Talk:Political positions of Hillary Clinton

message: I think it's a bit strange that the section on wall street reform is just one sentence of a link to her proposals and another sentence mentioning she's been criticised.  That second sentence should be relatively speaking (i.e. as opposed to Bernie Sanders, and not written in the passive voice, with more direct mentions of what she proposes.  As of right now, the section reads as if someone just put it there to criticise her, which I don't think is consistent with the topic of the article, which are her political stances.
Joetheshmoe (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Wall Street Reform Section 

message: added some recent material on the whole government accountability/transparency/secrecy issue; as the secondary sources were relating this directly to Democracy, I started a new section entitled exactly that; I don't know whether some of the subsection Civil Liberties - Government Secrecy should be merged; but Democracy is perhaps the best place for this info, since transparency, accountability, participation etc are such fundamental democratic concepts. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there's no need for a separate top-level "Democracy" section, as Clinton's remarks re the cables leak fit well under the existing "Government Secrecy" subsection.  The idea of the "Political positions of X" articles is to have as few top-level sections as possible; most only have three (social, economic, foreign policy).  Second, Chomsky's opinion that HRC hates democracy is irrelevant here; it might be an addition to the article on Chomsky, but it has no bearing on what HRC's stated positions are.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

message: Instead of summarily deleting content, please use the  instead, for any content that is not controversial. Please respect the work of others and use your time to improve the article rather than decimate it by multiple consecutive deletions. Cheers. Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Cwobeel here.  Per WP:LINKROT, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."  So, to pick just one example,  CFredkin's deletion here with edit summary "Rm statement not supported by source provided" is inappropriate, even if you can't find an active online version of the source.  Furthermore, as Cwobeel points out, in less than a minute you can often retrieve the source from the Internet Archive, in this case right here, and verify the cite; and with a little more effort, you can update the cite to the archived version.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy on the deletions, please!!! 

message: How is the fact that she gave speech called "Women's Rights are Human Rights" a political position?  Likewise the No Ceilings Project?CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people around the world disagree with the proposition that women's rights are human rights, or that women should have equal rights as men, or that women should have full rights no matter what particular religious doctrines might hold.  So it's definitely a political position.  The No Ceilings Project shows that she continues to act on that speech and that proposition.  And there's a quote that could be added from the WaPo source for that: "She said that equality for women 'remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century'".  This is a non-vacuous stance, since there are plenty of people who think that other things are more important unfinished business (climate change, economic justice, free market economic liberty, the fight against terrorism, whatever).  So I think this is a valid entry.  And past practice for these "Political positions of X" articles has been to give wide latitude for inclusion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's Rights 

message: (Please note: I have removed the merge template from here, as it is meant to appear on the article itself so that more people can see it. The IP has proposed merging Hillary Rodham senior thesis into either Hillary Rodham Clinton or this page. All discussion should be centralized at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Merge proposal) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. The thesis has sufficient reliable sources, and enough detail in reliable sources, that to summarize the notable aspects in anything other than its own stand-alone article, would be incomplete and biased. Also I am not comfortable with the shot-gun approach to the merge proposal. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose. These "Political positions of X" articles are for policy stances that people establish while they are political figures.  What an undergraduate in college writes in an academic setting as a senior thesis does not belong in such articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The standalone article is completely appropriate, and would not belong here in any case.Tvoz/talk 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hillary Clinton's interview in August with The Atlantic was one of the most in depth discussions she has given regarding her foreign policy positions (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/). It would probably be prudent to add a section regarding Syria in her Foreign Policy section for this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.138.130 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Go ahead and do it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Now that the "base" article is at Hillary Clinton, any objections to moving this one to Political positions of Hillary Clinton? --В²C ☎ 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?  Objections? 

message: I object to MrX's reversion of this edit because the Cato Institute's trade policy position is in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute is nonpartisan, and recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers political activity. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since their trade policy view is in line with the mainstream view among economists, it constitutes a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. - Jajhill (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to our Economics article does not seem to support your assertion. Can you show overwhelming (independent) sources that establish that Cato is widely regarded as authoritative on the subject of economics? So that we don't have to have this discussion on every page, you way want to join the meta discussion that I started at WP:RSN#Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs. - MrX 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

text: It looks like a good edit, if you can find a source that is one step away then that should be acceptable. If the information is a good viewpoint then there should not be a problem finding another source. Jadeslair (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Our economics article does support my assertion, MrX. Specifically, number 2 on the list, because you clearly did not read it. I have expanded and added further links to that section to provide further evidence that this in fact the case. - Jajhill (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cato Institute as a source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011144041/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4760518
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012104904/http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/25/iraq_debate_moves_into_next_phase/ to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/25/iraq_debate_moves_into_next_phase/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Has she talked about her position on Brexit yet? If so, it should be added to this article. The Obama administration has an official position.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on [[Brexit]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708041813/http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html to http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to list the candidate's current policies at the top on each issue, and then list her record and past policies below? As the article currently looks, most of the issue sections start with her oldest recorded stance or history on each issue.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order: Policies for 2016 vs. her record on issues and old policies 

message: Snooganssnoogans: I find it more than a little hypocritical that you claim a statement made by Clinton at a foreign policy speech is "not a political position", after insisting that Trump's statement to the effect that Oakland and Ferguson are among the most dangerous  places in the world  is a political position.  If we're going to categorize any statement made by Trump as a political position, then we should apply the same standard here.CFredkin (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My position has never been "any statement made by politician X should count as a political position". I explain my rationale for the inclusion of Oakland and Ferguson on the other page. Not similar at all, except both politicians say inaccurate things (which was never my rationale for the inclusion of Trump's statement).  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  And so similarly, I think this statement by Hillary was highlighting the problem of violence in Bosnia and is therefore relevant here.CFredkin (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you serious? Her political position on Bosnia is that it was inaccurately dangerous in 1996? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was talking about sniper fire to highlight the issue of violence in Bosnia at that time.CFredkin (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You believe that it warrants a mention that Clinton highlighted the issue of violence in Bosnia a few months after the conclusion of the Bosnian War (i.e. her political position is that violence was a problem in war-torn Bosnia)? The sole reason why you want that on the page isn't that it's an embarrassing quote? Give me a break. It's an embarrassing lie and she's right to be attacked for it but there's absolutely no political position whatsoever to gauge from it (Bosnia was violent in 1996?) and it has absolutely no belonging on this page.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I'm a new user to this page, but I also agree that the Bosnia section doesn't belong in her foreign policy positions. I agree with Snooganssnoogans that it's a bad quote, but it doesn't express a foreign policy position. I think the Bosnia snafu (if it were relevant enough) would more properly belong on her personal page, and not on a page listing her political positions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnia 

message: The Daily Beast is a source that mixes news and opinion, writing pieces of mixed factual accuracy and quality. It's kind of like Vox (which we agreed not to cite on the Trump page). Here are some of the recent pieces that the author cited in the Brazil section has written (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/betsy-woodruff.html):
* "Animal Activists Go Apesh*t on Bernie"
* "China Billionaire Tried to Buy Hillary?"
* "Hillary Is the Jeb Bush of the Left"
* "Trump’s Supreme Court of Gay Hate"
Is this a reliable source to use for factual reporting on this and other wikipedia pages? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Daily Beast is considered a WP:reliable source.  It's won awards, it's under editorial control, it is cited by other sources:  , and they have taken responsibility for mistakes: .CFredkin (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I tend to think that the Daily Beast is generally acceptable. It is a good notch below sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post (I would prefer those two and comparable sources like Reuters and the AP in almost every case), but I think we can use the Beast. The overly clickbaity, horse-race, routine stuff we don't have to use, but that seems to me to be more of a scope-of-article/trivia/weight issue rather than a reliabilty-of-source issue. Neutralitytalk 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daily Beast is an unreliable source 

message: What is the rationale for lumping Civil Liberties with Democracy?
Personally I believe we should merge the "civil liberties" and "social issues" sections, leaving "Democracy" as its own section. Civil liberties and social issues are often intertwined, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. I would suggest having the sections labeled as "Social issues and civil liberties" and "Democracy and governmental structure" so as to be more clear.
Any objections or insights into the reason the page is currently structured as it is? Thanks!
Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Liberties/Democracy vs Social Policies 

message: I've reverted a series of edits that include a number of instances of removal of reliably sourced content.  Per WP:BRD, I believe the edits should be discussed here and consensus reached before the edits are restored.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the edits were controversial while others were clearly not in my view (the user made good corrections to biased language on several occasions, and the one scribbled-down note of a late friend about Clinton's position on healthcare comes to mind as something that should never have been on this page). Surely you agree that they were not all controversial? It would be more appropriate to revert the specific edits that you feel are controversial and bring them up here rather than revert it all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't particularly mind this third party commentary. I think it gives undue weight to Volokh's view though. Surely his interpretation is contested among law professors and justices? It's a bit like adding one law professor's view of the constitutionality of Obamacare (contentious issue among legal folks). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't particularly like third party commentary on these pages, but I see how some might want it. I agree with the Obamacare analogy and think that there is probably a better way to include opposing viewpoints than a single professor's statement. You can find a law professor that will say anything, and just because he is quoted in politifact doesn't mean his opinion is notable enough to include in this article. For criticism I would probably look to a more reputable conservative think tank, or perhaps even the NRA. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I think that we could say something like "Clinton's position on firearms has evolved since 2008, and she now supports..." I feel like such language is more neutral. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there isn't an evolution in positions as far as I can tell, just her emphasis during the 2008 primary on being more the right on gun control than Obama. This is how Mike Allen describes it in the cited Politico article: "Clinton was running for senator from New York at the time, and her message did not directly contradict what she’s saying now. In the speech, Clinton was talking about handguns, not hunting weapons like shotguns. But the contrast in emphasis provides a jarring reminder of how times, messages and circumstances change during campaigns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, thank you for the correction. I had actually gotten the article confused with a more current one that I had open in another tab, so I retract that comment. :) In that case, I think a potentially less contentious way to include the same ideas as the old version would be something like this: "In 2000, Clinton emphasized her support for gun-safety laws, including giving a speech about handguns to the NAA. In her 2008 presidential campaign, she supported the right of rural Americans to own hunting weapons such as shotguns." Obviously that's something rough that I just wrote, but maybe the idea seems more neutral this way? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This source (already inline in the article) describes the shift pretty clearly....CFredkin (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's the one I read to make my proposed sentence above. Since the Politico article noted that her two stances weren't inconsistent because she was talking about two different kinds of guns, I tried to make an example sentence that reflected that. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text:  This is what that article says: "Clinton was running for senator from New York at the time, and her message did not directly contradict what she’s saying now." When running against Obama, she emphasized that she was more conservative on gun control than he was. That's not to say that she shifted her stance and became conservative on gun control. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a fair point.  I think it would be more consistent with the source to say:  "She made gun rights a part of her 2008 Presidential campaign, after highlighting the importance of passing "gun-safety laws" during her 2000 campaign for the Senate."CFredkin (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's going to be mentioned on the page, it needs to be made clear that she's not contradicting her prior positions. Otherwise the language that she emphasized gun rights in 2008 after trying to pass gun control legislation over 2000-2008 will imply that she made a drastic flip-flop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the sentence I proposed above, which would replace the text in dispute, is accurately and reliably sourced.  I'm not sure that I understand your objection.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your sentence implies that she flip-flopped and reads as such to nearly everyone (see above how one editor immediately assumed that she flip-flopped due to how it was phrased). As Mike Allen clarifies in his article, there is no shift in her position. For clarity, it needs to be mentioned that there was no shift in position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that makes sense, since that's what the source says.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed then. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I think the first version seemed accusatory in tone (ex "reporters have questioned... if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy"). I think the second one is more neutral. However, if we want to incorporate information from the source (which I haven't read) then I'm sure there are neutral ways to do that. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, the corresponding article for Trump is chock full of 3rd party commentary like the sentence referenced above.  If it's a problem here, then we should remove such references from Trump's article as well.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support that, though I haven't had time to make many substantial edits to the Trump page yet. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. But I think this content should remain in, until there's movement to make that happen.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with keeping that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text: It's basically a report of scribbles by an at-the-time-deceased person: "At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare". It's basically hearsay from someone who is not around to explain what she actually heard. This is not even a person's transcript of a speech but the person's own summary of what was said. The notes could be exaggerating, she might have misheard, Clinton might have been spitballing ideas, Clinton might have been playing Devil's Advocate, Clinton might have been referring to specific proposals that she agreed/disagreed with and so on. There's no need to decipher a note from twenty years ago by a deceased person in order to gauge her position on healthcare. That alone should warrant removal, but I'd also point out that the source is the Washington Free Beacon, an unreliable source. This Washington Post blog is just relaying the four things that the author believes Republicans will use to attack her on ("a look at the four things from the piece that you are likeliest to hear about again in the future — either anecdotally in other stories or as part of GOP criticism of the likely 2016 White House hopeful"), so it's not as if the Washington Post news team is reporting that these scribbles of the  Washington Free Beacon as trustworthy findings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I haven't yet looked at the other points (1-4), but as to this fifth point, I agree with everything Snoogans said above. This literal cocktail-napkin scribbling is not meaningful; it's gotta go. Neutralitytalk 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This source seems better than a napkin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what that op-ed is referring to. It doesn't cite anything for its claims that HRC have said XYZ and Thorpe said ABC recently (are they referring to economists' legitimate criticisms of Sanders's specific healthcare proposals?), and their recollections of a conversation in 1993 is just hearsay. Again, there's no need to decipher 25 year-old individual recollections of what may have been said in meetings to gauge her official position on healthcare over the same period. This is not Socrates's or Hammurabi's page, we don't have to rely on cryptic contemporary hearsay.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, that additional source I mentioned is better than a napkin.  It can be a starting point for any editor who wants to learn more about the issue.  It discusses both HRC and Thorpe at considerable length, and keep in mind that a Thorpe study on single payer was explicitly cited by Hillary Clinton in a debate with Sanders on Feb 4 of this year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it still just amounts to hearsay from 25 years ago. Ask two people to listen to a HRC speech and they may interpret the content of the speech differently, even more so if they're recalling the speech 25 years later. I just don't see any reason why it belongs on this page for that reason alone. That the authors of the piece also criticize Clinton in an unclear and unsourced manner also raises alarm bells with me as for how they interpret her current position on healthcare (and consequently also how they recall what she said 25 years ago). That we have endless official statements and reporting on HRC's position on healthcare over the last 25 years makes it completely unnecessary to add hearsay of any type (even if HRC/Trump had no official statements on issues, I don't believe hearsay has any belonging - there is a book out there by a Trump associate that claims that Trump called blacks inferior and lazy, surely that has no belonging on Trump pages?). Ancient historians are forced to rely on contemporary second-hand sources to know what Socrates was all about (and place major warnings on the reliability of them), we don't for HRC's position on healthcare for the last 25 years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with not using the reference to Blair and the napkin.  However, TheHill article that Anythingyouwant references above is reliable and clearly states that Clinton changed her position on single-payer.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "TheHill article" is an opinion piece by two individuals who are claiming Clinton said something to them in the early 90s. The opinion piece also lacks clarity and sources for a bunch of statements made in it (which raises questions about their understanding of both HRC's current and past position). Do you think the book by a former Trump associate that claims that Trump called blacks inferior and lazy belongs on his page or does your acceptance of hearsay shift depending on whether it suits your politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I wasn't suggesting that we directly use the piece in The Hill in this article.  I said it's a good starting point for any "editor" who wants to investigate the matter some more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a third story about it.  Now we have Goldman, in addition to Himmelstein & Woolhandler, plus Blair, all saying via reliable sources, the same thing about single payer and Hillary Clinton's willingness to support it. Cumulatively, it's worth mentioning in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

text:  I think that's a fair point.CFredkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anythingyouwant raises a good point as well.  If multiple, reliably-sourced parties claimed that Trump had made disparaging remarks about blacks, then I think an argument could be made that it should be included in a relevant article.CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to propose this statement to replace the reference to Blair:  Multiple individuals have claimed that Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. in private conversation, but in some cases she indicated that she didn't believe such an approach would be politically tenable.CFredkin (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just edit it slightly: "Multiple individuals have claimed said that Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. in during separate private conversations with them, but in some of those cases she reportedly indicated that she didn't believed such an approach would not be politically tenable."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those edits look fine to me. Any input from other editors?CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "multiple individuals" is far too vague. Neutralitytalk 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific identities can be footnoted.  But maybe this sounds less vague:  "Reportedly, Clinton expressed support in the past for universal single-payer health care in the U.S. during multiple private conversations, while sometimes indicating that she believed such an approach would not be politically tenable".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

text: In making these changes, I also restored the reference to Blair until we can reach consensus regarding how that topic should be handled.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I initially reverted all your edits on Friday, but then yesterday restored them and just rolled back the edits that are under discussion here.  Per WP:BRD you should seek consensus for your edits here instead of just restoring them.  Your comments above don't really constitute meaningful engagement in the discussion that's in progress.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic removal of content 

message: I recently added an image of Clinton at a campaign rally since this article was otherwise image-less and I thought it was a good visual representation of her giving a policy speech. If anyone has a different image that they would prefer, feel free to suggest it. Hopefully later I can add a few more images to make the article more visually pleasing. Any thoughts and/or criticisms are welcome. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image 

message: I've removed (see diff) a long-ish quote from a 2010 interview with Vladimir Pozner, a Russian journalist, in which Clinton tries to dispel the notion (widely held by the Russian public then, as now), that the U.S. is "out to get" Russia.
The inclusion of this quote here doesn't seem noteworthy to me (in other words, the proper weight to be accorded to it is zero). I believe this to be the case for several reasons:
# The citation for this content is a transcript of the interview on the State Department's website. This interview (or at least this section of the interview) does not appear to have been the subject of any significant attention or analysis in the mainstream media. The editorial function of deciding what public statements are significant/illuminating as to Clinton's policies should be guided by journalists' and scholars' determinations.
# This quote seems only weakly/indirectly related to Clinton's political views, and seems cherry-picked. The statement is essentially part of Clinton's public diplomacy as secretary of state; it isn't really a policy position. If we're going to try to explain Clinton's attitudes toward Russia, we have much clearer and more explicit statements on the subject, both in 2010 and currently. 
--Neutralitytalk 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral on this. I don't think it's notable (this is standard SoS rhetoric about enemies) but could give insight about rhetoric towards Russia. I think it could be cut down and noted that Clinton, as SoS, insisted that US foreign policy was not out to get Russia, but that still feels like mundane SoS rhetoric that she could have said about any state. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I've added a secondary source.  The statement indicates her public policy view of Russia while she was SoS.  We've included past positions by Trump in his article.CFredkin (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 interview with Vladimir Pozner 

message: I removed a quote from 2005 where she says that she voted for every FTA. We already mention that during her time in the Senate, she voted both for and against FTAs. We also mention her supposed rationale for supporting/opposing FTAs (which is also in the quote). It might be misleading to have that quote without clarifying that later that year, she voted against CEFTA. Not a big deal, but I think the quote can be skipped, because it's dated, duplicates content expressed elsewhere and might mislead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems misleading not to include her quote, but then state that she voted against CAFTA the same year.  I believe the article states that later that year following the quote, she voted against CAFTA.  I think that should prevent confusion.CFredkin (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I think it is tendentious to provide a quote where she misstates her record unless reliable secondary sources have commented on it.  It implies dishonesty when it could have been an error.  In any case it leaves the reader confused because we have an incorrect statement by her without any explanation that it was incorrect.  I find anyway that lengthy quotes just bloat articles and make them harder to read.  Better to say which trade agreements she supported and opposed and where she has changed her mind.  TFD (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote that she voted for every trade agreement 

message: Should the article include a citation from either the story in The Nation or from the more in-depth article at Haïti Liberté which includes the following citation:  "The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and parliament, the State Department urged then Haitian President René Préval to intervene."
This took place in June 2009, which was during Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department (which started in January 2009 as mentioned in the lead).  This seemed to me to be common knowledge, not OR.  My write-up was surely imperfect, but this is a historical fact and should -- it seems to me -- be presented as such in Wikipedia. This was widely reported at the time (CBS news, columbia journalism review, etc.)  Look forward to seeing how it will be appropriately integrated, as garment factories in Haiti are definitely a big foreign policy issue for HRC, as getting rid of the tariff on imported Arkansas rice was for Bill. The Clintons of course honeymooned in Haiti. SashiRolls (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in The Nation does not mention Clinton at all. Not everything that happened at the State Department or the U.S. government from 2009 to 2013 is a "political position of Hillary Clinton." This is likely improper WP:SYNTH, or even if not, then undue weight. Perhaps something could go in Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State or United States-Haiti relations. Neutralitytalk 15:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it belongs in United States-Haiti relations, but I see a user active on this page deleted it from there.  SashiRolls (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: At least that user did not delete the Joseph-Anténor Firmin book I also added to the page, but this seems like pretty unencyclopedic behavior.  SashiRolls (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Haiti is already mentioned and it says the Foundation has been criticized.  But I do not think it is a political position.  Clinton's political position is that the U.S. should do everything it can to help Haitians.  Any greater detail belongs in the Foundation article.  TFD (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm OK with that.  By the way, Haiti is mentioned because I added it. :)   What I think is unencylopedic behavior is deleting the information from US-Haiti relations (which was a cut-and-paste from a US government page according to the talk page).    SashiRolls (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to begin the section that she supports aid to Haiti.  Haiti is one of only two countries in the Americas that the U.S. provides aid to, and the only one where most of the aid is non-military.  TFD (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fair.  I've added language that makes clear that the Foundation has channeled a lot of money to Haiti without mentioning any of the influence peddling that the press likes to dwell on (Algeria, Boeing).  Katz' article is not a hit piece, incidentally, he does make clear that the Clinton Foundation is one of the most successful NGOs in Haiti and debunks/dedramatizes the story about her brother being there for the gold mines.  Still, US opposition to the Haitian parliament raising the minimum wage in Haiti is particularly troubling (at least to me). SashiRolls (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti 

message: Can't do a write-up on this at the moment. Leaving here for someone else or for me later to do: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/clinton-child-tax-credit-proposal-would-help-14-million-families-raise-15 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBPP evaluation of Clinton econ policy 

message: Snooganssnoogans changed, "Clinton dropped her position on soda taxes as a result of complaints by Coca-Cola." to "When was asked by Vox in October 2016 if the campaign still supported soda taxes, the campaign did not respond."  ("piece doesnt say she dropped her support and it doesnt show that she dropped it due to coca cola pressure")  The source is an article in "Vox", "Cola tried to sway Hillary Clinton on a soda tax."
The article quotes the vice president of government relations for Coca-Cola North America:  "[W]e’ve confirmed that there is no continued conversation around beverage taxes today and in future engagements — campaign is not going to drive conversation here or weigh in further. Also, Jake Sullivan confirmed that they are not driving this from a policy POV. We’re also working on how to walk this back."  Jake Sullivan is a senior Clinton campaign advisor.
The reporter then writes, "It’s also possible that Rumbaugh is exaggerating and Clinton still supports the tax. (I asked the Clinton campaign for comment on the exchange and the campaign's current soda tax policy position, and have so far received no reply.)"
Taking into account Snooganssnoogans' criticism, I suggest saying, "A Coca Cola executive later said that she had received assurances from the Clinton campaign that they drop the policy."  I am open to other phrasing.
Just saying without explanation that Vox could not confirm the evolution in the campaign's policies provides no useful information.  The article currently reads, "In April 2016, Clinton expressed support for taxes on sugary drinks, a policy opposed by Clinton's primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, who opposes such taxes and contends that they would violate Clinton's pledge not to raises taxes of families with incomes below $250,000."  That is misleading.
TFD (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone going to engage on this question?  SashiRolls (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The text that you propose is obviously more faithful to the article than the current text as modified with grammatical errors by Snooganssnoogans.SashiRolls (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't add every single "seems" and "appears" from reliable sources, so being faithful to the Vox article is besides the point. Wikipedia should reflect what we *know*, not what out-of-context e-mails *appear to suggest*. If you have problems with the grammar, please fix it rather than talk shit about me. It's also rich to hear that from someone who is unable to write texts longer than a sentence that don't read like a word salad, and has the poorest reading comprehension I've encountered on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

text: No. No out-of-context e-mails between individuals of unknown familiarity to policy-making within the Clinton campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you propose a better formulation here and discuss with TFD rather than acting as a de facto gatekeeper by reverting.  I will admit you probably know better than I do who works for the campaign, having added information that trickled down from the IAC-owned Daily Beast almost before it appeared and hours before the WaPo issued their cruft October 27 lead headline suggesting Wikipedia qua election guide for 2016... SashiRolls (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing to discuss. Unless the Clinton campaign changes its official position on the soda tax or numerous RS say that the campaign no longer favor a soda tax and its due to complaints from Coca Cola, there is nothing to add. As for your delusional conspiracy theories about me and apparently every other editor who doesn't let Venezuelan and Russian state propaganda inform every edit, I found the Daily Beast story because I actually pay attention to the news (unlike you, I don't get my news from fringe websites and state propaganda found on crackpot forums). I have no idea what you're rambling on about with WaPo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a policy based reason for deleting information.  We are supposed to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines not Clinton or Trump campaign talking points.  TFD (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Soda tax

message: Material about a 2008  candidate questionnaire in which Clinton responded about vaccines and autism does not belong in this article, in my opinion. This is 2016, and the material seems to have been cherry-picked from a source to discredit the subject. If it can be shown that this has been covered in several other solid sources, I would consider withdrawing my objection to the material.- MrX 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be included. It has been covered in numerous reliable sources.. That this was said in 2008 is not a reason to remove this. We do run through the history of positions that candidates have taken on issues on this page, as well as those of Trump, Kaine, Pence and Jill Stein. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be included. The opening sentence of the article states "Hillary Clinton, the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States in 2016, has taken positions on political issues while serving as First Lady of the United States (1993–2001); as U.S. Senator from New York (2001–2009); and serving as the United States Secretary of State (2009–2013)." Clearly, her position on 2008 in regards to vaccines is relevant and must be included as part of the article.--TM 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: It would misleading to imply that Clinton's political positions have not evolved, and the article already mentions some examples.  This article is  not about the 2016 Democratic platform, otherwise political position articles for Sanders, Clinton, Kaine, Warren and other leading Democrats would be essentially identical and they could re-direct to the 2016 Democratic National Convention#Platform provisions.  TFD (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I withdraw my objections in light of the sources presented above. - MrX 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 candidate questionnaire response about vaccines and autism 

message: I think this should remain in the article as Sen Clinton co-sponsored it at the time. This isn't just a piece of legislation she voted voiced an opinion on, she put her name behind it.  This is a current event, given Trump's call for even harsher penalties for flag-burners; Trump takes heat for wanting to outlaw flag burning -- but Clinton wanted the same in 2005  and Flashback: That Time When Clinton Wanted To Jail People For Flag Burning. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not seem significant within the scope of Clinton's political positions. It's Trump related, so perhaps you can add a brief mention of it on Political positions of Donald Trump, that is if you can find more secondary sources to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 18:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: This belongs on this page, not Trump's. You have to use reliable sources though. MSN and Townhall don't cut it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: It doesn't belong on either page. HRC cosponsored one bill in 2005, which is not enough to establish a "political position" for this article. Trump made one tweet, also not enough to consider a "political position". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Trump's position belongs in his article (if reliably sourced) and Clinton's in hers (if reliably sourced). I don't think you're applying the standards for inclusion consistently.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does a tweet count as a "position"? I don't think so. He's tweeted all sorts of things during the campaign that could be taken as "positions", which would bloat the article. He hasn't actually proposed anything about flag burning, just one off-hand tweet inspired by who knows what. If he puts forth an actual plan of action for flag burning in terms of recommending legislation, or an executive action, then it should be included. But we cannot and should not take every single tweet as gospel. He's contradicted himself enough already to complicate that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  Similarly, cosponsoring one bill isn't necessarily a "position", especially since that bill was 11 years ago. We don't know that it's still what she believes on the matter. I think I'm being consistent in wanting to see actual positions beyond a tweet or a co-sponsoring of one bill, before we declare it their "political position". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that there is a better way to signify a political position, as a legislator, than sponsoring or cosponsoring a bill. If you put your name to something like that, a reasonable person would assume that you support it. Here are some additional reliable sources: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/29/hillary-clinton-flag-burners/ http://europe.newsweek.com/clinton-trump-flag-burning-punishment-526581?rm=eu ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: It is worth mentioning.  However we do not know if Clinton's views have evolved on this issue so we cannot say she still holds it.  It is significant because the news media have recently given it new coverage in response to Trump's pontifications.  Barbara Boxer supported the bill too.  Should point out that Clinton opposed a constitutional amendment that would have allowed laws against flag-burning.  TFD (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're being shamelessly manipulated by the media who apparently want us to believe that there is a nationwide flag burning epidemic of constitutional proportions based on the President-elect's ridiculous tweet. Wake me when there's a constitutional amendment to vote on.- MrX 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication that anyone has been "manipulated" by the media into thinking anything, and that is not even relevant right now. All we are discussing here is whether a bill that the then Senator co-sponsored, constitutes a political position and whether that position is notable enough to warrant an inclusion on this page. Given the wealth of reliable sources on this issue I think it is entirely appropriate to add.ThaiWanIII (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Policy says that weight should be given to what is presented in reliable sources, which in this case is the mainstream media.  TFD (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what policy truly said, these articles would be 100x larger than they actually are. Policy says things should be considered by WP:WEIGHT and flag burning has received nearly no weight over the course of her career. Trump fires off one tweet and here we are. That's undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Her 2016 election defeat received nearly no weight "over the course of her career," yet is what she will be best remembered for, unless she wins a future presidential election.  Her sponsorship of the proposed Flag Protection Act of 2005 received attention at the time and is again in the news.  TFD (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, winning or losing a presidential election is of huge weight. Co-sponsoring one bill in the Senate isn't. The flag burning bill is getting a small amount of press today, and it will fade. Her loss to Trump will not. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Deserves inclusion; readers want to know her position, even if it's a bit outdated…  — JFG talk 02:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Its baffling how someone can say legislation a Senator co-sponsors carries no "weight". Co-sponsoring a bill isn't just voting for it, it is placing your name prominently behind it. Sen Clinton signed on on the day it was read, unlike the other 3 who jumped in later. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did anyone say it carries no weight? I believe it carries "insufficient" weight to make it into this page. If I have been unclear, I hope that clarifies my position. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way to assess weight would be to check how many bills Senator Clinton (co-)sponsored during her tenure, and see how they compare to this one. Surely the sum of her own legislative work would be relevant to her political positions, even noting how they could have evolved afterwards. Anybody has the data? — JFG talk 17:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As it so happens, I was just coming here to post the list of bills she's sponsored. There are 363, and they're not all included in this page, because that would be insane. And note, it says "sponsored". This doesn't include bills that she co-sponsored. Picking up on the flag burning one is cherry picking. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's a lot of bills, so the flag thing is only being singled out as a comparison to Trump's position. How strange that only 18 of those 363 proposed pieces of legislation ever reached a floor debate and 3 passed into law. Is 0.8% the standard efficiency rate of Congress in the USA? (yeah, drifting off-topic, I'm just curious) — JFG talk 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the only way to make an impact in the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean to single out Hillary Clinton's or Bernie Sanders's effectiveness, just noting that US Senators seem to push a lot of paper with no tangible results… </offtopic> — JFG talk 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: That's not how consensus works. Discussion isn't finished, so I'm reverting you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I've pointed out that HRC sponsored, not cosponsored, 363 bills in her eight years as a Senator. I can't find any data on how many bills she co-sponsored; I'm sure it's a ton. Any further thoughts on why we should cherry pick this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: any thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm equivocal. A brief, accurate statement might be fine. Any such statement, however, would have to clearly indicate that the bill would be limited to desecration done to "intentionally threaten or intimidate" a person. And the statement should not cite a primary source. Neutralitytalk 05:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Few of the bills sponsored by Clinton are relevant to this article.  Most involved naming government buildings, highways and post offices, or honoring people or organizations or commemorating events.  For example, "A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 245 North Main Street in New York City, New York, as the “Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office Building”.  Few if any have received the same attention as this one.  Neutrality, Clinton thought flag-burning should be illegal and wrote the bill in a manner to avoid a constitutional challenge.  It would also be an offense to burn someone else's flag without authorization.  But all those actions are illegal anyway, the act would have increased the seriousness of the offenses.  TFD (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag Protection Act of 2005 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728022809/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/03/20/obama_campaign_harshly_critica.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/03/20/obama_campaign_harshly_critica.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401033104/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249895
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103202130/https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm to https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
*Added  tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
*Added  tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
*Added  tag to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011043050/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/668610.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108174313/http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard to http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013000313/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315174624/http://npalliance.org/content/pages/2008_presidential_candidate_health_plan_report_card to http://npalliance.org/content/pages/2008_presidential_candidate_health_plan_report_card
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629035929/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=256080 to http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=256080
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617130011/http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-environmentalists-are-anxious-about-a-hillary-clinton-2016-run-20150410 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-environmentalists-are-anxious-about-a-hillary-clinton-2016-run-20150410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926212309/http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/index.cfm?topic=heritage to http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/index.cfm?topic=heritage
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016073338/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkkcJJUZ9jVJ_-YkDhrHSOjBfhrA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkkcJJUZ9jVJ_-YkDhrHSOjBfhrA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111855/http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/is_hillary_disingenous_about_i.html to http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/is_hillary_disingenous_about_i.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016002218/http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/walking_that_ti.html to http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/walking_that_ti.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224132806/http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004C08C23.html to http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004C08C23.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011193609/http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=10952&topicID=61 to http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=10952&topicID=61
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127083558/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=236353&& to http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=236353&&
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207110436/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161113213400/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517015240/http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268 to http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029124120/http://select2008.com/ to http://www.select2008.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725204209/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/what-needs-change-about-wall-street-six-words-and-some-charts/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/what-needs-change-about-wall-street-six-words-and-some-charts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808130045/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/?version=meter+at+13&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.is%252F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/?version=meter+at+13&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.is%252F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725170553/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-plan-for-lowering-prescription-drug-costs/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-plan-for-lowering-prescription-drug-costs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160830083205/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/29/hillary-clintons-comprehensive-agenda-on-mental-health/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/29/hillary-clintons-comprehensive-agenda-on-mental-health/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913161901/http://www.sciencedebate.org/20answers to http://sciencedebate.org/20answers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604080612/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160824082452/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160702083341/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
*Added  tag to http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-28-06-00-54
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522075609/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522075619/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102024445/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-gets-po.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-gets-po.html
*Added  tag to https://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/isctsj/filestore/Filetoupload,510584,en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207013910/http://www.cfr.org/publication/14764/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/14764/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725201930/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/hillary-clinton-has-real-plan-defeat-isis-and-prevent-another-attack-brussels-heres-how/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/hillary-clinton-has-real-plan-defeat-isis-and-prevent-another-attack-brussels-heres-how/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160706081129/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/06/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-brexit-vote/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/06/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-brexit-vote/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725185142/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2015/12/16/zadroga-act-reauthorization/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2015/12/16/zadroga-act-reauthorization/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130152912/http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-blasts-hobby-lobby-decision-weekend-protests-at-several-locations/ to http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-blasts-hobby-lobby-decision-weekend-protests-at-several-locations/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630082153/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160608194947/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-voting-rights/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-voting-rights/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hey I'd like to propose adding a subsection to "Political Philosophy" that describes an assessment of her political views and policies from more left-leaning figures and organizations, ranging from Progressive Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker, Socialist figures like Bernie Sanders, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky, and other left-of-centre figures. Particularly I'd like to focus on the assessment of Clinton as "Neoliberal", and how this is frequently used to describe her position among left wing critics. I have numerous sources that are diverse, factually verified, and consistent. 
S1d6arrett23 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see your sources. It could bn a good addition to Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Politicsl Philosophy. It currently provides no rebuttal to the view that as senator she was slightly more moderate than Bernie Sanders. Also, I would oppose adding criticisms to each of her policies, which is typically avoided in this type of article. For example, progressives oppose her position on fracking, but opposition to fracking is better presented in other articles. TFD (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Subsection to "Political Philosophy"