Talk:Hillary Clinton

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Village Pump Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Systemic racism in our criminal justice system

When the Democratic presidential nominee clearly states that there is "systemic racism in our criminal justice system", it is WP:NOTABLE. Further, it belongs in the Political positions section. Please clarify how this is WP:UNDUE, besides simply not wanting this information in the article? Here are the reverts [1] and [2]. KamelTebaast 17:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I've reverted again. First of all, you have failed to seek a consensus for this inclusion. Second, your citation (both in the article and on this talk page) is invalid. You must seek consensus first, and bear in mind this article is under discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including that, though I'd want more from her on how she proposes to solve the problem. This is what we say on her Pol Positions article:

• According to Clinton, there is "systemic racism in our criminal justice system." She has expressed support for "retraining police officers" and "looking at ways to end racial profiling." Addressing crowds on the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, Clinton has said both "Yes, black lives matter" and "all lives matter." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• • That statement is fine. Does it fit in this article at all? The political positions article is where the detail really belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is important enough to include in this article. NOTABLE btw is about what articles should be created not what should put in them. TFD (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Does Clinton generally use the term "racism" to describe this, or does she use other terms like "racial disparity" or "race-based discrimination"? Describing disparate outcomes as institutional racism is controversial as a matter of terminology. If we are describing her political statement (which may be noteworthy and worthy of inclusion) rather than a particular utterance made at a particular time (which is usually much less noteworthy) we should be careful how we choose our quotes or descriptions. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much value of including one quote from a 90 minute debate. If we do include it, it should be woven in with other content to provide context. It should not be its own paragraph.- MrX 16:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That quote probably better defines the most divergent differences between Democrats and Republicans, and between the left and the right, than any other. How can it not be included?

Can you point to sources that say that or is that your opinion?- MrX 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broddrick

Since there is a section devoted to HRC's reaction to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and her attempts to cover it up, I suggest that information about the other two women should be added to the section as well. There are multiple credible sources that suggest HRC also tried to cover up and deny the accusations of Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broddrick. NationalInterest16 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You would strengthen your argument for including such content by citing some of the "multiple credible sources that suggest HRC also tried to cover up and deny the accusations of Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broddrick" for us here on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans. KamelTebaast 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And those "multiple credible sources" should not be Infowars or Breitbart or any other far-right/alt-right troll site. Acalamari 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/28/in-their-own-words-why-bills-bimbos-fear-a-hillary-presidency/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/juanita-broaddrick-wants-to-be-believed?utm_term=.tqNmjJ5dX#.nnlkrZAMP http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264988-bill-clinton-rape-accuser-hillary-tried-to-silence-me NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is a garbage source, and since the Breitbart/Trump connection is incontrovertible, we can move on. The Buzzfeed and The Hill pieces on Broaddrick say that Hillary disregards her claim, but they don't suggest anything like a "cover up". Do you have some text you're proposing to add to this article relating to Broaddrick? Or Flowers? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is another, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/juanita-broaddrick-hillary-clinton-hid-bills-infidelities/article/2592109 though I wonder if perhaps every source that doesn't favor your world view is "garbage." Sure, I think the section titled "Response to Lewinsky scandal" should be re-titled to include the names of Flowers and Broaddrick. Perhaps "Response to Lewinsky, Flowers, and Broaddrick scandals" would be appropriate? The body of the text could simply include [In 1999, additional accusations of sexual misconduct on behalf of the president were reported on Dateline, when Juanita Broaddrick accused President Clinton of sexually assaulting her. Hillary Clinton again denied the accusations. Furthermore, Juanita Broaddrick later stated that "Hillary tried to silence me." The official response from the Clinton's totaled one sentence from their lawyer, “Any allegation that the president assaulted Juanita Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.” It will take more time to come up with additional information, sources, and possible text for the section. What do the other editors think of these possible additions? NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

No. This is not biographical material, and it's about her husband, not her. It's also scandal mongering.- MrX 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Broaddrick can say, "Hillary tried to silence me", but that doesn't make it true. Without evidence, there's nothing to go on. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There was five other witnesses to the assault. This, I would assume, makes it fairly reasonable for inclusion. Additionally, President Clinton admitted to having an affair with Gennifer Flowers. If this is not biographical material, then why is the entire section on Lewinksy part of the HRC page? NationalInterest16 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There were five other people who witnessed this assault? Can you provide a source stating that? bd2412 T 21:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There were not five people who witnessed the assault. There are five people who say that Broaddrick told them that Bill Clinton assaulted her. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, there are zero witnesses (either directly or after the fact) to the contention that Hillary Clinton has any relevance of any kind to that claim. The whole of the claim with respect to the subject of this article is that Hillary said something vaguely nice to Broaddrick at a conference once. It requires an awful lot of coathanging to draw any encyclopedic relevance to this article. bd2412 T 22:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is another right-wing website. In order to include this information, you not only have to show it is reliably sourced, you also need to show that it has weight in reliable sources. Only if the wire services pick up on the story and it ends up being published everwhere, including your local paper, can we say it might have weight for inclusion. We should always strive to make articles reflect the key points one finds in standard reliable sources, not to inform readers of information they do not find there. Similarly we should never omit information that is widely reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The section is titled "Marriage and family." Since this is an affair that HRC's husband had while they were married, it necessarily pertains to their marriage. I would also argue that allegations of rape, adultery, and other sexual-misconduct are clearly relevant considering that Bill Clinton was president of the United States, and is married to Hillary Clinton who wants to become president of the United States, in part, by creating a platform that suggests she is pro-woman, while her candidate is not pro-woman. This information would be relevant to voters trying to assess the sincerity of her platform, negative or positive. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it is sufficiently relevant to include depends on whether mainstream sources consider it important. See "Balancing aspects". What you or I think is important is of no consequence. TFD (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the desire for additional sources and agree that Wikipedia should "never omoit information that is widely reported in reliable sources." So, I came up with additional sources that detail just a few of President Clinton's sexual misconducts and also discuss HRC's response to those claims. These sources include The Washington Post, the original story aired on NBC's Dateline, and an article from Time written by a Democrat and Bill Clinton supporter. Another is by Politico. I do not believe that any of those sources are right wing. Here are some other sources, Another source deals with Gennifer Flowers and HRC's handling of that incident. There are many more of these sources out there from websites that are right and left, leaning. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

This is not in reference to the link between Bill CLinton's sexual misconduct and HRC, but does show that the mainstream media is discussing the issue. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/politics/hillary-clinton-heckled-over-bill-clinton-sex-scandals/ NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You do not just have to show that the information has been mentioned in mainstream sources, but that it has received sufficient coverage for inclusion in this article. Hillary Clinton has been a leading figure in the news for 25 years, and has been First Lady, senator, Secretary of State and twice a presidential candidate, and leads the Clinton Foundation. Prior to that she was First Lady of Arkansas. So a lot has been written about her and we need to select from all of that what has received the most attention. Some of your sources btw are opinion pieces, not new reports, and hence cannot be used to determine weight. TFD (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that all news statements are, in one way or another, opinion pieces--it is Wikipedia's job to display factual information. Just because a source is opinion based does not mean that it does not have factual information in it. I would also argue that the amount of coverage a story gets has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of factual information inside of it, and also has nothing to do with whether it should be published on Wikipedia or not. My point is that this is information that is relevant to the history of Hillary Clinton. I provided multiple sources that show it is relative to the history of Hillary Clinton. I also provided sources showing that it is an issue in this election cycle. These cases are no different than the one about Monica Lewinsky, which has its own section, so there should be no reason why this information can't be added. Indeed, the Monica Lewinsky section discuses HRC's response, and the sources I provided illustrate her response to these other scandals. What is the difference? NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that these are issues in this election cycle, although there are probably certain political operatives that would like to make them issues. But even if they were, that is no guarantee that they belong in the main biographical article, as opposed to in the article about her presidential campaign. For perspective on WP:WEIGHT, Broaddrick is only mentioned in one sentence in the main Bill Clinton article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Surely this is coming up at this moment because of Donald Trump's stated intention to bing up Bill Clinton and sex in the upcoming, second presidential debate, and his operatives are making noise on the subject. We really ought to shake off this kind of nonsense on this page. Uncorroborated claims of sexual abuse used as a campaign tactic really don't have a place on a biographical article on the encyclopedia, but if it does become an issue we can address that, likely in Trump's campaign article and possibly H. Clinton's. Extended discussion on this here and now is distracting, and not reasonably likely to result in any content improvement to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate that nothing has been presented to show any encyclopedic significance of any of these assertions with respect to Hillary Clinton. The absolute most that there is to say about Hillary Clinton with respect to specific alleged acts on her part is an entirely uncorroborated claim that she said something complimentary to a woman at an event. Since she has given tens of thousands of compliments to people at events, one instance of this activity does not rise to the significance of being mentioned in an encyclopedia article. bd2412 T 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do not read the sources I provide, then how can you argue against any of them, or their inclusion on HRC's page. Rather than worrying solely about protecting the image of HRC, you should be worrying about providing accurate information about her life. So far, you have shown yourself to be 100% biased, which is supposed to be frowned upon in Wiki. Suggesting that something which has been discussed for more than 20 years has no encyclopedic value, and is only being brought up by Donald Trump, proves you are clearly biased and shouldn't have any influence on this page. I am not asking for this to be a hit piece on HRC, I am suggesting that since there is already a section about her marriage and Monica Lewinsky, that this information should be added to that section. Whether or not people find it to be positive or negative towards HRC is up to them.

Now back to my sources: I provided several from left-wing news websites that provide direct quotes about the ways in which Hillary has responded to the sexual assault allegations against her husband. "I would crucify her." "We need to destroy her story," Ect. And again, just because you were unaware of these issues, does not mean that they are only being brought up now. You want to set the standard that these issues have to be talked about in the news; then you want to say that they have to be talked about by more than Donald Trump; then you want to say that they have to have been ongoing; then you say they have to be talked about by left-wing news websites; then you say that they have to be reports, then you say that they. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that on Virginia Thomas' Wiki page, there is a section devoted to her reaction over the Anita Hill scandal, which amounts to nothing more than a voicemail she left. Virginia Thomas isn't running for president and had less to say on the issue of her husband's sexual transgressions, and yet that scandal is on her page, but this one is not on HRC's. NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

More information also needs to be added about the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case which is what led to the discovery of the Monica Lewinsky case, and the impeachment of the Bill Clinton. Again, these are questions that are being asked on the campaign trail, that people will want to know the facts about. Having them on Wiki will help HRC as much as it will hurt her. When people look for some wild accusation that Trump is making, they will be able to get the facts from Wiki. NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's really unclear to me exactly what this is all about. At one point, it was said in this discussion that "There was five other witnesses to the assault. This, I would assume, makes it fairly reasonable for inclusion." Is this still about that alleged assault and the supposed witnesses? (That fails to be verified by the provided sources.) If not, what specific addition is being proposed? What source is being suggested for that addition? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting that there should be information added about HRC's response, and assistance in dispelling, Bill Clinton's various sexual-misconducts. Since there is already a section about Monica Lewinsky, there should also be information added about Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathline Wiley. The multiple sources already provided, show that HRC has been asked many times about these issues and has responded several times in way suggesting that she believes these women's stories should be silenced. Additionally, I am suggesting that this information should be added because all of it pretains to HRC's marriage, which is a section o this page. I hope this makes things clearer. 192.253.0.43 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, perhaps it would be best for me to just request for a change, then everyone can see what I would like to add and we can dispel some of the confusion. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be the best way forward. I would say though that the reason a Lewinsky response is included and not one for the other women is that HRC had a notable response to the Lewinsky scandal that was well covered in the press, while there was little to no response regarding the other cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You would need to propose something like [statement][source]. Where the statement is what you would like to add to the article, and the source is a reliable source that directly supports the statement. Although I'm still unconvinced that WP:WEIGHT is appropriate for the main HRC article. There is possibly a better case for the Bill Clinton article, but until we see the statement and source you want to add, it's impossible to say. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So far I have provided 10 different sources, all of which chronicle HRC's multiple responses to these different cases. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

NationalInterest16 Please use the preview button and format your talk page posts properly. I gave you links to how to do it on your talk page. Thanks.- MrX 02:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

In the section titled "Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings," there is an issue with a lack of a comma between homonyms, (had had.) "She defended her actions in response to the incident and, while still accepting formal responsibility, said she had had no direct role in specific discussions beforehand regarding consulate security." Chicago Manual of Style states that a comma should be placed between homonyms to increase clarity and easy of reading. I suggest a comma should be added.

NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A comma would not be correct English in this instance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See also: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.- MrX 19:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

also correct is: "Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Perhaps that's clearer? 20:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

add a mention that the other two members of the corporation were ardent capitalists who loved freedom of political association or remove the unnecessary side-comment that the other two were part of the extremely civil, pro-freedom of political association, and pro-American communist party that was being persecuted and still is to this day by corrupted individuals who do not love Freedom of belief and choice and government; but only love pointing fingers and being paranoid.

2601:588:4200:FFA0:9E3:1BE1:A989:B7F9 (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is long!

This article is clearly to long. WP:AS says that articles with more then 100 kB of readable prose size "[a]lmost certainly should be divided". By the way, it doesn't really matter if her career is long. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What sort of division do you propose? 331dot (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should split the article. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way do you propose to split the article, keeping in mind the subpages that already exist? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The article's current prose size (text only) is 101 kB (16310 words).- MrX 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is just gonna be one of Wikipedia's longer articles, given how much there is to cover. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is perhaps too long. I do not think it is likely to be pared down until after the coming election (if ever). In the mean time, too many special interests are in play wanting to add their personal pet issues (see recent discussions here). After that time, I think it's a good idea to consider specific suggestions to reduce the length. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

Whether he is a right-wing commentator or not has nothing to do with anything. Half of the sources on here are from left-leaning commentators. Either way, it is still a news outlet and the question is a valid one. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a right-wing commentator and convicted felon(as his article states) is very different than a news story. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that Dinesh d'Souza's opinion belongs in this biography, it must be described as what it his — the opinion of a right-wing political commentator, as per the guideline on opinionated sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is still information, and just because it comes from a right-wing commentator, does not make it any less valid than news that comes from a left-wing commentator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that Dinesh d'Souza's opinion is not an unchallenged opinion, much less a majority opinion. Framing the opinion of a single right-wing political commentator as if it is the undisputed conclusion of multiple "news outlets" is highly misleading and an improper use of the cited source. His POV, if we come to the consensus that it should be included, must be attributed as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I suggest that before jumping into controversial articles about political figures you hold strong personal opinions about, you take some time to review our policies and guidelines on content and sourcing, particularly WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the source I provided isn't to prove that the information is valid or invalid, it is simply to show that there are news outlets questioning that aspect of the Clinton Foundation, therefore I don't think it really matters whether the guy is right-wing or left-wing. The point is simply that Hillary has taken criticism for possibly using the Clinton Foundation to increase her own wealth. I would argue that this isn't even a controversial point because it clearly states that she has made millions of dollars for giving paid speeches on behalf of the foundation. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there aren't "news outlets questioning that aspect of the Clinton Foundation," at least not according to the source you provided. All that you have shown with that source is that precisely one right-wing political commentator with a long-standing and overt anti-Clinton bias has made that accusation in an opinion column published in an overtly-conservative publication. This may very well be notable enough to include in the biography; I could be convinced either way. But if it was to be included, it must be presented as what it is — the attributed personal opinion of Dinesh d'Souza, as required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So does that mean you would be fine with the change if I referenced three, or more, other sources as well? NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see above. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution, and the claim that Hillary "used the Clinton Foundation to increase her own wealth" is quite clearly a biased statement of opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I just showed you that it already says in the article that CLinton used the foundation to increase her own wealth by giving speeches on behalf of the foundation. There is nothing partisan about it. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That isn't at all what the article says; it says she made unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation and made other, paid speeches. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations from a charlatan like Dinesh d'Souza and other "political opponents" (as someone just edited into the article) do not belong in the article. Should we perhaps also add to her personal life that her political opponents have alleged that she's been unfaithful with her husband, seeing as how we're going to lend credence to conspiracy theories and falsehoods just because they can be attributed to someone? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They belong in the article, but not as being reported as fact in Wikipedia's voice. These highly partisan claims are part of the mud being slung at Clinton, and are notable as such. We can use a partisan source to support that this partisan claim was made (one of the few cases in which we can use a primary source), but we must clearly identify this as a partisan claim. Let's see if we can get a better source than the National Review. -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that the article in question doesn't really actually accuse Hillary of any wrongdoing. I read the whole thing; it flings a lot of mud at various people or things attached to or allegedly connected to the foundation in various ways, but nowhere does it directly accuse Hillary of specific wrongdoing or "increasing her own wealth." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. You're right: the cited article never directly makes that accusation, but instead, as you say, throws mud in all directions. Then I agree with you: the sentence should remain struck from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If slander is to be included (which I don't think it should even if it can be attributed to someone), it needs to be noted that RS find no evidence for the allegations. The allegations should therefore be phrased along the lines of "political opponents have accused her, without any evidence, of...". PolitiFact: "There is no evidence that money given to the Clinton Foundation has made its way into the Clintons’ pockets."[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans There is a whole section on the Trump page alleging he has been unfaithful and made advances on married women. I also find it highly rich that there needs to be a better source than the National Review, when sources like the Washington Post, New York Post, and New York Times, are perfectly fine as sources. I would also note that this is one single instance where you are requiring that it be marked as partisan, while ignoring other blatantly partisan sources. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If we can find WP:RS directly reporting that Clinton's opponents are accusing her of self-enrichment from the Foundation, we can report this claim as a partisan claim being thrown at her by opponents, in exactly the same way as the claims being thrown at Trump, without taking a stance on the actual truth or otherwise of that claim. However, NorthBySouthBaranof is right in this case; D'Souza never directly makes that claim, so his article cannot be quoted as a source for that claim. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If we want to include discussion of the partisan claim that the Clintons have gotten rich from their foundation, this Washington Post Fact Checker article would be a good place to start; it presents the partisan claim but notes that there is no evidence that the claim is true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest, based on this source and PolitiFact, "Some political opponents of Clinton, including a pro-Donald Trump super PAC, have alleged that Clinton has used the foundation to enrich herself; however, The Washington Post and PolitiFact investigated the charges and found no evidence to support the claim." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point about The Washington Post being perfectly fine, but National Review is not. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

From some distance away, let me say that indeed, the Washington Post is generally regarded as one of the foremost and most respected news outlets in the US, while the National Review is something very few people outside the US have ever heard about. And that is not just my opinion, - the Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, the Review, as fas as I can figure out, none. The Post may lean slightly to the left from a US perspective, but then reality has a well-known liberal bias. From an international perspective, the US mainstream is way on the right on most issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you should actually read the National Review article you linked. Nowhere in the text does it state that Hillary Clinton "increased her wealth from the foundation." It does not say what you are claiming it says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source that is more direct about the claims. http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/clinton-foundation-health-work/ NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What from that source would you like to include? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit shorter: "Some political opponents of Clinton have alleged that Clinton used the foundation to enrich herself. The Washington Post and PolitiFact investigated this claim, and found no evidence to support it." -- the more general claim includes the specific. We should also avoid the word "however". And of course we need WP:RS cites for both the accusation itself being made, and the WaPo and PolitiFact investigations. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Both PolitiFact and the Post are blatantly left-wing news organizations. If you want to add in the part that they investigated the claim and found no evidence, then you should also add in there that they are left-leaning sources. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think clearly identifying PolitiFact and the Post as the sources will suffice. I would also disagree with your assessment of their being partisan; they are both generally regarded as being neutral in their reporting.-- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good call, the "however" can suggest something that isn't there. The cites are here and here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose that we make the edit suggested above, based on NPOV and rough consensus. Does anyone disagree with this, and if so, do they have a better edit they can propose? -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Both the Post and PolitiFact lean heavily to the left. Just a few comments ago, everyone was busy throwing policies at me about having to identify partisan sources. Now when the shoe in on the other foot, you don't want to do it. This seems highly biased to me. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch, Alternet, and The Nation are examples of "left-wing publications". Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, and the Free Republic are examples of "right-wing publications". The Washington Post and Politifact are not left-wing or right-wing, although arguably the editorial board of the Washington Post is at least left-leaning (in the same way that, say, the news room in Fox News is right-leaning). Being left or right leaning is not a basis to reject a publication from a respected news outlet like the Post, Fox, or Politifact (a Pulitzer Prize winner). News sources like these are generally reliable for factual matters. However, "blatantly left-wing" or "blatantly right-wing" sites are often too biased to be useful in an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide WP:RS for the Post and PolitiFact being left-leaning, from anything other than right-wing sources? -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have a better edit. "Some political opponents of CLinton have alleged that CLinton used the foundation enrich herself." Then use the sources I provided, as well as the Post and PolitiFact and let people make up there own minds, rather than telling them what to believe. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs)

That only tells half the story. As per your cite, I'm now happy to describe the Post as "left-leaning", as this seems to be general opinion. However, the only descriptions of PolitiFact being left-leaning seem to come from overtly right-wing sources. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That cite discusses research on the audiences of the sites, not on any analysis of the content of the sites in question. It says that the readership of the Post skews left, not that the reporting does. Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum. That the Washington Post is read by more liberals than conservatives is interesting, but not relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I could provide a list of about 30 different organizations that describe PolitiFact as "left-leaning" while there isn't a single one that suggests PolitiFact leans to the right. Although, most of these sources are indeed right-leaning, I would suggest that the shear number that say PolitiFact leans left, would prove my point that many, many people believe PolitiFact is biased. This is why I suggest including all four sources and letting people make there own decisions as to which they should believe. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just done some Googling, so I can see what you mean. However, relative to the sources I see weighing in against PolitiFact, consensus reality is left-leaning. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it is based off of audience data. Statistics prove that Liberals read left-leaning news, and Conservatives read right-leaning news. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very interesting opinion you have there, but it's not supported by the source you provided. Care to try again? You have a source which says more liberals than conservatives read the Washington Post. That does not in any way, shape or form support a claim, much less prove, that the content of the Post is politically biased in any significant way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would have thought that it was obvious, but I guess not. I find this amusing that some people seem to be under the impression that the News starts in the middle, then only moves right, rather than both directions. Why don't you come up with some sources that show the Post is unbiased. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Post certainly has a left-leaning editorial stance; however, its news coverage is solidly reality-based, and shows no obvious bias. Do you really think they'd do a cover-up of Clinton's alleged self-enrichment, if they found it actually existed? I doubt it. It's interesting to note that the main mass of the media lie to the left of the centre in that chart. Given that most of these publications are owned by vast for-profit corporations with no obvious motivation for left-wing bias, that suggests to me that consensus reality probably lies somewhere in that region. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, this discussion is tiring and old. Just like the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune have a conservative lean, the New York Times and the Boston Globe have a liberal lean. Despite their lean, none of those news sources are unreliable. Breitbart, the National Review and whatever garbage sources you want to add to this article are wildly unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that consensus lies somewhere in the region to the left. After all, FOX has the largest audience by a wide margin. So can we agree that all four sources should be added and we will let people decide for themselves? NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, seconding Sławomir Biały's comments above: even Fox hasn't pushed this one; their editorial leans way rightward, but their reporting of fact is generally reality-based. Again, if Fox had any actual evidence for Clinton's alleged self-enrichment, don't you think they would have published it? Have any of the right-leaning mainstream media (eg. Times/Globe) published similar fact-checking exercises? -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's another link. http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383 The Journal has been running stories on this for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not a claim of self-enrichment: it is, at worst, one of conflict of interest. Perhaps we should change the claim being reported to that? Do you have more similar sources? -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały I am not suggesting that the Post or PolitiFact should be ignored, I am suggesting that both perspectives should be added so that people can make their own decisions. NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It sure seems like you want us to accept a false equivalence between right-wing commentator Dinesh D'Souza and the newsroom of the Washington Post, which you incorrectly characterized as "left-wing". But, by all means, try to be clear about what it is you want to say, divested of false partisan rhetoric, and supported by reliable sources, and it might be worth adding to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can provide more sources for both the conflict of interest and the self-enrichment. There are certainly plenty of them, its a fairly hot topic. NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do. But please keep it to reliable sources only, not partisan blogs. -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference List

Hi, I found it a little confusing in the reference list that there are some citations that have explanations and some do not. And wouldn't the notes section be a better place to put these explanations? I know there are different communities working on this page and that they will have different styles of citation but for a third party it just seems a confusing. --Ellesmith519 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that's what you get when you write an article by committee: it's a wonder it works at all. I'm not a big contributor to this article, so I'll stand back from this, but the idea of a notes section sounds interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There already is a notes section. Explanatory notes could be moved out of the references section into that section in cases where they clarify the text, as opposed to just verifying it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Alfred Taylor

at a minimum the wiki should mention she was his attorney.--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem biographically significant to the point of including in this article. She ran a legal aid clinic at a law school, and in that capacity took on various criminal defense matters, including a rape case assigned to her by the judge in the case.[4] - Wikidemon (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Every single criminal case in U.S. courts involves either a defense attorney defending a guilty person or a prosecutor trying to convict an innocent person. That's the way our justice system was designed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Juanita Broaddrick

I added the following text in the article:

The Juanita Broaddrick case received renewed attention during the United States presidential election, 2016, as Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee for president. In January 2016 Broaddrick said on Twitter, “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”

References

I added this to show that Hillary has problems with this woman. I think it is relevant and should be included.--Broter (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're not the mouthpeice of the fringe media. Find multiple impeccable sources and then we can discuss where this might fit into the article.- MrX 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) "I added this to show that Hillary has problems with this woman." -- and? Half of the U.S. population have problems with Hillary, and Trump too. If we're going to add every single opinion of Hillary's detractors and supporters -- this is going to be a very long article. Oppose mentioning the thoughts of Broaddrick (or any other individual) in Hillary Clinton's biography. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rape accusations from a long-discredited person do not belong on this page. This accurately reflect the status of this story, from 1999: Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, said "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times ... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible." That the Trump campaign and rubbish sources are now dredging this up does not make it relevant to Clinton's main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper) is not a fringe news source.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Whether the source is a fringe source or not, the unsubstantiated assertion that in 1978, Hillary Clinton gave a woman a compliment at an event is not an encyclopedically notable assertion. Otherwise, we would need to include every instance of Hillary Clinton giving people compliments at events. bd2412 T 16:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It has received sufficient attention that neutrality requires we mention it, and of course there is nothing wrong with quoting Nelson's comments in 1999.[5] But other reporters had other opinions and the story has been revived this year in the media. Of course we should not say that Broaddrick's claims are true, because reliable sources do not say that. We should however say what reliable sources say, which is that she made the claims. TFD (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is a difference between whether the claims are true, and whether there is anything notable to the act itself, as opposed to someone's interpretation of it. We could say for example, "In a 2003 interview, Juanita Brodderick claimed that in 1978, Clinton gave Brodderick a compliment at an event". Putting aside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for this having happened, and that Brodderick apparently didn't tell anyone about such a thing happening for 25 years (even years after Brodderick made claims about Bill Clinton), there is nothing notable about Clinton giving a woman a compliment at an event. bd2412 T 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is not what we consider to be significant, but "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It is not our role to adjust the weight in reliable sources to reflect what we consider important. If I am wrong, could you please point to a policy or guideline that supports our requirement to report only what we think is signficant. TFD (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubtless you could find a dozen sources reporting on what gown Hillary Clinton wore to Bill Clinton's first inaugural ball (in fact, I just checked, and you can - a purple, long-sleeved gown by Sarah Phillips). However, Clinton wore gowns on many occasions, though probably not as many occasions as events at which she gave people compliments. Should we mention this gown in the article? bd2412 T 19:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• It is undue weight at the moment. This has not even emerged (yet?) as a major issue in any single news cycle, let alone a major election issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, BD2412, Snooganssnoogans, and Sławomir Biały on this point, for the reasons they outlined. Neutrality^talk 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pattern of Concealment

MrX has reverted my addition of a source regarding concealment by Ms. Clinton dating back to 1993, and entirely related to the e-mail scandal. The quote that I used was from the source, and all of the sources on the referenced site are cited. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, MrX, please do not revert edits. JLMadrigal @ 15:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't add POV material from weak sources to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? It's not James Comey. Why would we use that particular line that originated from a Time article? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comey's exact words were "a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct." I will use them instead. They are from the following cited Time article: http://archive.is/2016.03.31-144642/http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/#selection-2201.831-2201.881 JLMadrigal @ 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... Seems like a blatantly cherry-picked WP:OR/WP:POV use of that source. That's talking about Comey's investigation into the Clintons twenty years earlier. The outcome of the email investigation had not yet even been announced. So I think this is a really inappropriate use of that source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the edit blatantly violates WP:POV by cherry-picking a source.- MrX 16:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

With regard to discretionary sanctions, and in the hope that Wikipedia moderators do not have immunity from reasonable editorial standards, you should reconsider removal of sources within which solid sources are cited. Furthermore, the Hillary_Clinton#Email_controversy section is glaringly lacking regarding her long history of e-mail misconduct.JLMadrigal @ 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to summarize the email controversy as "a pattern of concealment" or "highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct". The information is relevant if attributed, but not without proper attribution. Also, the email controversy section in this biography is a summary of a much more detailed article. The source you are trying to use does not seem to meet WP:RS in that it is essentially published by an individual, does not have a editorial oversight, and has not established a reputation for fact checking.- MrX 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the email controversy section ought to be significantly trimmed, as it is overlong and detailed, going into things that are not relevant from a biographical point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but trimming would be quite challenging because of the need for context. It's one of those things that either needs a very light trim, or a serious slash 'n' burn. Achieving a "modest" trim would be hard to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the length should be revisited, but after the election. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing is supposed to be independent of elections. TFD (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - which is why you don't see these kinds of changes being proposed for the dozens of politicians who are not currently engaged in campaigns. bd2412 T 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If TFD also feels that the section should be reduced in length, and replaced by a neutral one-sentence summary, then I'm fine with that too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful when starting a discussion thread about a disputed edit to provide a link to the edit and to the source that supports it. In this case the "pattern of concealment" comment was made by a partisan lawyer on the Whitewater commission in 1993. Use of the quote would require in-text citation, explaining who Comey is and the context. And of course it had nothing to do with the emails, so we would have to show its relevance. Certainly the writer of the Thomson timeline saw it as relevant, but we would need a more explicit source. We would need a lot of text to include this while following NPOV and NOR, so it is best not to use it. TFD (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Title etiquette ... first lady, or First Lady?

The article uses both in body-text (i.e. beyond headings, quotes and refs) in roughly equal numbers.

I was going to edit them all to caps, then on a hunch I did a quick check of the articles on Barbara Bush (also mixed) and Laura Bush (all but 2 use caps) so I'm not sure which is correct. On such a controversial page I'm not going WP:BOLD with this (or anything else). :P

Wayne 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Even the First Lady article mixes it up! Wayne 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Request to remove porn and racist content ASAP. Bluestategirl (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)