Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hillary Clinton (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 is within the scope of WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Hillary Clinton. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon United States portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
Portal icon Politics portal
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
 

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches[edit]

Note: Manually unarchived per request from User:Zigzig20s, who initiated an RfC on the subject, below - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The content of the speeches she gave before industry groups were often in venues where no reporters were allowed and no transcripts made or videos published. At the last debate she said she would consider releasing transcripts but control over that may not rest with her but with the group or organization she spoke to. We would not want to take material from any transcript directly but use summaries in reliable sources such as The New York Times. It is doubtful she would release damning statements during a campaign. The fact she said she would consider releasing transcripts might be suitable for the article, but it is rather fine-grained. We have a long journey with this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The speeches weren't "secret", since everybody in the world new about them. As has been documented in numerous places, the speeches happened after she left the State Department and before she announced her campaign. She is under no obligation to "disclose" anything. Nobody raised this issue about Mitt Romney's speeches, or Jeb Bush's speeches, or Carly Fiorina's speeches. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: I think the fair comparison would be to her Democratic competitor, who gave none. The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue about permission from the groups is a red herring. The Harry Walker agency contracts reserve all rights to the speeches for the speaker. I agree that Clinton is unlikely to release anything damning during the election. But the fact that she is unlikely to release anything at all is something to cause speculation about how damning it is. In any case, this issue probably does require coverage in our article, as there are many reliable sources discussing these speeches, her reluctance to release the transcripts, and now the commentary from audience members describing the speeches as "glowing" towards wall street. [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a faux issue to me, although this is a campaign article and a large number of campaign events have no real-world relevance. Between the two Clintons, they gave 729 (paid) speeches since Bill left office, usually earning something over $200K each for a total of $153 million.[13] Of those, at least 39 were to big banks, 8 to Goldman-Sachs. Goldman is (one of?) the biggest banks in the world, so although their extremely profitable speech-giving engagements are probably relevant to their bio articles, it's not particularly noteworthy here that just over 1% of their many speeches were given to one client or that, like most such speeches, the transcripts were not released — not unless it becomes a bona fide issue in the campaign. Right now it seems to be news of the day material on the part of her left-leaning detractors and challenger, and perhaps any Republican nominee who is promoting an anti-bank message. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As voters express their preference for a candidate that can be trusted, as was the case in New Hampshire, it becomes an issue in the campaign. Bona fides being established by reliable sources about voter motivation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: I think what you're doing is original research. I agree with User:Gaijin42 that we should stick to the third-party sources on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
All Wikipedia editing process is original research. It's article content that cannot contain it. Weighing the sources, there are few sources on the subject, they do not describe it as significant apart from being a current campaign issue, some do describe which Clinton detractors the issue is coming from, and they say that the Goldman speeches are neither secret nor a significant proportion of the Clintons' many speaking engagements. Simply saying that Clinton took money speaking for Goldman Sachs would be inappropriate. Saying that so-and-so criticized Clinton for making such speeches in process of the 2016 campaign and she responded such-and-such, if of due weight, would be a fair thing to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research. User:Gaijin42 provided lots of references. There are many if you google "Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speech". That includes very reliable sources like The Washington Post. Many sources suggest she is hiding something in those speeches, which is why she won't disclose the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research. You have provided exactly zero sources to support your proposition that I am engaging in original research. What were we discussing here? Oh yes, whether the sources are of due weight and relevance to support adding mention of an issue surrounding Clinton's speeches to Goldman as being a campaign issue. I say no, you seem to say yes. Hence, we discuss on the talk page any relevance to the subject. As for whether we suggest that she is "hiding something", I'm afraid that is the realm of political advocacy, not encyclopedias. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: You're the only who brought up OR. In any case, read this article from the Investor's Business Daily and countless other sources you can find on Google. The national media is not advocating for anything; they are simply reporting the news, as this article from The Washington Post also does. They have reported that the speeches were highly paid and that she wants to keep the transcripts secret. Wikipedia is not censored; this should not be redacted from her article. This is not a campaign ad. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s: You're the only who brought up OR. I agree that Clinton's speeches to Goldman have been one of several campaign issues of the day for the past couple of days of the news cycle, and that sources like the one you mention above are engaging in the usual speculation and coverage of the horse race of politics. That doesn't amount to "countless" sources, or anything approaching due weight for an article like this. All of the Clintons' speeches are highly paid and presumably most of them are gracious to the host, including the slightly over 1% of them made for this particular corporate client. If that turns out to be a significant campaign issue, we'll know soon enough. In the meanwhile, WP:NOT#NEWS as they say. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: No, you did. Read your antepenultimate comment. User:Gaijin42, who said it should be included in the article, gave you ten references. We could find more. It's not a matter of news--it's become a "campaign issue" as The Washington Post reported, and this article is about the campaign. It would be POV to censor it from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s: No, you did. Read your comment at 22:23, 9 February 2016, your misapplication of the concept to talk page discussion is the first mention of original research on this page unless you count the talk header. And to spare you the suspense, pulling a "please familiarize yourself with" line in talk page discussion does raise hackles — as does crying censorship and POV. Having perused most of Gaijin42's wall of references and google too, I find exactly what I stated, that this is news of the day not sourced at this point as a substantive campaign issue suitable for inclusion at this time. It pays to be careful with campaign articles not to clutter things up with every last thing that flies in. I can take a look again in a few days or weeks to reevaluate my take on whether this has any lasting importance. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: We disagree. I guess we'll have to see what the other editors think. Btw, she still has not disclosed those secrets transcripts, so she might be hiding something as the press suggests but--who knows.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, they're not "secret". And some of your comments border on libel, and could be considered a serious BLP violation, even if they are mentioned in sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I have zero opinion about this. You are expressing your own opinion when you say they are not secret; I am just sticking to third-party references. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to remain neutral and expand articles by using references. Whether you like the content of the references or not is meaningless, when The Washington Post, Investor's Business Daily, etc. have written about it. It is totally POV to have nothing about it in her Wikipedia article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
How can they be "secret" if everyone knows about them? Just because the Hillary-hating, right-leaning Investors Business Daily refers to them as "secret", that does not make it so. Wikipedians are meant to use judgement in assessing sources, not act as stupid automatons and fall into the trap of parroting right wing crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The transcripts are secret. She won't disclose what she said during those highly paid speeches. Politico has an article about it, where an attendee says, "She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director". But as long as she won't disclose the official transcripts, nobody knows for sure. I agree with you that we should give her the benefit of the doubt as I do, but the fact is those transcripts are indeed secret.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing to disclose. There's no there there. As Politico says, Sanders and the Republicans will exploit the issue if she releases the transcripts (although since they are technically owned by the people who paid her, it is not clear if she would need permission to do so) and they will exploit the issue if she doesn't. Anyway, congratulations for buying into the bullshit Beltway media narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: We don't know. She may be hiding something--nobody knows for sure. I think everyone's concern is that her presidential style, were she to get elected, would be secretive and non-transparent. Thus, this is not trivial. It may be axiomatic of her leadership style. In any case, I don't believe this should be censored from her campaign article. It should be added to the "Fundraising" subsection, with her other multi-million dollar donations/speeches. Readers/voters should be smart enough to trust her.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Politico article cites Buzzfeed for this. The Politico article is a good source, not about the content of the speeches, although there is some information, but about hopes of the campaign that the controversy would blow over, fall below the radar of most voters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"I expect Mr. Sanders to press aggressively on Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches before big banks, as he has in the last few days." From a New York Times article on "What to look for" in the Debate tonight. Let's see. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There is speculation to that effect. If he does, and if it gets covered extensively, that adds to the argument for mentioning it as a campaign issue. I have a feeling it will be a campaign issue, particularly in the primary. It will probably come out in a line like "Beginning in the [describe] Democratic debate, and throughout the primary campaign, Sanders repeated a criticism of Clinton as being too close to Wall Street business interests, and earning $[amount] from making paid speeches to large banks including Goldman Sachs. Sanders [and others?] called for transcripts of those speeches to be made public, but as of [date] Clinton had not done so." Something like that. But I still think we should give it another few days to see if this sticks around as an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree that text similar to that is appropriate as a start, and also that we can hold off for now, but if Sanders doesn't pounce on this, Im not sure that doesn't mean its still not worthy of inclusion (although it would certainly be less worthy of extended WP:WEIGHT). How much is or isn't appropriate obviously depends on how much noise and coverage this gets. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Either way, given the extensive coverage it's gotten so far, it should definitely be added to the "Fundraising" subsection--not because of voter unease over ethical questions, but because it is a fact that her campaign is partly run on money from the financial services. That's nothing to be ashamed of.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Is she self-funding her campaign? If not, perhaps the Clinton Cash section should be expanded and retitled because it seems to be a similar issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably not self-funded, as she is "dead broke". But OpenSecrets.org (a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics) suggests her third largest donor is Paloma Partners, a hedge fund founded by Donald Sussman. Hedge funds are in the financial services industry.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's multimillion-dollar donations from "hedge fund guys" Donald Sussman and George Soros came up in last night's debate; Judy Woodruff mentioned these two names specifically. There was also an article in The Wall Street Journal about her secret speeches today: Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Talks Were Highly Paid, Friendly. Still no official transcripts though. In any case, I'm afraid I don't see a good argument for keeping this campaign issue out of her campaign article. I think it should go in the "Fundraising" subsection.User:Gaijin42: Would you not agree?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Bill Maher mentioned those secret Goldman Sachs transcripts again a few days ago. It is still an issue apparently. Should we add more about this to the article?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this should be removed from the article, so I'll do so. Recentism gone stale, with the unencyclopedic verb tense to match ("have become…"). This one fell off the map a few days after it appeared. A comedian mentioning it a month later doesn't count. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, this is not stale at all. It was mentioned again on national television this weekend. Your deletion of referenced info without consensus is not OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm starting to partially agree Zigzig20s on this. I've removed the current sentence because it is inartfully added. It needs to be completely rewritten with more context. But the fact remains that now a little time has passed and the issue has had a chance to mature, this is no longer a recentism matter. It's totally unfair that Clinton should be getting bashed for this perfectly normal thing virtually every politician does, but she is getting bashed (particularly by Sanders) and it even appears to be impacting her "trustworthiness" polling numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentence is this: "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue".[1][2][3][4]". We should probably add, "She repeatedly refused to release the transcripts." But at the very least, the initial sentence should be reinserted because Wikipedia is not censored and there is significant media coverage about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It's an issue in her campaign. This article is about her campaign. This is not an issue in Sanders's campaign, because he never gave six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. But even if he had, that would appear in his campaign article, not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I had added four references; we could probably find one hundred, but I didn't want to Overcite.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: Did you redact the sentence because you want her to come across as less untrustworthy? It sounds like you are trying to change her polling numbers. I am sorry, but that is not your role as a Wikipedia editor. Biased editing is not allowed. Please revert your redaction and try to be a neutral editor.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Borchers, Callum (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts are now a campaign issue. Why weren’t they before?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 
  2. ^ Flores, Reena (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton: "I will look into" releasing transcripts of paid speeches". CBS News. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 
  3. ^ Schroeder, Robert (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton says she’ll ‘look into’ releasing paid-speech transcripts". MarketWatch. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 
  4. ^ Rappeport, Alan (February 4, 2016). "Questions on Speeches to Goldman Sachs Vex Hillary Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 

Arbitrary break[edit]

First of all, please cut it out with the accusations. If Scjessey is right and it's a longer-term issue we can cover it in some way. It's not the fact that her opponent or a political comedian are still talking about it, but whether the press discussion among reliable sources is still covering it. However, saying the speeches "have become" a campaign issue is bad form, and weak substance. Imagine reading this article in a historic context, a year from now. Can you say, as of March 2017 that Clinton's speeches have become an issue? No, it makes no sense. Wrong verb tense. Also, describing this passively is uninformative. They didn't become an issue on their own. In fact, the speeches aren't an issue, it's the making of the speeches, and they are apparently being made an issue by Sanders, and perhaps some other critics with a particular point of view. And what of the context? Something like 8 of her 729 paid speeches since Bill left office, each earning something north of $200K, were to Goldman, and 31 to other big banks. That's the background. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: Please stop doing original research! "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, are "a campaign issue"." That is the least we could add, given the extensive media coverage this has received. We could add that she has refused to release the transcripts repeatedly, and that the media has suggested she must be hiding something. But the redacted sentence was utterly factual and neutral.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No. As I said, bad form, bad content. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"I don't like it", is not an argument. This is fact-based content with plenty of references. It should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If you keep coming across as a Hillary-hating POV warrior, I'm not going to be predisposed to work with you on doing this right. Right now you are doing the Wikipedia equivalent of temper tantrum, shrieking unfounded accusations about censorship and original research. Take a step back. I've got other things to do today, but I am also giving some thought to the best way to approach this. There's no hurry, but I intend to return to this matter in a few hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: Please restore the completely fact-based, neutral, referenced one sentence you redacted in the mean time. You can change "have become" to "are" if you prefer.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, because it is non-neutral and inartfully added. As I promised, I will look at this later. I agree with you that something needs to be said, but your version is poorly conceived. CALM DOWN. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: It was succinct but factual. Now that you've redacted it, what would you like to add instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm still mulling this over, but basically we have the following things to consider:

  • According to disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton to the FEC, she gave 51 paid speeches in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for a total of $11 million. (source)
  • These speeches were to various entities, including universities, banks and investment companies, insurance companies, retail companies, technology companies, advocacy groups, and many other private and public sector areas. (source, poor quality but useful reference)
  • Bernie Sanders has sought to politicize her speeches by questioning how she can talk about reining in Wall Street (notably Goldman Sachs) after taking their money for speeches she gave them, implying that money will somehow influence her decision-making.
  • Clinton's voting record as a Senator does not support the narrative Sanders has put forward.
  • Sanders has called for the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs to be released, though curiously he has not sought transcripts for any of the other speeches.
  • Clinton has questioned why she is the only candidate being asked this and suggested she is being held to a different standard.
  • The mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon, countering Clinton's point by noting Republicans don't hide the fact that they want to deregulate the big banks even further, so speeches Republicans have given aren't important. (source)
  • Polling has suggested this matter, along with the email issue, has had a negative impact on Clinton's "trustworthy numbers".
  • None of this has anything to do with the "fundraising" section it was originally placed in, since none of the revenue from speeches has been used to finance the campaign. It should be in a different (or new) section.

I think the only fair way we can cover this is if we take all these points into account and presents both views with the appropriate weight. This is one of those sorts of things Wikidemon and Wasted Time R are really good at doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: No, that is Original Research, which is not your job as a Wikipedia editor! Stick to the sources. Or go write a blog if you want. But don't censor referenced info with countless reliable references here!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR before commenting any further. You simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when you say "Clinton's voting record as a Senator does not support the narrative Sanders has put forward", who the dickens knows? Besides, you are trying to insert bias here, where there is none. The original sentence said she had given secret speeches for 6 figures, and that this had become a campaign issue. Those are facts, buttressed by many references. We should be able to agree on the facts, not get lost in speculations.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's self-fulfilling prophecy of victimhood is irrelevant. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Why won't she release the secret transcripts? This is the only reason why she is seen as "untrustworthy".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's votes are a matter of public record, and they do not support the Sanders narrative that she won't rein in Wall Street. Not original research. And again, calling the transcripts "secret" is arguably a BLP violation. In fact, it was recently brought up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Uh, unless you have some sources analyzing those votes, and comparing them to sanders allegations and making the conclusion "do not support", that is a textbook example of WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It is OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The transcripts are secret because she has repeatedly refused to release them to the public. "Secret" is not our word; it's in the national press. Just google "secret Goldman Sachs speeches".Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
OR is a content policy for article pages, not a rule on how we may discuss things on the talk page. Calling them "secret" speeches or transcripts is ridiculous on its face. That's not the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The only reason we are discussing this is to add it to the article. Please google "secret Goldman Sachs speeches". You may have the opinion that the entire press is "ridiculous", but nobody cares; you are not here to express opinions. We rely on third-party sources to write articles, not editorial opinions. Besides, since she won't receive the transcripts, they are secrets. I agree with the third-party sources (but even if I didn't, that wouldn't matter).Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Btw, secrecy starts with "Secrecy (also called clandestinity or furtiveness) is the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups who do not have the "need to know", perhaps while sharing it with other individuals. That which is kept hidden is known as the secret." The transcripts are hidden from certain groups (the American public/voters) and shared with other individuals (Goldman Sachs).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Gaijin42 - When I wrote that list, I put in a few sources but I did not make any effort to do a proper job because it was just discussion. Obviously it would be properly sourced if it was in the article. And as Wikidemon said, original research is only something that matters when it comes to putting something in the article. @Zigzig20s - My point is that I'm not the only one saying use of the word "secret" is arguably a BLP violation. Unlike WP:OR, WP:BLP does apply across article and talk space alike. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not arguably so. It is the very definition of secrecy. Read above.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a loaded adjective that expresses a negative opinion on the subject. If you present a proposal in that way, it needlessly discourages editors from being receptive to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it denotes the neutral definition of the term. Or do you think secrecy should have a POV tag? I am simply using the word that the national press is using. I don't change words to make her sound less untrustworthy; it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to re-write history. We don't work in PR.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
You can say that all you want, but I'm telling you, using words like "secret" to describe well-known things is off-putting, and tends to alienate other editors. If you want to actually accomplish anything on this page instead of venting about Hillary Clinton, other editors, and the state of the article, best lay off the loaded adjectives. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not loaded. The transcripts are hidden from the American public. They are secrets, only known by Goldman Sachs. That's a fact. It's not loaded at all. It is factual. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it is still the truth. And that is why the press is calling them what they are--secret.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey I wrote what I wrote because Zigzag had made a comment about OR. In your refutation that it was not OR, you included a link, but that link was to a primary source. You made it sound like that was the source you were intending to use. Assuming there is sufficient sourcing for each element (and that we cover each element with appropriate weight) I think a section that covers each of those points is appropriate and will be good for the article. However, I note that the strategy you are suggesting for creating this section is completely contrary to the argument you made on the email server security discussion, where you said putting ultiple sources together to cover the sub-topic was synth. I disagreed with that interpretation then, and disagree with it now, which is why I think your proposal is workable as a starting point. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Er... "source, poor quality but useful reference" was what I said. I did not hold it up to any sort of a standard that could be used in the article, but more as a useful tool for giving us hard data on the money Clinton received for speeches. And no, I am not suggesting we synthesize a narrative; however, I am saying (and I repeat) I think the only fair way we can cover this is if we take all these points into account and presents both views with the appropriate weight. We must avoid the "buts" and "howevers" that seem to keep cropping up in some of the things I've reverted in this and other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Wires are getting crossed somewhere.I am unclear on why you are bringing up the zero hedge link as part of this sub-discussion. your "useful reference" comment is on the bullet point regarding the content of the speeches. My/Zig's OR comment is about the analysis that Clinton's votes do not match Bernie's comments. When Zig said that was OR, you refuted that assertion, and included a link (source?) with the comment about her votes being "public record". That link is a primary source, and as far as we have seen here, the analysis is yours. Do you have some other sources making the analysis of clintons votes and how they compare to Bernie's stumping?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not even begun to look for supporting sources yet. When I made my list, I just threw up a couple of sources I already had to hand. That said, I've heard it discussed on cable news by well known pundits that Clinton's record on Wall Street is just as good as Barack Obama's, and that the intimations being made by Sanders are largely unfounded. Real life is intruding on my time at the moment, which is one of the reasons I suggested a couple of other editors take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In the mean time, I think we should restore the referenced facts that her six-figure Goldman Sachs speeches have become a campaign issue, and that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. We can add some context if you want: Sanders never gave such speeches, but the Republicans did (although actually Trump probably didn't either?). We don't need to go into detail about her voting record on financial regulations--that is too contentious and frankly I think history will tell--but we should restore the facts as we know them now.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No, we are not putting your BLP-violating, non-neutral version into the article. Let's take our time to get this right. Why are you in such a hurry? Are you hoping your changes will have an impact on the election, or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is zero BLP violation about these facts. Are you hoping to have an impact by redacting uncomfortable truths about HRC?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You need to take a step back from this, because you are unable to control yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break redux[edit]

To be honest, I'm at something of a loss over the best way to cover this. As a former New York Senator, Clinton's "ties" to Wall Street are perfectly understandable and not at all unusual, yet her voting record shows support for measures that limited and regulated Wall Street. Having left her position as Secretary of State, it made perfect sense for Clinton to join the paid speech circuit. Obviously she stopped doing this when she announced her candidacy, so everything was perfectly legal and above board, and there is no legal reason for her to release transcripts of speeches (in some cases she would need to seek permission to do so, apparently).

Ultimately, it was the anti-Wall Street position of Bernie Sanders, and his subsequent politicization of some of the speeches that Clinton gave that led to this becoming a campaign issue. I absolutely agree that this needs to be covered in the article. It is remarkable, in fact, that Bernie's attacks on Clinton do not appear in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 as far as I can tell. But how to cover this here? Certainly we don't need silly vernacular like the inappropriate use of the word "secret", but at the same time it must be made clear that Clinton's intransigence is hurting her "trustworthiness" numbers. I've been mulling all this over for 2 days now, and I've looked at this excellent source that gives a broader picture of what is going on, but it is hard to boil it down to something succinct that doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Help! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

HRC brought this on herself when she criticized Goldman Sachs, AIG and "hedge fund guys" in her own speeches. She has nobody but herself to blame. Now, the word secret is absolutely appropriate because, like the entire national press, we can all agree that they meet the very definition of secrecy, as they were/are known to Goldman Sachs and hidden from the American public. That's what secrets are (again, please re-read secrecy). This is why the press is using this word. And it's become a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really looking for your extreme view on this issue, because it isn't going to be helpful moving forward. I already know where you stand. I am seeking assistance from other Wikipedia editors who are perhaps a little less invested than you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I don't have personal views. The national press does.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for other people's views on this, not yours. You have already made your views clear, thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

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

  • Yes Sanders is regularly citing these speeches and the 6 figure fees paid. Saw that on PBS Weekend Edition last night. There are a large number of links to this issue being used by political opponents and being in the consciousness of voters who distrust Clinton. The problem is of long standing Here is what I consider a rather sophisticated analysis from June 2014 in Mother Jones. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • no. Yes to issue, no to exact wording and location. Although the wording is inapt, and the issue is typical campaign fodder, it seems to be part of a longstanding primary campaign narrative of Sanders and some Clinton detractors about her cozying up to Wall Street. If it amounts to anything more lasting we can consider how to expand it, with due context and appropriate weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) (!vote updated upon further consideration, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))
  • No - "a campaign issue"? Everything is a campaign issue. Poorly worded. - Cwobeel (talk)
  • Yes, but expand to few sentences and reword as necessary to include context. This has obviously received quite a bit of coverage in highly reputable sources. No way is it trivial (unlike coughing and barking). "That Hillary Clinton accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches in 2013 probably did more damage to her battle for the Democratic nomination than any other single issue." says it all. Also [19][20][21][22][23]. WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we include material that, although unpleasant for the subject, is widely covered in sources.- MrX 17:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • yes support both immediate inclusion of the text proposed, as well as expansion into a reasonable subsection. One can argue if this issue is "fair", or should be a campaign issue, but it is irrefutable that it is an issue, and its removal from the article, and the removal of the RFC are gross violations of multiple policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The extant article is about a campaign for President, and the Wall Street funding of this particular politician has become one of the major issues about the candidate's allegiance to voters, or allegiance to Wall Street "persons." The current front-runner in the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders (by popular vote polling nationally) has been hammering the candidate on the issue, it's absolutely as aspect of the extant candidate's campaign. Damotclese (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes If it has extensive media coverage, it should be included here. Its validity otherwise as a campaign issue is not germane. Edwardx (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not in current form - It would need to be expanded for context and neutrality, and it would need to be moved to another section because it has nothing whatsoever to do with fundraising. This should be scrapped and reintroduced as part of a reworking of the article that takes into account the "back and forth" between the Democratic candidates, including woefully undercovered events like debates and town halls. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite There has to be a better way to write it than quoting some source calling it "a campaign issue". But it should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes-No-Maybe-I-don't-know-Can-you-repeat-the-question: The paid speeches should be mentioned somehow, but this RfC is confusing and I don't know why this asks only about Goldman Sachs. Maybe rather than continue this poll, we can work on how to address the whole issue. Jonathunder (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Yes. And we should also mention why critics think she was wrong and her defense, which would address Scjessey's neutrality concerns. Should also add that she is refusing to release transcripts of the speeches. TFD (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - " And the RFC isn't viable. It is improperly worded and not neutral. It gives a false second choice and more than implies the material should be inserted no matter what. This RFC does not conform to the standards of neutrality and is invalid. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The article is about a campaign for President; I don't live in the US (the other side of the pond) and I am aware that the Clintons were broke and had debts from the previous tilt at the Presidency. That the candidate is being paid for talks is relevant. Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Although there's probably a better way to word it than "campaign issue".JamesRoberts (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes though I think it should be expanded upon to give more of the context mentioned above of Sanders and others, and may be appropriate to add a section for 'Ties to Walt Street' down among the Benghazi and email server and superpredator sections. Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Obviously so. Her Wall Street payments are overwhelmingly part of the Hillary campaign's difficulties, so absolutely they are relevant to the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes But Drop the amount of money. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes but needs to be reworded. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Her history and funding from Wall Street is most certainly worth noting. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Apparently, it is important to remind people !voting here that the suggested language and location of this inclusion is horribly flawed, insofar as it lacks neutrality and context, and it is proposed to be in completely the wrong section (fundraising). !voters should also make some effort to see from associated discussions that we have moved beyond this flawed approach, so any !votes here are essentially a waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it is important to remind you that your opinion that something is horribly flawed does not make it so, and the purpose of an RFC is to establish consensus on that very point. That people are disagreeing with you is more likely a sign that you are wrong, than all of them are wrong. Clearly there is support for inclusion in some fashion. The exact wording and placement are always up for collaboration, but since this RFC was in response to the content being summarily excised from the article, establishing that there is a firm consensus that the material be included is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you are muddying the waters again. I agreed to the inclusion of the material, but disagreed with the way it was being included. It is not an opinion that Clinton's speeches to Wall Street were nothing to do with fundraising, but a fact. It is not opinion that the statement as written is gloriously out of context and misleadingly specific to Goldman Sachs, but a fact. I suggested a way forward, which many editors embraced and endorsed for inclusion. I then proposed we create a section that would be more appropriate to talk about Clinton's paid speeches, but it was completely ignored while this epic wrongness continued. I have made every effort to accommodate this very content in a more appropriate way that would satisfy everyone. Working collaboratively forward is better than an arbitrary vote on something that isn't going to happen because it is spectacularly wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Gaijin42: I agree with you and I think this new "Comment" should be moved to the "discussion" sub-section below, as it may look like a deterrent for editors who want to participate in the RFC if it stays here. (We already have an issue with User:Elmmapleoakpine, who was confused and responded to the RFC in the discussion below.) Needless to say, I started the RFC to hear from external editors, not those who redacted the info from the article and tried to archive the relevant discussions about this topic from the talkpage. The RFC is also meant to end the Wikidrama about this topic--my advice is to ignore those who try to start Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Following a bunch of poor edits, accusations of bad faith, and behavior that came close to a block or topic ban with a declaration that you want to avoid drama is pretty rich. You don't get to set ground rules about what you do and do not want to hear about. This illl-formed RFC was improper from the start, and a distraction from meaningful work on the article. Because of its poor setup it's not generating any meaningful result. A brief talk page discussion, minus all that nonsense, would have been a lot more productive. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been very popular among external editors so far. The RFC begins with "In an effort to end the Wikidrama", so please respect my wishes. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm free to comment however I please, including in this RfC. It is important that editors are informed about how totally stupid this RfC is. If you truly wish to avoid wikidrama (which I think we all know is nonsense), try not commenting at all. Almost everything you say generates controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Gaijin42: I am sorry; I was only trying to respond to you since I agree with you about the significance of this RFC and input from external editors. Hopefully you were able to read this, and external editors will still want to respond to the ongoing RFC despite the distractions above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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

"As soon as Clinton ended her 2008 campaign there was talk of her running again in 2012 or 2016. After she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013, speculation picked up sharply, particularly when she listed her occupation on social media as "TBD". In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations.[1] Her paid speeches to Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs in particular, would later draw criticism from campaign opponent Bernie Sanders.[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Gold, Matea; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Gearan, Anne (May 15, 2015). "Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014". Washington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2016. 
  2. ^ Borchers, Callum (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts are now a campaign issue. Why weren’t they before?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 
  3. ^ Flores, Reena (February 5, 2016). "Hillary Clinton: "I will look into" releasing transcripts of paid speeches". CBS News. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 
  4. ^ Rappeport, Alan (February 4, 2016). "Questions on Speeches to Goldman Sachs Vex Hillary Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 

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

Saying its "sanders criticism" is downplaying it too much. Yes, he brought it up in some of the debates, that doesn't mean it should be attributed to just him. Its widespread criticism at this point. The NYT wrote a full editorial on it. Every major source discusses it in its own right, not as criticism from her opponent. If its going to be put in a sanders context, it would need to be something more like comparisons between her and sanders being drawn, and that these speeches are seen as some as an indication she might be too cozy with wall street, especially in the context of sanders wanting to topple them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not wedded to the text. I only suggested it to get discussion chugging along again. Sanders is where the criticism began, and that is key; however, I agree it has grown beyond that and I would welcome further discussion on how to incorporate that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: Another thing I would think about is that the section "Post-2008 election" fits well for introducing this matter of the paid speeches, because it matches the timeline; however, the later politicization of those speeches occurs much later on (once the campaign is humming along). The text I proposed could, in its current form, act as a sort of pointer for a later section that focuses more on that politicization. Then we would be able to properly explore things like Sanders bringing it up in the debates, and how the media picked it up and ran with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I will publicise the RFC to attract more views, as that is allowed. I asked for an RFC partly to hear from other editors... Your re-writing of history is wrong because it did not attract controversy just from Sanders, but also from the national press. It has also attracted a lot of controversy because she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts; she's been doing this to herself. Anyway, I don't want any more Wikidrama, so please let us wait it out and see if we can get more neutral editors to vote on this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not think publicizing the RfC is appropriate. The idea is to bring in new people who peruse the RfCs, not WP:CANVASS. And accusing me of "re-writing history" is another disgraceful bit of bad faith, guaranteed to attract just the sort of Wikidrama you claim you are trying to avoid, and yet another example of the sort of disruptive influence you have been on this group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stop the Wikidrama right now. The RFC starts with, "In an effort to end the Wikidrama". Take a hint. Yes, publicising is allowed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing_an_RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about publicizing (as long as you don't canvass) and I have struck that out; however, claiming I'm rewriting history and then saying you don't want wikidrama is passive aggressive crap that nobody is going to fall for. In stark contrast to Gaijin42's reply, you had nothing useful to say about my proposal and just came at me with negativity and accusations. That is not the way to conduct yourself on this project and it is why editors are saying you are disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not interested in wasting my time on Wikidrama with you. I started the RFC to avoid that. Please take a hint.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't lay this all at Bernie's feet. The criticism was more widespread. We should also mention Elizabeth Warren's artful dodging when pressed on the issue.- MrX 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said in my reply to Gaijin42, I agree; however, it was definitely Sanders who first brought this into the public eye as a way to contrast his campaign with that of Clinton's. I'm not sure about the Warren thing because I didn't hear about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I did hear it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a reasonable proposal, and way to say it. Because this is an article about the campaign, criticism from opponents is more relevant. If it goes significantly beyond Sanders then we can just say "and others" or maybe even mention one or two. That brings up the inevitable {{who?}} problem, but that's a universal manual of style issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you think I should go ahead and put my proposed text into the article? Obviously this would be with the understanding that the wording can (and probably will) change as discussion continues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you can add it. The information is useful, even if imperfect.- MrX 14:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've done that. As I said before, my feeling is that this sets up an additional section later in the article that goes into the specifics about how Sanders raised the issue in the debate and challenged Clinton to release transcripts, then the media piled on, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't say she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, you are not telling the whole truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
But that is not relevant to this particular addition, which is specific to the period between the end of her tenure as Secretary of State and the moment she announced her campaign. I've proposed an additional section, to be included later in the timeline, which covers these campaign-specific issues. You need only read my last few comments on this matter to see that. By the way, comments to editors like "you are not telling the whole truth" are needlessly antagonistic. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You're the one who removed it from the "Fundraising" section and subsequently added your new text to the "Post-2008 election" section. We could create a "Goldman Sachs speeches" section perhaps. But frankly I think we should let the RFC run its course first. I posted the RFC partly to avoid having to deal with your Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed it from the "fundraising" section because it wasn't fundraising. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That is highly debatable. Did any of the attendees donate to her campaign and affiliated Super PACs? The Center for Responsive Politics (which runs opensecret.org) gives some clues but the rest in an unknown known. If we let the RFC run its course, more outside editors will be able to bring a new perspective. The RFC starts with "In an effort to end the Wikidrama" for a good reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Fact: The paid speeches were for her own personal gain and had nothing whatsoever to do with fundraising for her (future) campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is a complete nonsense, and not supported by any credible source. Fundraising did not (and could not, from a legal perspective) begin until after she had announced her candidacy. Super PACs are unaffiliated, not affiliated. Otherwise they wouldn't be super PACs. Finally, if you keep saying "wikidrama" enough times in the same conversation, people will think you are Marco Rubio. You have created all this drama. Saying you don't want wikidrama while generating oodles of it with antagonistic comments makes you look like a hypocrite. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
On your last point, I have zero interest in wasting my time trying to prove my good faith to you. Who cares. And you can't prove how many of the Goldman Sachs speech attendees donated to her campaign or Super PACs, so you have no point. This is boring. Please let us let the RFC run its course.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
My point is that it doesn't matter how many speech attendees (at any of her 51 speeches) donated to her campaign because they are unrelated. For all we know, just as many people Goldman Sachs employees have donated to the Sanders campaign as the Clinton campaign. You don't know, so speculation is a total waste of time. As private individuals, they may do as they please. As far as the RfC is concerned, the discussion here does not impede it so I'm not sure what your point is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It might be seen as part of the fundraising process. You disagree. There is an RFC precisely because we don't agree, and we are trying to get more outside editors to bring new perspectives. So please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong. Your RfC doesn't mention fundraising at all. In fact, the text I added is just a better, more neutral and properly placed version of what you proposed. The only point of disagreement I can find is that you now also want to add speculative claims to synthesize a negative narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Read above and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm serious. Why else would you want to add speculation about "unknown knowns" that suggest links that no reliable sources corroborate? Where's the evidence Clinton's speeches directly resulted in campaign contributions? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
We disagree, that's why there is an RFC. Stop it.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
But your RfC isn't even about that. It's like you don't even know what you wrote. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
We disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

It doesn't matter how many editors think it's 'valid', editors can be wrong. A majority of editors can change policy, but they cannot subvert policy. There is no question the wording of the RFC is not neutral and not valid. By policy, described here, it should have been. Dave Dial (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
We disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an echo in here! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A badly formed RfC based on an editor's untenable content proposal, eliciting confused responses from random passersby, is hardly the right way to go about establishing consensus to improve an article. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

That's a very reasonable suggestion; however, it was the initial criticism from Bernie Sanders specifically that brought this issue forward. Moreover, criticism from other sources does not focus on the fact she gave speeches to Goldman Sachs, but that she did not respond to Bernie's demand by releasing the transcripts. For example, the NYT editorial piece opines that Clinton is weakening her position by not releasing the transcripts, but doesn't really criticize her for giving the speeches in the first place. I am hoping these sorts of specifics, which are too complex for the post-2008 section, can be given proper consideration in a "campaign timeline" section like the one I have commented on in a later discussion thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I remember reading about the secret transcripts before Sanders brought them up.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well your memory is failing you then. Bernie brought it up first. And for the umpteenth time, they are not secret because everybody knows about them. You have already been told by an administrator that referring to them as "secret" is a BLP violation, because it is a lie. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the transcripts are only known by HRC and Goldman Sachs employees; they are hidden from the American public. That is why the press (not me) has called them "secret". Please read the lead in secrecy and start assuming good faith. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
They are not "hidden from the American public". They are paid speeches, ostensibly the property of the people who paid for them, that are really not any of the American public's business. And YOU called them "secret" by using the term in a section title, so the violation is yours. And given the level of your disruption, assuming good faith from you is nigh on impossible at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
No. I didn't. The press did, as I made very clear in the discussion which was wrongly archived and should be restored: "The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)". She has repeatedly refused to release them to the American public. And it meets the definition in the lead of secrecy. I have no opinion about this; the press does.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
No, you are still epically wrong. "The press" didn't create the title of the Wikipedia talk page section. You did. It's like the lights are on but nobody's home! Please tell me you are just trolling, rather this being intentional on your part. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I used the word secret because that's how the press described those speeches--and I don't work in PR for HRC's campaign, so I don't feel I need to open a thesaurus and reword everything to fit her brand. In any case, I started the RFC to stop having to answer your random accusations and end the Wikidrama, so please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you just imply I worked for HRC's campaign while claiming to be looking to end Wikidrama? Confused.png -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm implying that if I read "secret" in the press, I use "secret" on Wikipedia. I have zero interest in you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
LOL all evidence to the contrary! Do you not understand the concept of attribution? You keep using "secret emails" in Wikipedia's voice, instead of using attribution. Maybe you shouldn't be swimming in the Wikipedia deep end with the adults -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

relationship with african american voters redux[edit]

As demonstrated by the results of the South Carolina Democratic primary, where 6 out of 7 African American Democrats voted for her, Clinton has broad support in the African American community

might need some updating. We can probably wait for the next round of primary results to see how the pre-polls line up with the exit polls, but we may need to say that she started out very strong in this area, and then waned as the election progressed.

  • [24] "Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed"
  • [25] "According to at least one poll, Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points"

On the other hand

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The introductory sentence you quote there is editorializing, and ephemeral. The very notion that a fact "demonstrates" something implies an observer making a judgment, something that is not encyclopedic in nature. Her support in a particular place and time is a possible fact; if that is part of a larger pattern or a changing one it is not due to demonstrating anything. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I quite agree that that sentence is problematic. Talk to Mr Bauder (primarily) and Mr Jessey (secondarily), who are the ones that wrote it. [26]. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Gaijin42 I didn't write any of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey. Apologies. When I clicked next diff I saw you replacing the sources, but neglected to read closely enough to notice it was for different content. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's support among African Americans is much broader in the South, but so is her support among white people. In general however she outpolls Sanders among African Americans. TFD (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Help! Restore the archived section about the "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches" please![edit]

Hello. Can anyone please restore the archived "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches" discussion? It is not stale as it is part of the ongoing RFC discussion. I tried to restore it twice, but another user archived them again, bringing up something I don't understand. We need it restored for editors to understand the RFC, which lasts a month. This is very urgent. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, since you helped me restore the RFC, perhaps you'll want to help. Or anybody else. Please help! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll check this out; after I put in the next section regarding White Men ; User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to bring it back. It is too long for that. Editors may view it at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016/Archive_2#Secret_Goldman_Sachs_speeches and continue discussion here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Who cares if it's long? It explains the RFC. It's not stale and should not have been archived.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is the link for anyone interested in reading the archived material ➜ Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2#Secret Goldman Sachs speeches. It doesn't need to be on this page.- MrX 14:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does because it's not stale as it's directly linked to the ongoing RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone who agreed with me restored it, but it was removed by another editor once again shortly after. It's relevant to the RFC; not stale; it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be on this talk page. The stupidly-written RfC already has all the relevant information. Random IP editors with no editing history showing up out of nowhere don't count. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does need to be there because it is relevant to the (very popular) ongoing RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I would not be eager to call attention to that discussion if I were you. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I created the (very popular) ongoing RFC to end the Wikidrama. The discussion, which you archived twice, explains why we needed the RFC. You and I disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. One editor in the discussion which should be restored said, "I'm looking for other people's views on this, not yours.". That is exactly how I feel--and that's what the RFC is for. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll be blunt with you. You're showing zero self awareness of the quality of your edits, the mess they've been making, or your antagonizing other editors here. You won't even acknowledge that you screwed up the archive with your clumsy efforts. A simple "Oh, I didn't realize that" would suffice. If you intend to continue editing this article you'll need to start listening to the other editors here, not just the ones you choose to listen to. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
If you know how to unarchive this discussion properly, please do it. That is why I asked for help for this--to help outside editors understand the ongoing RFC better. Not interested in going around in circles about this. I have a busy life.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Outside editors are perfectly capable of looking at the archived discussion. Besides, the RfC didn't make any sense anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't like the RFC but who cares? Many outside editors have been smart enough to understand the RFC and respond; it's been a very popular RFC so far; that's all that matters. But the related discussion should be restored for them.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, because of the way you framed the RfC to promote your non-neutral view, some editors were hoodwinked into supporting it even though it is incredibly stupid and factually inaccurate. Anyway, it is largely academic because this discussion, and the reasonable compromise I proposed, has superseded your fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The RFC is completely neutral, as it presents a direct quote which was redacted. The RFC was created to hear from outside editors. No need to keep talking to me. Please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
But the RfC was stupid. It called for the restoration of a statement about paid speeches to Goldman Sachs that was in the wrong section. You had put it in the "fundraising" section, when it wasn't anything to do with fundraising whatsoever. As long as you persist on following this stupid path, I will be here to point out how stupid it is. I will happily stop talking to you about it as soon as you admit the RfC was wrong and end this foolishness -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not wrong. It is perfectly legitimate, as it is a reflection of the third-party sources from the national media. No one cares about your opinion; please rant/campaign on Twitter and let us create a POV-free Wikipedia article! Please stop and let outside editors have a chance to vote. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not legitimate at all. There are zero reliable sources saying that Clinton's speeches had anything to do with her election campaign fundraising. Zero. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. And what has my Twitter account got to do with this? That's a personal attack. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You post your Twitter account on your Wikipedia userpage. I will now ignore you completely.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but posting a link to a Twitter comment of mine as a passive aggressive way of suggesting I am using Wikipedia to "campaign" for Clinton is a personal attack. Like I said in the deleted user talk comment, if you persist in attacking other editors in this way you will find yourself forced to defend your behavior at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:, I've gone ahead and unarchived this section per your request. My real objection to your unarchiving it, which is why I reverted earlier, was just to avoid a mess-up with the bot. Whether or not it really needs to be unarchived is not that important, no harm either way. The critical thing is that when you unarchive something manually, you have to remove the discussion from the archive[27] at the same time as re-adding it to the talk page.[28] Otherwise, you confuse the archive bot, which will add the discussion to the archive a second time, possibly a divergent copy that has extra comments people have made. The second thing you have to do is to make sure to add at least one comment with a current date, otherwise the bot will just re-archive it the next time it runs, because it sees that there has been no new discussion during the archive period. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A demographic section[edit]

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

White men[edit]

As of mid-March 2016 support for Clinton from white men is weak. Low support by white men has been associated with Democratic losses in past presidential elections such as those of McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984.[1]

References

  1. ^ Patrick Healy (March 17, 2016). "As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men". The New York Times (New York City). Retrieved March 18, 2016. 
No, we really don't need that, Fred. It's just not important. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Fred Bauder: The longer discussion about this was just archived, yet once again we were not done. It would be POV to say HRC has support from American Americans, but not mention her lack of support from white men. I'm for removing the African-American section if we have no section about whites. We can't only have sections about those who support her, because it sounds like an advertisement if we do that. This article needs to be balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No, there is no reason to go into who doesn't support a candidate. Insisting that we do so is only "balance" in the same way Fox News uses the word. Besides, support changes dramatically over time. For example, this week's tracking poll shows Sanders leading Clinton among men 47% to 45%, but the week before it had Clinton leading 51% to 45% in the same demographic. That's a massive swing in a single week, and that is not uncommon. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If support changes, let's remove the sections about her alleged African-American and LGBT support. It is very POV to censor her lack of support from white men otherwise.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No, her support from African Americans, the LGBTQ and older voters remains strong. Nobody is trying to "censor" anything. Please dial back the hyperbolic rhetoric you are now becoming infamous for. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop it with Rule 13. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't know you were a disciple of Saul Alinksy. Fascinating. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I believe it has gotten sufficient media coverage. I also worry about the current POV state of this article because of its redaction.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I have considered requesting deletion of the article due to our inability to maintain NPOV. However, the correct path is to ban the small group of determined POV editors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right Fred, there is a small yet unfortunately loud group of editors that are doing their best to add as much negative POV-pushing information into Clinton articles – hopefully, they will be dealt with on a future AN/I discussion board, because this constant nit-picking pile on of crap into articles, is getting quite tedious. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
NPOV means that we shouldn't only cherry-pick whatever makes her look better than reality. However, if most editors want to turn this page into an advertisement by leaving out Goldman Sachs and white men, we will soon get bored and spend more time editing more interesting articles like antique furniture and historic buildings. I'm not Joan of Arc.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please. If you believe this article – which is dazzled with email controversy here, fundraising scandals there, some Clinton Cash and Benghazi hearings in the mix – is too much of an advertisement for you, then you must be sorely mistaken. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I do think leaving out Goldman Sachs and white men would be POV, but I have zero interest in arguing with strangers online. I'm not Joan of Arc..Zigzig20s (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And I think your constant POV-pushing on this article, and related Hillary Clinton articles is problematic. Thankfully there are other editors seemingly who agree, and undo such contributions. You've added that song twice at the end of your comment – would you like to add it in your signature? —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And some agree. Actually I am trying to push NPOV, as I am trying to balance out her African-American support with her lack of support from white men. It is POV to leave it out. But I also have more important articles to edit--her campaign couldn't be more dull!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand the difference between balance (what you are trying to achieve) and neutrality (what Wikipedia is trying to achieve). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

How things go upstate in the New York primary should shed some light on the relevance of this topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-again-looks-upstate-for-win-in-new-york.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016&oldid=715989208"