section in John McCain that will likely get split out

So maybe there is merit in this approach after all. Wasted Time R 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And Political views of Rudy Giuliani, too. Wasted Time R 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mind reading in opening sentence

We have no way of knowing Senator Clinton's real views. I am confident that her remarks and votes express them. However we can not say that on WP. I don't know what else can be said in opening sentence. Steve Dufour 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

School Prayer

Anyone know if the section on school prayer is accurate? The linked source doesn't seem wholly reputable: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/HillarySchoolPrayer.html [07:14, 19 February 2007 GameFreak42]

What's there is pretty much the standard position of American liberalism on religion in public schools, so I'd be surprised if she didn't hold this view. Wasted Time R 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Wasted Time R, we went through this before. Simply collecting statements by Hillary Clinton of her views, without reference to contrary viewpoints or critics, violates NPOV. And it violates NPOV for you to delete any reference to contrary viewpoints or critics.

This is simply pro-Hillary propaganda.

You can be sure that, during the campaign, candidates, probably including Hillary's staff, will have somebody monitoring WP and deleting everything critical of them. We know that Congressional staffers have already been editing WP entries, and for all we know, one of the participants on this article is being paid by the Clinton campaign.

If we don't enforce NPOV, they'll be able to turn WP into campaign propaganda.

Why do you think this entry has an exception to NPOV?Nbauman 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your addition (which by the way was sloppy - you put it in the wrong chrono sequence and repeated some points already made in that section) contained HRC's quote that if anyone disagrees with her stance regarding her October 2002 vote, they should support some other candidate. So why bother to quote a letters writer and an op-ed writer who say they disagree with her? Obviously some people will, she's acknowledging that. In other words, this particular statement of hers needs no balancing or contrary viewpoint - she provided it herself. Wasted Time R 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Political_views_of_Barack_Obama#Iraq doesn't contain any rebuttal of his position. Wasted Time R 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or John_McCain#Foreign_policy of his. Wasted Time R 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of looking at this regarding Political Views articles is, does a politician's statement clearly reflect an operational policy position? For example, if Pol A says "I consider Roe v. Wade correctly decided and do not want it overturned", that's very clear. There's no need to debate the merits of Roe v. Wade here or to include all the other views on Roe v. Wade; that would take forever and accomplish nothing. If however Pol A says "I think abortion is a national tragedy and government should do what it can to minimize its occurrence", well, what does that mean? Could be a variety of things, and some critical analysis or explication on this page would be merited. Wasted Time R 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Crime

The following views of Clinton are not listed on this article.

• Clinton believes in the use of Drug Courts to address drug abuse problems.[1]

• Clinton supports three-strikes laws. [2]

—Christopher Mann McKay 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They're not listed in the article because you put them here instead of there. Wasted Time R 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this info under the crime section —Christopher Mann McKay 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ACLU: Civil Rights

• "Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record." [3]

—Christopher Mann McKay 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about these kinds of interest group ratings. I'd rather see her views on the underlying issues or votes. Wasted Time R 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this information not be listed then? —Christopher Mann McKay 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you can, but make sure there's a cite with it that goes back to the ACLU ranking itself, so that readers can see what went into it. Wasted Time R 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Content that was removed

• "Clinton has stated that she believes homosexuality is morally wrong."

I haven't read the book, I got the source from the review of the book, [4]

I just looked on my local library web site and they have the book in stock, so I am going to pick it up and find the page numbers. Shouldn't take more then a day or two. —Christopher Mann McKay 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. But two points for now: The Berkeleyan book review says that Sheehy says that "Hillary Clinton ... believes homosexuality is not natural", which is very different from saying that it is immoral. (One is essentially a biological argument, which may in itself be faulty, while the other is a value judgement.) But let's see what the book actually says. And you inserted her recent "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude" remark into the beginning of the section, when it is already included (along with her subsequent backtrackings) later in the section (which is organized chronologically). Please read the whole section first! Wasted Time R 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I remember reading something very religious in this article earlier this year, either dealing with abortion or capital punishment. The content on the Wiki page had a reference link to a Christian, political website that included a very large quote from Hillary talking about "what God says/wants" regarding the issue. What happened to this content? BareAss 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember this. You'll have to start at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&action=history and search for it yourself. Wasted Time R 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Views on Education

Can someone add her views on Education in general? I think most people think No Child Left Behind is a disaster and are looking for some answers 69.143.11.232 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section, but her views on NCLB are confusing: she writes on her Senate page that she is in support of it and the only problem is lack of funding, but in speeches she has said the entire principle of judging schools by testing is ruining creativity and causing problems. I'm not sure what she thinks on the issue.--Gloriamarie 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what's happening here is that NCLB is up for renewal by Congress this year (I've added brief wording to the article to say so). Thus even if Congressional members support NCLB overall, they are criticizing parts of it they don't like, in hopes of changing it. So for example, some people want standardized tests done in some years, not every year, and others want some assurance that curriculums won't be slavishly tied to tests. We can watch for more specific statements from HRC on what she wants ... Wasted Time R 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In a recent push by Clinton to distance herself from the other candidates, she is touting an education program for pre-kindergartens. Moreover, Clinton has proposed a $10 billion program for pre-K education that will address the 80% of children who are not enrolled in such programs. Perhaps this could be added un hte education section or the political positions section ...References: (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2007/05/22/hillary.aspx) + (http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html) ... (Oxfordden (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I see you've already added this yourself, which is great. There is much that can be added or improved about this article. Please note however that as of right now the cite template use was botched ... check the error messages in the References section. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gentle persuasion. I think I've fixed it. Given more time, I'll become a 'real' editor and add some more substance. (Oxfordden (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Net Neutrality is an economic policy

Net neutrality is an economic policy; it's not clear why it was removed, although an explanation of why it is an economic policy might be useful. Antelan ^talk 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything that deals with the intersection of government policy and market forces can certainly be considered economic policy. Wasted Time R 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be seen as an economic policy, but I moved it to a Technology section. It's more appropriate there. Other policies, like abortion, also have large economic effects but they are not necessarily strictly economic policies.--Gloriamarie 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Makes more sense for a visitor, too. Thanks for the clarification. (Note: I originally saw the article before the section had been put back in, so I thought it was just deleted.) Antelan ^talk 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

There is literally nothing, zilch, 0 here about Clinton's position on global warming. Shouldn't something be added Worldthoughts 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead and do it. Wasted Time R 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT section

[87] is broken. --Rotorius.kool 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Socialism

No mention that her idealism is that. But then she is fooling many people. I could give many examples, but don't have the time. She is for redistribution of wealth, from those who produce, to those who don't develop skills to earn income. Scottit 68.180.38.41 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is already dealt with in Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Fiscal_policy and especially Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Free-market_capitalism; if you ever find the time, you could try adding some cited evidence from your many examples to those sections. Wasted Time R 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Reform

Does anyone have information to add to the article regarding a stance on campaign finance reform? If so, please do. Creationlaw 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Now done. Wasted Time R 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Free-market capitalism

I made this change because the entire quote should be put up front instead of over-blowing her initial sentence. Also, I don't see how you could construe "The market is the driving force behind our prosperity, our freedom in so many respects to make our lives our own" as "dislike". In any case, such an inference should have a citation. johnpseudo 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proseline

A lot of content under the Foreign Policy section reads like Proseline, the biggest violator being the Iraq war section. This can easily be summed up to make her views and positions much more clear. --Rhykin 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have been able to discern a coherent underlying philosophy that she has about foreign policy, or a coherent invariant approach that she has had about the Iraq War for five years, then feel free to put that in the article. Wasted Time R 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality

This article emphasized on what usually speaks in news and don't contains more important issues which is rarely covered in news. When I read an article of Clinton in Foreign affairs[5], I found that this article haven't covered many important issues such as dealing with EU, China and Russia. Even in cases which has been covered like Iran, the quality is poor. Also you can use specific words which are common in foreign relation such as Containment and engagement policies. In brief, please try to write an encyclopedic article instead of gathering of news and quotations.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. So please start writing! That's how it works here. Wasted Time R 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I don't have enough time. Also I'm not in the U.S. so can work better than me, if you use more professionals sources like Foreign Affairs.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some parts of this article seem to have a mildly anti-Hillary theme. Mainly, the following sentence:

"She favors deploying U.S. forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, to engage in targeted operations against al-Qaeda, and to train and equip Iraqi forces. In supporting significant U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the indefinite future, Clinton's position is quite close to that of the Iraq Study Group convened by President Bush.[63]"

which seems to imply that her views on Iraq are close to that of President Bush. No mention is made of the fact that many of the Irag Study Group's recommendations, such as large troop redeployments, have not been implemented by President Bush. Additionally, the usage of "significant" with regards to troop levels is a weasel word here; the estimated 5,000 remaining troops vs. a current level of 160,000 may be considered significant by some, and not by others. The actual numbers should be used instead.

Additionally, looking at the articles of other candidates such as Obama and Edwards, no list of statements over time is presented which may or may not attempt to show changes in policy or views. The articles on other candidates simply state what their positions on current issues are, mainly with regards to the 2008 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.121.94 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I took out the "convened by President Bush" clause, you are right that that is misleading. I left in the "significant" modifier because the source used here makes no mention of troop levels, 5,000 or otherwise, and those three goals would require significant ongoing involvement, especially if AQI rebounds post-current-surge. Tracing evolution of views over time of a political figure is an appropriate role for these "Political positions of ..." articles and is done for other candidates, see for example Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Statements_on_abortion or Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Lesbian, gay, bisexual_and_transgender_issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim of 67.49.121.94, other "positions" articles do show changing positions over time, and those that do not should. There's no point in parroting the current platform espoused by a candidate: a context of past "positions" is essential, and it is not POV to have a well sourced article describing the changes in a candidate's statements, positions, views and actions. What better place is there to understand the development and changes in a politicians actions and words than to talk about their political positions in historical context of their lives over time than here in the political positions article? Take a look, for example, at Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney, which is no model, but is an example of an attempt.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I realize that it's probably the articles that are lacking in past statements that are in error. I did want to highlight one other possible NPOV issue: the section about Gov. Spitzer's Drivers License plan might be off a bit, as it says that in the Drexel academy debate, Clinton "committed to the plan" and then "recanted two minutes later." Perhaps her actual quotes should be included instead (i.e. "it makes a lot of sense") so people can decide for themselves what exactly she was commiting to. Dthx1138 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Dthx1138

ref 99

When I clicked on reference #99, I got a message which read, "We're sorry.

The article you've requested is no longer available." I am not totally sure how to remove a reference from a paper, can someone please do this for me? Thanks, --Megalodon99 (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ap.google is a lousy citation base. I've replaced the dud link with some citeneeded flags; this particular transient proposal isn't worth it for me to dig them up for. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxes

Can any discussion on political positions be complete with discussing taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloaken (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's touched on under Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Fiscal_policy. Wasted Time R 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Children

As well as needing sources, because of the content of the section, it is better fit under Fiscal Policies. Hobbitguy (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of these issues operate at the intersection of two or more top-level categorizations (immigration, for example, has social, economic, and foreign implications). I wouldn't worry too much

about which one it's in. People naturally think of 'children' as a social issue, so that's the one it was put in. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Please pay attention to this edition. Clinton has accused Iran for "nuclear weapons program, sponsorship of terrorism, as well as supporting Middle East peace, and playing a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq". But some of them are doubtful. In some other cases like "sponsorship of terrorism" there is completely different viewpoint between Iran and US. Iran recognizes Hezbollah as a liberation movement while US considers it as a terrorist organization. Therefor we shouldn't write the article as if these are some facts.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy

Can someone clean up this line?

"On the other hand, she has advocated for federal spending that advocates of less government spending deem nonessential, such as funding a museum commemorating the Woodstock Music Festival."

I have no idea what that means. Did she support nonessential funding, of support less government spending. Did she also directly come out and say she supports that museum, or is that just one of the items that happened to sneak by without her knowing, she voted, ergo she supports it? 67.132.206.254 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it to clarify what the news articles reported. I think it makes sense now. Dgf32 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Security vs. human rights

This section seems to be taken somewhat out of context. The referenced debate transcript suggests Clinton was speaking about human rights in Pakistan. The way things are currently referenced, her statement could easily be construed as her feeling national security outweighs human rights in the United States. This does not seem to be her intent (again, reference the debate transcript), and should probably be changed in order to reflect the more nuanced view she presents in the context of Chris Dodd's previous comments in the debate. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Handguns section

The section about gun control has a statement, "During the time period referenced by Clinton, handguns accounted for over 2/3 of firearm mortalities in the US.[92]" Though it somewhat serves as a rebuttal (?) to Clinton's claims, it doesn't really have a reason for being in an article about her views, and it is somewhat criticism. Maybe someone else can illuminate the reasoning surrounding this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.10.117 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably there because the HRC quote used above it was cherry-picked to try to argue the issue, not illustrate her view, and someone wanted to counterbalance it. It's okay with me if you toss both and start over. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Compared to Bill

If anyone has the time on this one, I'd love to see how her positions compare to those of her husband.--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. She's her own person, her own senator, her own candidate. In addition, circumstances and contexts have changed, why is why is often fruitless to try to compare Bush 41 and Bush 43's positions as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Study Group

I'm altering the line referring to her similarities to the Iraq Study Group. It implies that the focus of Clinton's strategy is to maintain troops in Iraq, which is misleading. The Iraq Study Group recommended troop redeployments, and suggested that all combat bridages be removed by first quarter, 2008 (i.e. now). Clinton has clearly stated she would begin withdrawing troops immediately upon taking office. Dthx1138 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Dtordini

Iran

The following paragraph states that Clinton has the "toughest stance against Iran," referring to her vote on the non-binding resolution to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. However, the rest of her positions, such as not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon, taking "no option" off the table including military action, are not different from her Democratic opponents such as Barack Obama. Do I have a consensus edit this?

On the other hand she has the toughest stance among Democrate candidates against Iran.[citation needed] she supports UN sanctions on Iran, and has said that Iran should not be allowed possession of a nuclear weapon.[32] She has clarified at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) that "no option can be taken off the table" , including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force, when dealing with the country.[53] She has said in a speech at Princeton that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to Israel.[32] In the Princeton speech, Clinton said the US "cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."[54] Dthx1138 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Dtordini

Videogames

I read in the Economist that she wants to outlaw videogames. Is this true?Cameron Nedland (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, she's going to outlaw every single one of them, and send all transgressors to the Halo Gulag. Actually, if you look in the Table of Contents for this article, you'll see a section on video games. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, thanks.Cameron Nedland (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Medical Marijuana/Marijuana Decriminalization section

I'm new to Wikipedia and have never contributed to an article or discussion up to this point, so I was hoping for some validation on an issue I have with one of the sections. In the Medical Marijuana/Marijuana Decriminalization section it states Unlike her main opponent, Barack Obama, Clinton opposes decriminalization of marijuana.[142] It is my understanding that this article is supposed to be a description of HRC's political positions, not a comparison with other candidates' positions. Furthermore, there seems to be a discrepency here because in the article Political Positions of Barack Obama it says that Obama has supported decriminalization but later revised his view, claiming an uncertainty over the definition of decriminalization.

Would it be fair to assert that the portion of the sentence saying Unlike her main opponent, Barack Obama, should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.151.152 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The article should only describe her positions, not those of others. Both the "Like all Democratic candidates" and the "Unlike her main opponent" should be removed. Go ahead and do so. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Energy policy

The article is incorrect to state that Clinton has no position on nuclear power.

I have added the following to the article:

At a February 18, 2007 campaign rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Clinton stated, "I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution... We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country... other countries like France get, you know, much much more, so we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air." [6]

The reason that I used youtube as my source is because the mainstream media is biased against nuclear power, and would never publish such a quote from Clinton.

My main point here is that Clinton does have a position on nuclear power, and it should be in the article.

Someone had erased most of the quote, which ended up rendering it meaningless. So I restored it.

I hope that people will stop censoring this.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton subsequently said at the July 2007 YouTube debate that she was agnostic on nuclear power. I've included that as well. Your assertions about "mainstream media bias" are groundless in this case; if Clinton said today that nuclear power is the answer to all our energy problems and she should start building plants immediately, I guarantee tomorrow's papers would cover it. But she hasn't said that. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good to have both quotes in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"See also" link to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton from Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

This isn't right. Can we either take the link off of the Obama positions page to the HClinton page, or else have a returning link to the Obama page from the HClinton page? I believe the former would be the most appropriate action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.70.82 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be one from here to there, but it was removed. The pages should not link to each other. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? From a navigation standpoint it makes sense if one wants to compare their positions. Both pages as well as similar pages for other candidates running for president should all be contained in the United States presidential election, 2008 box at the bottom. Their positions are relevant to the election and should thus be included. CoW mAnX (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Accountability and Tansparancy in government

During the Bush administration there has been so much secrecy that it has become almost impossible to know what the truth is or even how to ask intelligent questions regarding the truth. I wish to know more about Hillary's position on the Freedom of Information act and how she intends to demonstrate accountability and how she intends to insure transparancy in government.Muddea (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC). Muddea

Research it and add it yourself, that's how this works. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual mandates

I added a reference to this article about the possible unconstitutionality of individual mandates to purchase health insurance from private companies. I have also added it to the Obama page, as he his plan has mandates too (though not as many).Jewpiterjones (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Boycott of Chinese Olympics

This seems like a story that is getting some traction, but I don't want to put undue weight on it. What are everyone's thoughts about it being included here? Arnabdas (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, include it. It's a non-trivial issue, and the organization of this article makes it easy for readers to find what they are interested in and ignore the rest. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric System

What is Hillary's position regarding the metric system? [17:55, 19 April 2008 216.68.138.138]

Why don't you research it and add it? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

iran

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1 article contains some very aggressive statements concerning iran, including the following quote:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

i think this could be worked into the article somehow, any ideas? 128.59.145.123 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There's already a section on Iran, add it to that. Just be sure you quote her in full context of whatever point she was making. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

foreign policy

The start of foreign policy has this introduction:

"Senator Clinton has been characterized by The Washington Post as having taken a generally "hawkish" stance on foreign policy since entering office"

This intro has a "read no further" attitude to it that bothers me. Would anyone object to me deleting it? A lot of this sections don't have or need intros and I feel that applies here, it sets the rest of the section up to be judged in a certain light instead of letting the reader interpret her foreign policy views on their own. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline. I'm okay if it stays or goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "hillaryschoice" :
  • {{cite book}}
  • {{cite book|first=Gail|last=Sheehy|isbn=0375503447|authorlink=Gail Sheehy|title=Hillary's Choice|accessdate=2007-03-31}}
• "Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care" :
  • {{cite web | url=http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm | title=Hillary Clinton on Health Care | accessdate=2008-01-23}}
  • /<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102272.html The Reformer and the Gadfly Agree on Health Care<!-- Bot generated title -->]
• "nys11807" :
  • {{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22682821/page/25/ | title=Jan 15. Democratic debate | author=MSNBC | publisher=[[MSNBC]] | date=[[2008-01-15]] | accessdate=2008-01-17}}
  • {{cite news | url=http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48738038_hillary-clinton-senator-clinton-calls-president-bush-renounce-permanent-bases-iraq | title=Hillary Clinton: Senator Clinton Calls on President Bush to Renounce Permanent Bases in Iraq | author=newsdesk | publisher=[[All American Patriots]] | date=[[2007-11-17]] | accessdate=2008-01-17}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Need for Democracy section

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

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

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

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Easy on the deletions, please!!!

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

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

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

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

Campaign pamphlet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women's Rights

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

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

Recent quote

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

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

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

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

The full context of what she said is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sy9045: I don't think your edit is useful at all[7], because it breaks the cadence of her words and it seems as if these two statements are separate, when they are not. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal

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