Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Citations, please

This article has an unusually lengthy (6 paragraphs, presently) introductory section, without a single citation in any of it. 68.113.225.4 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article is not required to have inline citations, as the information in the lead is supposed to be cited elsewhere in the article. If there are particular statements that don't appear to be well-supported, please point them out here on the talk page. clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, MOS:LEADCITE suggests that any statements in the lead of a WP:BLP article likely to be challenged should be supported by a citation, even if redundant. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Meh...the lede reads like a complete whitewash of Mrs. Rodham Clinton...I'd say "written by her campaign staff", but clearly they couldn't have done such a good job without help. By comparison, Bernie Sanders has 8 citations in the lede. The fact that that article is not protected, while this article is, strengthens criticism of Wikipedia on this front. 68.113.225.4 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparing this article to Bernie's is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I don't watch that page closely, but eight citations in the lead is too many. Hillary's article is protected because of years and years of vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm, please get your facts straight. The Bernie Sanders article has been protected almost continuously since September 12, 2015,[1] because of vandalism and/or BLP issues. The most recent protection was for the three months which ended today. If vandalism resumes, it will get protected again. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

I will need to because under section 23 there is incorrect information so i would like it to be correct for our future President. Shist loard (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. clpo13_(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Obama's former personal physician questions Clinton's health

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

---

On CNBC and CNN http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/31/no-reports-on-clintons-health-are-not-conspiracy-theories-commentary.html, Dr. David Scheiner questioned the health of both Trump and Clinton. There have been several mainstream news sources and experts commenting negatively on the health of each. Add something to this article and to Trump's article? TweedVest (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have details about Clinton's health conditions in the article. TFD (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This guy has zero credibility. "A former physician" to Barack Obama - we don't know how long ago, but presumably at least 8 years ago since he has military doctors as president. He doesn't know any more than any other physician talking (against ethics) about patients he has never examined. Basically he is just shooting off his mouth, with zero information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you ask, David Scheiner was Obama's personal physician from 1987 to 2009. TFD (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. He still doesn't know any more about Clinton's or Trump's health than what he has read in the papers. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame during a big event, like a presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well no. And in fact he says nothing more about her health than what is in the papers and also in this article. I see no reason to attack him however. TFD (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say, "Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to release her detailed medical records over the course of her campaign, despite widespread concern." But this should go in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. If you google it, there are lots of matches--it does seem like a campaign issue. For example, CNN reports, "A Clinton aide said the campaign will not be releasing any more records.". Does the concern only come from her opponents, or from her own party? I have not had time to identity this. Her coughing fits have also received a lot of media coverage, although we have discussed this before and some editors believe RS should be ignored. At its heart, this is really a discussion about Wikipedia's use of RS; there is probably enough out there to start Hillary Clinton's health, but my bet is that most editors would object to even a paragraph. Since we are unlikely to reach consensus on this, it may be a lost cause.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about her health belongs in the campaign article. I can't see adding it here because the best opinion says she is reasonably healthy, but it can be added to the other article to the degree the speculation becomes an issue in the campaign. But better discuss it there. TFD (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Please tell me that is not a serious suggestion! Nobody is "concerned" about her health, except maybe Hannity. Per the two-page note from her doctor (standard for all presidential candidates), she is perfectly fine. And when you say her so-called "coughing fits" (she just coughed, for fuck's sake) received "lots of media coverage", you mean lots of extreme right wing fringe media coverage, of course. Please stop trying to push these fringe views into Clinton articles. It's getting very tiresome indeed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Just google it. I have no opinion--but there are many third-party sources. I would appreciate it if you never used the 'f' word again when talking to me, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You know this is the internet, right? Profanity is going to crop up from time to time. Nevertheless, I will bear in mind that you are unusually sensitive to it in the future. As to the content, the "third party sources" will be 99% fringe websites like WND, Drudge, Breitbart et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CNN reported on it--they are fairly left-wing.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CNN also questioned Trump's health in the same context. I don't think that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to question the health of either candidate in this context. bd2412 T 14:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's become a campaign issue, whether we like it or not. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say that an effort is underway to make it a campaign issue. In any case, this is the subject's general biographical article, not their campaign article. bd2412 T 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a campaign issue insofar as that there is no evidence "it" (which doesn't really exist, by the way) has any impact on the campaign whatsoever. This is just made-up nonsense from the right wing that shouldn't be given any coverage on an article of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Citing physicians that have not even examined Clinton, in the matter of her health, seems like clear WP:BLPGOSSIP. We have a reliable source that she is in good health. Wikipedia is not the place to give equal validity to unsubstantiated speculation. We leave that to the news "reporting". Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it's had an impact on the campaign. Hard to tell. I haven't come across any references saying it hasn't. We know it's gotten a lot of media coverage though. But I fear we won't be able to reach consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL! We don't need any sources to say it has not had an impact on the campaign. You need to find credible sources to say it has, and is significant enough to pass WP:WEIGHT. Good luck with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps User:TweedVest can do all the research. As I said I don't think we will reach consensus, so it's not worth my time. People will just have to read about the campaign outside Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean we're not likely to reach your preferred consensus on this. I see a pretty clear consensus with many editors objecting to this content. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My preferred consensus is to add content as per RS. But User:TweedVest can take this up--I won't try to convince you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Did someone really say, "Just Google it"? And it was a serious Wikipedia editor, not Rudy Giuliani? Also, to the question, NO. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Most RS can be found on Google, yes.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if/why you are criticizing Rudy Giuliani by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a reference to this EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Just study it out. clpo13_(talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. As I said, I think it would be better to include the controversy over the release of her detailed medical records given all the RS, but we won't reach consensus, so whatever. People will go off Wikipedia for this.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with that link. If that's some kind of stab at Hillary Clinton, that's not OK. And rather than saying there's no consensus, it's more fair to say that there is consensus--just not the one you want. If people go "off Wikipedia" for this stuff, well, that's just too bad so sad. Breitbart needs the traffic. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to User:Clpo13.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As you've been told before, Zigzig20s, discussions here don't have to be bilateral. So why did you include that link? Graham (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to User:Clpo13. Please don't respond every time I respond to another editor; it's not always about you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about all of us – we are all a part of this consensus building exercise, are we not? So I'll ask you again, why did you include that link, Zigzig20s? Graham (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus despite RS. So, there is no need for you to reply. And, I was responding to User:Clpo13. I don't have time to talk to you endlessly. I will not have time to reply if you ask me again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a reason to reply if I have reason to believe it to be possible that, once again, you are making inappropriate posts on talk pages in contravention of a behavioral guideline. So once again, Zigzig20s, why did you include that link? Graham (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC) cc: Drmies

Please don't reply to every discussion I am having with other editors on every page. I feel harassed, so please stop. I was responding to User:Clpo13; they will understand. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that video link, somebody's commentary of a Fox News clip of Clinton coughing in support of the fringe conspiracy theories about her health. Definitely not appropriate. It should have just been redacted or deleted as soon as you posted it. This isn't a forum to score points against politicians you don't like. You will be getting complaints from other editors, and perhaps administrators, as long as you do stuff like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This topic is about her health. The video questions her health. It seemed on topic. The topic is health. (Fox News is not fringe by the way; it is simply conservative.) However, this topic will not reach consensus, so there's no need to waste our time discussing this. I won't have time to reply again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't have time to reply again.

Are you trying to say that you refuse to account for your behavior? Graham (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You (Zigzig20s) are going to have to stop posting things like that video link if you want to engage productively with the other editors in these political article talk pages. If you can't or won't understand why, that's one issue. If you do understand but you're doing it anyway, that's another issue. Either way it's an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So which is it, Zigzig20s? Do you sincerely not understand why, or do you understand why but just don't care? Graham (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Zigzig20s, you cannot cry harassment anytime you have a disagreement or someone raises concerns about your behavior. You did this just a few days ago when you accused another editor of "gay bash[ing]" when disagreeing with him over a matter at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 despite the fact that no allusions were made to any editor's sexuality (and you refused to provide any evidence of this "gay bash[ing]"). Looking at your history, these types of accusations are neither solely a recent practice of yours nor one restricted to discussions of articles about partisan politics.

I should also note that while I do not "reply to every discussion [you are] having with other editors on every page", I will continue to reply in conversations to which I feel I can make a positive contribution, irrespective of whether or not you would prefer that your opinions are left unquestioned.

While I'm glad to hear that you believe that Clpo13 will understand why you included that link, this is a public forum. Our guidelines are clear that article talk pages are not to be used as your personal soapbox. So again – why did you choose to include that link? Graham (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I propose to close the discussion as a pointless discussion on a topic already discussed, not remotely likely to gain consensus, and ask editors not to keep bringing up this off-center topic without some serious support. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we could ask User:TweedVest if he had more to say. The RS are there on Google, but whatever.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we close this topic, regardless of WP:UNCENSORED, because it is being used to discourage editors who think Wikipedia should reflect RS. It won't, because we won't reach consensus, so let's just close this.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I do hope that you aren't asking to close this topic because you want to get out of accounting for your behavior in the above thread… Graham (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Senior thesis

Closing pointless discussion; let's stick to discussing the content of the article, shall we?

Thank you for closing that unproductive discussion, Anythingyouwant. The closure of that conversation does not mean, however, that Zigzig20s no longer has the opportunity to account for his behavior in the discussion. So Zigzig20s, what was it that you meant to communicate with your link to Hillary Rodham senior thesis? Graham (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) What difference, at this point, does it make? See WP:DTS. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC) See WP:TPG. The issue of including that conspiracy theory has been resolved, but that doesn't mean that behavioral guidelines shouldn't be enforced. Cheers, Graham (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC) So he linked to Hillary Rodham senior thesis. Someone else said "fuck". Are these sins? Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, saying "fuck", and linking to Hillary Rodham senior thesis? Hillary Rodham senior thesisHillary Rodham senior thesisHillary Rodham senior thesisHillary Rodham senior thesisHillary Rodham senior thesisHillary Rodham senior thesis Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC) What conceivable rationales are there for why he might have included that link? (Not a rhetorical question.) Saying "fuck" doesn't lead one to believe that the person saying it isn't here to build an encyclopedia and is using this talk page as their personal soapbox. Graham (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) I have no idea why lots of people at this talk page say lots of stuff. Such as, "Just study it out". Let's not get all worked up about a little wikilink. Can't we all just get along?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC) I too would like to get along and I hope that Zigzig20s explaining himself can be the first step towards that goal. If there is nothing wrong with his behavior, I imagine that he'll have no shame in explaining it. Graham (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Well, I don't understand why you've singled out this one little thing for repeated questioning, but be my guest and keep asking. There's no rule requiring a reply AFAIK. Anyway, I'm out of here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

I thnk you should

Noidontwantto (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Should what? —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

New related article

Huh. Eyes needed on this new related article that has just been linked to in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Should go straight to AE. Weasel upon weasel upon synth. Where are the tough decisive Admins of yore? SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly one may believe that no media attention should have been given to the alleged relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department. But it has and therefore the article meets notablity. Fortunately the extensive media attention allows us to write a fair article and we can, in fact must, present the Clinton view that there was no connection. TFD (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but "...has been the subject of controversy..." Weasel me this. The discussion about the emails had to do with the security of State Dept. information. There's a fundamental question here, namely does WP want to have POV editors exploiting the page view status of WP to create new topics that insinuate political talking points into web search results?

My Google search for "state department"+"clinton foundation" shows the first hits are for articles at the Center for Research on Globalization, RT and the National Review (all of which sites are hostile to Clinton), followed by negative stories in mainstream U.S. media. Certainly a Wikipedia article at the top of the list covering the whole story with due weight to all the various views would be a public service. TFD (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Did the creators bother to cite any RS calling anything a "controversy" or is this all OR synth? SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic uses that terminology.[2] But we do not need a source for a name chosen. I suppose the best known name is "Pay for Play," but that title may be prejudicial. TFD (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's up to editors to make up titles, how about "The panoply of recent suspicion and undocumented accusations concerning Sec'y Clinton, including innuendo concerning events so ordinary that no mainstream comment can be found to provide context or perspective." SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've attached an NPOV tag to the article. It should probably be thoroughly rewritten, merged, or deleted. We don't create POVFORK articles about everything that a politician's opponents decide to spin as a controversy, only the more notable ones. I've also removed the material and link added to this article by one of the article's creators, as being undue and POV. FWIW, I would recommend against going to arbitration enforcement as a first step to a content dispute, or with anything that is not a clearcut behavioral issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree about AE. However there is a small army of POV pushers who behave as if they were political activists here rather than editors and who seem to be motivated by concern that a Pres. Clinton would nominate a Supreme Court justice whom they would oppose. Various editors need soothing TBANs. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and it's getting pretty ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap. Thanks for the heads up. That's a shameless POV fork and over the top POV pushing. It's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated that article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Current picture of Hillary Clinton

A current pic should definitely appear on this page, especially since her health is an active campaign issue. It doesn't need to be the pic at top right, but it should be immediately below that or appear within the text, near the top of the page, so that it is as prominently displayed as the pic at top right. The absence of a current pic proclaims editorial bias. (Ditto everything for the Donald Trump article.) Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Does she look particularly unhealthy in recent pictures? AFAIK she looks about the same as she does in the current picture. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are several pics circulating within YouTube in which she looks 20 years older. I'd insert one myself but I can't verify that they are undoctored or certify as to their origin. The key point is that the article is materially incomplete without a truthful and clear picture of what she really looks like today, on the eve of an election in which her health is a significant campaign issue. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As you have noted, pictures "circulating within YouTube" are of questionable provenance, given the ease with which images can be distorted with Photoshop and other programs like that. Images used in Wikipedia are subject to the same requirements of verifiability and reliability as anything else, and must either be in the public domain or must be released by the original photographer under a suitable license for inclusion here. The first step to being able to include any images here is to find the photographers who originally took the pictures and have them release their rights. bd2412 T 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't oppose a current picture- though it should be done just to have a current picture, not because she looks 'unhealthy'(which merely being older is not). 331dot (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like on articles about politicians, we typically use an official headshot. This is in keeping with the policy outlined at WP:MUG, that mandates caution in using photos that may portray the subject in a false light. This trumps any question of whether it is an "active campaign issue". If there is a more recent official headshot that is under a Wikipedia-compatible license (e.g., if it is in the public domain), then we can use that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There's always been an unofficial Wikipedia guideline of using the last available official portrait of a politician. Don't worry, a "current" picture will be put up when the White House releases her new portrait after her inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a little different because she has no official position, but has a high profile as the Democratic candidate. Maybe we could get a campaign photo. TFD (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable third-party sources telling us that they already know she will win the election, or is this speculation?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. We should continue with the existing convention for the infobox, particularly as this is the article on Hillary Clinton, not the campaign. Besides, she is running as the former Secretary of State and is referred to by the media as "Secretary Clinton". More recent pictures, including one as recent as April of this year, are already in the article. Also, I should add that we should not be using Wikipedia to give credence to this bullshit right-wing stuff about Clinton's health being an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to depart from the policy regarding the pic at top right of the page. My request would be fulfilled completely if a current picture that truthfully depicted her as she actually looks on the campaign trail is displayed near the top of the page within the text. Not a photographer's portrait. No studio. No airbrushing. A real photograph that is undoctored and that the community agrees is a fair, truthful representation. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki thumbnail that I selected does not appear. I wanted it to appear at the left near the paragraph that begins, "As First Lady...". Someone please help by debugging my edit. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of that image. You must gain consensus first. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's censorship unless you had good cause to revert it. Forcing contributions that you don't personally like to meet the consensus hurdle without good cause is despicable behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideafarmcity (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Censorship it is not. I wish I got a dollar for every time someone cried that. This is a biography of a living person who is controversial and running for the highest office in this country. Firm consensus is needed for controversial/contentious edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is censorship, since there was nothing controversial about my edit. I didn't pick an unflattering pic or anything like that. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The current picture is 7 years, or more accurately 2784 days old. There is a Commons category with over a hundred pictures of her in 2016 (see subcategories): Commons:Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. I don't see why it couldn't be updated in the infobox. --Pudeo 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of FAQ point #3 and the OP of this section has a major POV problem ([3])? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 see the FAQ. We use her official government headshot, just like every other US politician. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clinton's official portrait is fine, as is standard. And a hefty "No" to conspiracy theories might also be required here. Acalamari 22:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not! We certainly don't want any of those people to have a voice here! (If it's not a statement approved by the thought-mob, it must not be true.) Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, we will only have to wait until after the Inauguration for a new official portrait we can use. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The current "official" photo - 'shopped, retouched - is unrealistic. Considering she looks about 5-7 years older than she actually is, a current photo would be honest, at least. 50.111.25.178 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Massive focus on Clinton's health *and* her appearance? Isn't there anything better to do? Acalamari 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The second image I see on the page (in the "Hillary Clinton Series" part of the infobox) is from January 2016. I'd say that is "recent" by most standard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

health

there should be a subsection about her health as its a big issue related to her campaign now. her doctor just announced she has pneumonia.--174.112.29.187 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. There's lots of unscrupulous and unreliable speculation on her health. There is zero reliable sources that report that her health is a problem. There are reliable sources reporting that unreliable sources are making false claims about her health. That's not the same thing. --Jayron32 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theories manufactured by the Alt-Right have no place in this article - or anywhere, for that matter. Acalamari 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It certainly has no place in the biography.- MrX 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

She is being treated with antibiotics, and thus has bacterial pneumonia. All we have learned from this is that, like all humans, she is susceptible to bacterial infections. This is not indicative of any chronic health condition. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That she caught a common disease is not noteworthy. Especially not for her bio. Adding something about the right-wing side of the media making an issue out of her health, and Trump being the main reason for that, could go in the campaign page. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And something about the left-wing media and her supporters performing an under-the-rug sweeping of the concerns of many now have after today's incident could be included too. When this actually becomes an issue on both sides of the media aisle, will it then be appropriate for this BLP article? Or are health issues only mentioned in campaign articles? (yes, that was sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream non-partisan media are vastly raising this incident as a legit concern. It should be appropriately addressed on the article. Drako (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That she apparently has a common disease? no thank you! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

www.naturalnews.com/055253_Hillary_Clinton_Parkinsons_disease_health_diagnosis.html is this reliable ？ --12.39.178.119 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That website promotes conspiracies and other fiction, and the "doctor" in the article is another one of those "TV diagnoses" - i.e. diagnosing someone without performing any sort of examination on them. Not at all ethical or appropriate. In short, no. Acalamari 09:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Her multiple coughing attacks, current pneumonia, and her consistent refusal to release her extended medical records are simple facts. There is no need to hide any of that.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton also has a head, two arms and two legs. Let's not forget about mentioning those important facts! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTBLUE does not apply here. Coughing attacks, pneumonia and secret extended medical records are not the norm for presidential candidates. They are abnormal developments. And reliable third-party sources have highlighted it many times.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Hence, there are plenty of others who disagree with you. You see it as a big conspiracy, I see it as not a big deal. Media outlets, reliable and third-party they may be, document many things under the sun – that does not make it noteworthy. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. It is what the American electorate can read in reliable third-party sources. It makes Wikipedia look bad if we don't include it. We want to make sure Wikipedia is seen as a serious trove of information, indeed as a reliable encyclopedia. Ergo, we can't redact whatever sounds like an inconvenient truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It makes Wikipedia look bad if we report everything that is written in the news one day, and gone the next. Maybe try WikiNews? this is an encyclopedia, however, and I don't believe that this common disease Clinton has will be noteworthy in a year's time, or 10. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) No candidate is under any obligation to release medical records; therefore not doing so isn't an issue. Donald Trump hasn't either, just a note written in five minutes after a phone call while the car waited outside. Are you over on that page asking the same thing you are here? I already know the answer. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

But reliable third-party sources have made it a campaign issue. We cannot, and shouldn't try to, control the narrative.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times: "The topic of Hillary Clinton’s health, about which her opponent, Donald J. Trump, and his supporters have raised questions for months, was thrust into the center of the campaign on Sunday." [4] Wikipedians controlling this article: Nothing do wo with Hillary or the campaign. Alright! --Pudeo (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you over at the Donald Trump talk page asking the same questions as here? 331dot (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia articles rest on reliable third-party sources. Many such sources talk about her multiple coughing attacks, pneumonia, and consistent refusal to release her extended medical records. As Wikipedia editors, we shouldn't pick and choose only convenient sources to fit a certain narrative. We should simply relay this information.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you answer my question? There is no narrative being presented here, despite the conspiracy you think there is. HRC can't sneeze without it being reported in the press. We aren't here to parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

We do have to use reliable third-party sources. This talkpage is about HRC, not Trump. Reliable third-party sources have made her health an issue, and we have to include it at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that you are here talking about HRC and wanting to discuss her supposed medical problems and not releasing medical records(which she legally doesn't have to do) while not making the same demands over at Donald Trump's article. Who's the one biased again? 331dot (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This talkpage is about HRC. I am a volunteer editor and I spend my time trying to improve whichever article I want, whenever I want. I spend my free time however I choose. Now, I don't particularly want to discuss her health. Reliable third-party sources have. Because I love Wikipedia, I want it to reflect the depth of reliable third-party sources and thus be seen as an unbiased, serious encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You can certainly pick and choose what you want to edit, but that doesn't mean your biases aren't reflected in your choices. You want to treat HRC differently than Donald Trump. If you "love Wikipedia", you should want each article to be treated the same. If you don't, that's fine, but then you should be honest about it. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero bias. But please don't turn this into a forum to avoid discussing the real issue based on reliable third-party sources--her health.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's difficult to believe when you aren't making the same demands of Donald Trump's page, and in fact have said that you have no intention of doing so. That's all fine, I just want you to be honest. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero bias but who cares? There is no need to personalize Wikipedia editors. We are nobodies. What matters is content within reliable third-party sources, and our responsibility to make sure articles reflect that. Let's focus on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Very disappointing. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

But that source isn't even reporting on her health, it's reporting on the "issue" and perception of her health. That's clear from reading the article. --FeldBum (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Further, everyone has biases, even me. I try to be fair but no one can be totally objective. The key is in being honest about one's biases. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is already a place where people can find all of these so-called "facts" about Clinton: It's called Conservapedia, as well as Breitbart.com and Infowars (and possibly Stormfront, too). We don't need to repeat all of their garbage here. Did those who demand every negative thing about Clinton to be put into her article also argue that Trump's pointless fight with the Khan family feature significantly in his article when it was big news a month ago? Hmm...no. Acalamari 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to discourage one of the Most Active Wikipedians from editing, just because you don't like what reliable third-party sources say. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. We have so-called "negative" content about Trump (Duke's endorsement, Melania's RNC speech); we don't try to ostracize editors who want to add it, but we discuss it and agree when third-party sources have the upper hand.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also never visited the websites you mention, so please don't make assumptions and don't try to turn this into a forum to avoid discussing the real issue based on reliable third-party sources--her health.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to play the "most active" game, I outrank you and telling me to read the bluelink above - for a page that I'm most certainly familiar with - is equally "discouraging". And I never said you visited any of those websites; rather, hysteria about her health (something that has only been made an issue by conspiracy theorists and peddled by the Alt-Right; the pneumonia is merely poor timing but doesn't validate wild conspiracies) is more appropriate on those sites. Acalamari 12:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There are many (countless?) articles about it in reliable third-party sources. The Washington Post. The Guardian. The New York Times. CNN. NBC News, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those just parrot the opinions of HRC opponents and are just opinions. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think not. It's not from The Washington Times. Most of those publications lean towards the left.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, you have repeated "reliable third-party sources" 13 times in this section alone as if it's some sort of magical incantation. Please read WP:ONUS, WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, and WP:TE and please quit repeating the same arguments ad nauseum.- MrX 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I have no bias. Reliable third-party sources may do, but that shouldn't be our problem. This is not about me or us--it's about content we can use to improve the article. I am probably an extremely boring person; no need to talk about me. Please let us know how we can use those sources constructively--or why we should ignore them--that is all I care about. But we can't dismiss the entire media as biased or fringe when we don't like it. (Otherwise, shall we do this with Trump? I think not.) That is not our job.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. The same comments, reworded, rinse and repeat. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please try to focus on the content if you can. I must finish reading two books, so I can't comment much more today.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am here opposing the addition of unencylopedic content that you and a few others would like to add. But you don't seem to be getting it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. One could start an RfC, in light of RS weight. But she is too busy today!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody! another RfC destined to reinstate the view that this kind of health-conspiracy crap, does not belong in a BLP article. Bring it on, I say. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This editor does not need additional encouragement. In all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have never encountered an editor more happy to abuse the RfC process than Zigzig20s. RfCs are for when consensus cannot be met because of a deadlock, but Zigzig20s uses them as a form of forum shopping to try to overturn a consensus, then responds to every single disagreeing comment to try to bludgeon editors to change their mind out of sheer exasperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content. I am boring, not important, not worth your time. Forget me. I did not event start the RfC about HRC's health. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You see? You can't help yourself. You just have to comment, even when it serves no useful purpose. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, whether Hillary Clinton has pneumonia is not an important biographical detail that rises to the level of WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the article. Because of the coming US election, transient events like this appear to take on a heightened significance, in part because the media fills the 24 news cycle with every triviality related to the campaign. But incidents like this are typically of only passing significance. If it becomes a major ongoing issue, such as complications requiring hospitalization, permanent incapacitation, or such, then I believe it would be worth inclusion, but a few days' illness during the campaign is definitely not a biographically definitive detail, and should be left out in light of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Sławomir
  Biały 13:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the current article spends just six paragraphs on the 2016 campaign. In order to be discussed in the main Clinton article, it must be a very significant aspect of the election or campaign. If, as other editors have asserted, there is "something to it", then I have no doubt that there will be a Congressional inquiry into the matter, at which point it can be discussed in the main article. Until then, though, it really doesn't belong here, as it assigns undue weight to a fairly minor incident. Sławomir
Biały 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight for the inclusion of yesterday's incident into this article. That said, this is going to become a bigger deal as the week goes on. It wasn't just allergies. That morphed into being overheated. Then, that claim by the campaign morphed into into the pneumonia explanation. Then, the pneumonia explanation expanded to her being diagnosed on Friday and it wasn't just a recent finding. The story keeps changing, but it keeps growing, too. More and more respected news outlets are covering it and the campaign keeps responding with a bigger explanation. It's not just gossip, it's not a silly conspiracy theory -- as editors here seem to be trying to dismiss it. There's something to it and it will become content that should be included in this article. Because it isn't just her being sick, there was an incident along with it and incidents like this (with so many official explanations and expansions of those explanations) always turn into something when it comes to public figures, politicians, and celebrities. Mark my words. If I'm wrong, I guess I owe someone a drink or steak dinner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important for editors to understand that this is the main Hillary Clinton biography, and there is no way in a million years a minor, temporary health issue is going to make it into this article without being an egregious violation of WP:WEIGHT. The proper place for this discussion is the campaign article talk page, where it is already being debated (and quite rightly so). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what will happen but in the interests of disclosure I have requested full protection of the article for a short time. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've declined the request as "not yet". A reminder that the same restrictions apply here as they do on the Trump page: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this (posted by an IP address)? It looks like a desperate attempt to discredit this serious discussion and, by extension, Wikipedia. Pure vandalism. If anyone is able to track the IP address, things could get interesting...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Done. Would you be willing to remove your request, and my reply, per WP:Don't feed the trolls? --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Thank you! No, I think we should keep it here as the origin of the IP address might (or might not) be significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was me. The IP address is available in the history if anyone wants it. I personally don't think we should be calling attention to it in the discussion, but it's your call since it is your post. (If you do decide to delete it, delete my replies as well) --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The questions about Clinton's ongoing health issues, for right now, probably should be addressed in the campaign article. Once her staff releases her full medical records, which the mainstream media is now calling for, then a section on it here would probably be appropriate. TweedVest (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this recent incident could be mentioned at the campaign article. I don't see any place for it in her biography at this point. (Pneumonia is not a major medical issue; it is a disease like a cold. I have had "walking pneumonia" several times, it doesn't necessarily have any relation to, or lasting effect on, your overall health.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There are different types of pneumonia. Being literally drug unmoving into a car, and having to cancel the next weeks campaign events seems like perhaps a more serious case. Although I agree that at this point this is only a campaign issue, not a blp issue unless it turns out to derail her. Regarding your IP, if you would like it redacted, an admin will revdel the IP for you from the history as well as the talk page. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I am an admin. I do not want it revdeled, in fact I want it kept in the history for future reference. I was asking if Zigzig would be willing to revert their own post here, per WP:DENY, but if they prefer not to that is their call. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It may or may not be a major health issue, but it is usually a symptom of a larger health issue. TFD (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless you're a medical doctor and you've examined her yourself, you're unqualified to say anything like that. Your comment a borderline BLP violation. Maybe it's just the symptom of campaigning really hard with little to no rest. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I said, "it is usually a symptom of a larger health issue." We can same for example that cancer is often fatal without being medical doctors. If you think there is a borderline BLP issue, then get off the pot and go to AE. TFD (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not, that's a reasonable observation to make or question to ask around the campfire, or perhaps in an idle Wikipedia discussion over whether the issue may someday become significant enough to cover. However, speculation over the medical pathology behind a biographical subject's common medical symptom cannot possibly justify content in the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The democratic party operatives here as Wiki editors are extremely biased on this issue. As an independent, this information is of great interest to me - as is Trump's latest combover attempt. She's sick. She's probably had walking pneumonia for some time, judging by her persistent coughing attacks over the past couple of years. This article is supposed to follow NPOV - Clinton campaigners, please step off, and let the information be properly cited and added to the article. Do you really think you can 'hide' this by keeping it off Wiki? Please. 50.111.25.178 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make a claim of "Democratic Party operatives" at work here, please provide evidence that any user is a Democratic operative. No one wants to hide anything, but there are ways to about doing it and guidelines to follow, such as WP:WEIGHT. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow...armchair diagnosing in addition to making unfounded claims about other editors... Acalamari 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

June 5

The date on which she achieved enough delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee was not June 6, based on the flawed NYT article footnoted at 441, but June 5. The 37 pledged delegates elected on June 5 in the Puerto Rico presidential primary, plus unplugged delegates that committed to her in the course of that day and evening (i.e. Puerto Rico's two remaining uncommitted super delegates Andrés W.López and Liza Ortiz) put her over the top. A quick look at the NYT article written the following day referenced in footnote #441 will show that the article makes no reference to the previous day's primary in Puerto Rico, where 60 pledged delegates were at stake, the US territory is not shown nor mentioned in the national map of delegates and is not listed in the purportedly "full" list of delegates, as if the 37 delegates elected on June 5 pledged to Clinton did not exist. Late on the night of June 5, it was already being said that that day's elected delegates and super delegate commitments had put her over the top. This edit den,instates that even a NYT article can be inaccurate.Pr4ever (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

125.209.108.187 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC) trust

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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 [5] and [6]. 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)

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)

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 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)

As for reliable sources, there are numerous videos on youtube.com that give first hand accounts from these women: We are ‘Terrified’ of Hillary - Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey Juanita Broaddrick Relives Bill Clinton Rape/Hillary Intimidation Broaddrick: The FULL story of just ONE of Bill Clinton's RAPE VICTIMS

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)

Dramatic Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies

This should make some of the citable media outlets soon: Dramatic Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies

According to operatives secretly recorded in this documentary, the Clinton campaign funded and directed, through a chain of organizations to cover their trail, groups to create violent incidents at Trump rallies.Phmoreno (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL it's James O'Keefe. We can safely disregard. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe has been criticized for his illegal recording practices, not for being wrong. His stories are misleading for pushing confirmation bias, a la Michael Moore removing facts that debunk him, but his recordings have never been proven to be fakes.--v/r - TP 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The ACORN videos, his main claim to fame, were doctored to be misleading. That describes everything he has done with Project Veritas. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A la Michael Moore. I did say that, didn't I?--v/r - TP 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what Michael Moore has to do with this. O'Keefe is widely discredited and anything he does should be kept out of this and other HRC-related articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We'll wait and see what the sources say. It's premature now to even really be discussing it.--v/r - TP 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A Google search on this shows quite a few links to Breitbart. Content from an Alt-Right/far-right site here? I don't think so. Acalamari 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed we can safely assume that anything and everything from O'Keefe is unfit for publication on any organ, least of all Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)