Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Unsupported claim about subject never being charged with any crime

Editing lead from '...No charges were ever brought against her related to this or any other controversy' to '...No charges were ever brought against her related to this controversy', per WP:LEADCITE re WP:V (unattributable) and WP:BLP (unsourced).

The challenged material isn't supported by any source in the body. Is any source anywhere known to have actually said that Clinton has never been charged with any crime? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I had the impression from Editing lead from that you were making the change, but (for the record) you haven't. I would agree with you. Per WP:V, we can't make that "or any other controversy" statement and burden others to produce sources to show that it's false—even if we know it to be true. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Trivially easy to find. "Say what you want about Hillary Clinton. She has problems and baggage galore. But she has never been charged with any crimes, let alone been convicted". Gary Stein, "Pam Bondi's hypocrisy is showing", Sun-Sentinel (July 21, 2016). bd2412 T 14:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's "trivially easy to find", perhaps you could easily do better than an op-ed piece in the Broward County Sun-Sentinel? The content has been challenged by two editors, and the burden is on the includers to source it, per WP:ONUS. Hell, I'll do the cite if you'll give me a link. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-correction. WP:ONUS says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So, apparently, we could reach consensus that (1) your Sun-Sentinel source is enough, or that (2) no source is needed. This is consistent with my general view that Consensus Is King. I haven't seen such a consensus, however. Taking ONUS literally, the content could be removed until you reach a consensus for inclusion, but I'm leaving it in for now. I'll remove it if no consensus is reached here to include it. Fair enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a less editorial take: "The examples that SourceFed chose are factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime. She has not been indicted". The context is an article debunking conspiracy theories about why Google doesn't autofill for "crimes" by Hillary Clinton. David Goldman, "The truth about the Hillary Clinton Google conspiracy theory", CNNMoney (June 15, 2016). In any case, the proposal here seems to be that we need to find sources to prove a negative, and a rather absurd one at that. We don't operate under the presumption that a given person has at some point been charged with a crime until provided with evidence of a lack of such charges. Since the fact asserted is uncontroversial, I would consider its casual mention in an editorial to be sufficient citation. bd2412 T 15:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Logical fallacy 1: "No charges have ever been brought in any controversy" is a positive, not a negative, and it needs to be verifiable in reliable sources just as much as any other content. The bar for inclusion is not whether there are any sources to disprove the statement. Logical fallacy 2: To omit the statement that no charges have ever been brought is not to presume that they have been. You have it exactly backwards. And it's for consensus to decide what is "absurd" and what is compliance with Wikipedia policy (thankfully). Now I'll wait for further comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the fact asserted is uncontroversial, and User:BD2412 has found good sourcing for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim that Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime and has has not been indicted completely fails the "likely to be challenged" test found in WP:V and thus is 100% uncontroversial. If we had a single editor on this page who expressed a good-faith doubt about Hillary Clinton not having been charged with a crime and not having been indicted, it would be another story -- and no, being of the opinion that she should be charged does not count.

For some other opinions on this, see Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:Citation overkill. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there does seem to be some misconception floating around in Internet rumors about whether this subject has ever been charged with a crime. I do think it is worth mentioning that she has not, and since sources can be found, we may as well use them. bd2412 T 15:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I'd be interested to know what would qualify as a "good faith doubt". But don't make the mistake of believing that this has anything to do with my personal feelings about it. I check my feelings at the door. But for the record I have no such doubt. Clearly you interpret the "likely to be challenged" clause differently than I do. In my book, it was not just likely to be challenged but was in fact challenged. Two editors have challenged it, and not because we personally doubt it. I've made that clear enough, and bullet 1 of Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, which you linked to, supports my interpretation. We are challenging in good faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no reason to think she was ever charged with a crime, and in fact you just indicated that you don't think she was ever charged with a crime, yet for some unknown reason you challenge it and thus put in in the "likely to be challenged" category. If that's the way you want to interpret Wikipedia policy, then everything is "likely to be challenged". Can you name anything that is uncontroversial? Or can I just say that I challenge the unsourced claim that water is wet and force editors to find sources for every Wikipedia page that makes that claim? I am perfectly willing to post an RfC at the appropriate noticeboard and watch it be snow closed with 95% or more of the respondents agreeing that a challenge must contain some sort of reason for the challenge. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't bothered to understand the argument, which is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia itself is not about truth, per WP:NOTTRUTH. The statement in question is hardly comparable to "sky is blue" or "water is wet", and those are false equivalences. Considering that much of the world incorrectly believes that she has been charged with something, how can you reasonably call that "uncontroversial"? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

bd2412 writes, "there does seem to be some misconception floating around in Internet rumors about whether this subject has ever been charged with a crime. I do think it is worth mentioning that she has not...." It is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles to correct internet rumors. That's original research and there is a great website (Snopes) that does that. We need to show that not only has Clinton never been charged with anything, but that it is something reliable secondary sources regularly note about her. TFD (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Where in our policies have we ever required that sources "regularly note" a fact in order to provide that fact to readers? That seems like a fairly drastic new requirement that would require us to delete most of the content of the encyclopedia. I have already provided two reliable sources which state that Clinton has never been charged with a crime. The second source say this specifically to counter misinformation on this point. bd2412 T 13:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • See "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It is possible by selectively choosing among the huge amount of information available about the subject to portray her in any light one wants. Neutrality requires us to select the information in accordance to how significant it is seen in reliable sources. If there are details about the subject that are not reported or rarely reported in reliable sources, then it injects bias to mention them. Incidentally Gary Stein is a columnist. "News organizations" (albeit a guideline, not a policy) says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The second source provided is news, not opinion. bd2412 T 16:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I do not think it is. David Goldman is an editor providing his opinions on the election. A Google search for his name shows he also wrote an item against Donald Trump. But more important is the "Balancing aspects" guidline, which reflects the neutrality policy. This article cannot emphasize facts that we consider important, it must emphasize facts that reliable sources consider important. TFD (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm certain we consider CNNMoney a reliable source, irrespective of whether the author of an article for that source has elsewhere written an opinion piece. I'm having trouble understanding why there is any resistance to including a short, sourced, accurate statement on this subject. bd2412 T 16:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
          • • Formally the source for the statement is Goldman or his article, not CNNMoney. He's likely not a secondary source for it, however. Per WP:PSTS policy, "Secondary sources rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Goldman makes claims about his sources for his more important statements here, but not this one. Being a professional journalist, he likely did try to found a source. And if he'd found one, he likely would have said so. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
          • In the N.Y. state penal code (and most others), overparking is called a crime. Black's Law Dictionary. Perhaps Clinton has never actually been charged with any traffic offense or the like. This would appear to be an important or surprising claim. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, it would require at least two "high-quality" sources. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The statement is no charges in any controversy, not no charges for anything. That pretty much nullifies your overparking argument, but there remain other very good arguments, like WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTTRUTH. WP:EXCEPTIONAL isn't bad, either.
Please stop with the bulleting! There's a guideline somewhere that says not to mix the two forms, and this thread started without bullets. Besides, bullets are for lists, not threaded comments. It's maddening trying to keep things formatted. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"The statement is no charges in any controversy... That pretty much nullifies your overparking argument..." Good point, Mandruss. Except that it doesn't. Obama Parking Controversy, Google Search. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This article and discussion are not about Obama. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Obama's parking offenses were once a controversy in Cambridge only, Mandruss. Analogically, Clinton's parking offenses are likely a controversy in New Haven or Little Rock only (if they're a controversy at all). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

bd2412, policy does not say that opinion pieces in high quality sources are reliable. We are now discussing what constitutes a crime or a controversy, which puts us into the realm of original research. If we would just identify the best sources and reflect what they say, we could avoid all this. Seriously, if a reasonable person wanted to know about Mrs. Clinton, the editorial page of CNNMoney woud not be the first place they looked. TFD (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN, like all media outlets, has fact checkers for their stories. For a fact like "Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime", the fact checker would check all the places where it would be found if she had been charged with a crime. This does not rest on what constitutes a crime or controversy, since CNN was able to say that there has been none at all. Let me ask plainly: do we want to convey the incorrect impression that some criminal charge has been pressed at some point? bd2412 T 18:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, we need to follow policy which says that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for facts. If you disagree then change the policy. It seems anyway that news media do not fact check opinion pieces - that is the responsibility of the writer. Which is why Wikipedia policy says they are rarely reliable for facts. TFD (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have noted before, the second source provided is a news story, not an opinion piece. bd2412 T 21:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: By comparison, here is a third source which is an opinion piece: "[P]resenting himself as a lawyer to a mob calling for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton — who hasn't been charged with any crime, after multiple politically motivated investigations — is an ethical problem nonetheless". Bridgette Dunlap, "Chris Christie Has Disqualified Himself From Being Trump's Attorney General", Rolling Stone (July 20, 2016). It almost seems to be common knowledge that this subject has never been charged with any crime, despite a few holdouts having the misconception otherwise. bd2412 T 22:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it "almost seems to be common knowledge"—that is, among reasonable, rational, informed people. But we as Wikipedia editors don't get to decide who is in that category and who is not. That's the difference between this and "the sky is blue", which is seriously disputed by perhaps 1 in 500,000, most of whom have diagnosed mental disorders. "Clinton has been charged" is unfounded, but not WP:FRINGE, and we need solid RS support to make the statement that she hasn't.
do we want to convey the incorrect impression that some criminal charge has been pressed at some point? - No we do not. And omitting the statement would not convey that. A reader looking to answer this question at Wikipedia is not going to read the article, find no statement that she has not been charged, and assume therefore that she has been. We state what has happened, not what has not happened, and, as previously stated, we are not a rumor clearing house. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, we need to follow policy which says that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for facts. If you disagree then change the policy. It seems anyway that news media do not fact check opinion pieces - that is the responsibility of the writer. Which is why Wikipedia policy says they are rarely reliable for facts. If you think that not mentioning Clinton has not been charged with something implies that she has, then write to CNN, NBC, the New York Times etc. and tell them that they need to point this out in all the stories about accusations against her. Then we will reflect it here. TFD (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have noted at several points above, the second source provided (the CNN piece) is a news story, not an opinion piece. bd2412 T 22:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

See David Goldman's linkedin page.[1] He is a "Senior Editor at CNNMoney" and "CNNMoney's technology editor [with] editorial control of CNN.com's tech section." Reporters write news stories, editors write opinion pieces. Even if we did not know that, it is obvious reading the article that it is analysis and opinion, not an actual news story. What news is it reporting? It is obvious cherry-picking anyway to choose an item about the technical operations of Google as a source for legal procedings against Clinton. TFD (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See Editing. Reporters write news stories; editors insure that they are accurate and well-organized. I can assure you that the fact that a person's job title is "editor" does not mean that their writing constitutes "opinion pieces". bd2412 T 00:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bd2412: It may well be that "...the second source provided is a news story..." Regardless, I have no reason to believe your argument that the fact-checker did in fact "check all the places where it would be found if she had been charged with a crime."

Indeed, your statement sounds to me like "begging the question" -- assuming as true the very claim that's disputed. It's a form of circular argument, divorced from reality. See Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument".

In Massachusetts, criminal offender record information is provided to schools, daycare centers, home health aides, youth athletic coaches, and municipal government agencies, but not to professional journalists or fact-checkers. (Exception: The general public does have access to CORI information about murder, manslaughter, and sex offenses.) Mass. Public Safety, Criminal Offender Record Information.

So it looks like Goldman isn't actually a high-quality source for the statement, "No charges were ever brought against her related to ... any other controversy". Sorry. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We could point to any news story published in CNN or the BBC or the Wall Street Journal and say that we don't know whether every fact in the story has been fact-checked, so the source should not be considered reliable. I don't recall ever seeing the reliability of a statement in a CNN story called into question by us. If there's a question, we can always say that "according to CNNMoney Senior Editor David Goldman..." and let the reader decide how much weight to give to the source. bd2412 T 00:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

bd2412, see Dicitonary.com. "editorial: an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor."[2] Your argument is that because editors supervise reporters that editorials must be more reliable than news reports. It could be that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is more accurate than its news reporting, but that is doubtful. Content guidelines do not agree with you. Instead of arguing with me you need to take your argument to the relevant guideline. I follow policy and guidelines, and do not need to defend them to you. TFD (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you assuming that because a person's title contains "editor", everything they write is by definition an "editorial"? A news editor can write news or opinion as needed. On CNN, opinion pieces are prefaced with "Opinion". For example, Frida Ghitis, "Trump encourages Putin, America's foe", CNN (July 27, 2016), has "Opinion" at the top of the page. The Goldman article - a news article - is not prefaced in this way. bd2412 T 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If an article says, "But that's not a fact -- it's utter nonsense," it's an opinion piece. Full stop. Granted, my judgment may be colored by my affinity for venerable news organizations like The New York Times and The Washington Post, who would never use a phrase like "utter nonsense" outside of items clearly identified as editorial. Could be I just need to avoid such lofty exemplars of serious journalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally news report do not have writers' names attached. Anyway, it is not a news report because there is no news in it. The writer, who has a BA in history has concluded that Clinton has never been charged with anything. CNN did not send a team of factcheckers to verify the statement. Why? Because that is his judgment. But we require that our sources are factchecked, not just that the writer probably knows what he is talking about. TFD (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If in doubt, attribute. "...several commentators have noted that she has never been charged with any crime" (and add e.g. [3]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the page title, Stephan Schulz:

"Chris Kelly: Make America Hate Again - Opinion - The Times-Tribune"

or the URL:

http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/…

or the dateline:

"Kelly's World"

or the content:

"I marvel at its ineptitude..."

To you, does this look like a high-quality secondary source? --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. By attributing it, it's no longer an absolute statement of fact, but only a description of the stated claims. And every source is reliable for its own content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, Stephan Schulz. The policy says subjective statements of opinion can be presented with attribution. An objective statement like "no charges were ever brought against her related to any other controversy" is a statement of fact, not opinion.

The policy applies only to attributed statements of opinion, not attributed statements of fact. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally news report do not have writers' names attached. - Huh? [4][5][6][7] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The ostensible source (Goldman) doesn't appear to support the article information ("...no charges were ever brought against her related to ... any other controversy").

Goldman says, "Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime." He doesn't say she has never been charged with a crime; nor does he say she has never been charged with a crime in any controversy.

Several editors have made good-faith attempts to verify the article information. Per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and Template:Verify source, I'm going to be requesting source verification. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagged 'or any other' for failed verification. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an extremely reasonable first step, but I'm not going to wait more than a week for said verification. WP:ONUS says we could remove that content today three days ago. It's not a trivial factoid. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• The question at this point is not whether it is sourced, but whether the source is sufficient for the degree to which the assertion is controversial. I have initiated a discussion of this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What sources are needed to say "Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime"?. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised that this preposterous thread could go on for so long. Since when do encyclopedias list all the statements that are not facts. Do we say Abe Lincoln never won a figure skating championship? It doesn't matter whether you can scratch out some source that makes the statement. It is not encyclopedic. It's undue and in the absence of any statement to the contrary it is the general supposition about all people that they've not been charged with a crime. The mention if it is at best SYNTHy and at worst a BLP smear. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - As this is now at WP:RSN, your comments might be more effective there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, if the paragraph is in such a state that it needs this clarification, it isn't worded well and should be rewritten. As it stands, the second half of the paragraph about her time as first lady reads as follows: The only first lady to have been subpoenaed, she faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy; no charges were ever brought against her related to this or any other controversy. Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal of 1998, and her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public. I seriously doubt the fact of "facing" a grand jury and being the only to be subpoenaed are momentous enough to be in the lede. If we're going to mention Whitewater at all in the lede, which is somewhat dubious, we should simply say that she was involved in a scandal over Whitewater, and leave the details for the body. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that this may be more of a discussion for content in the body than in the lede. Investigations amounting to nothing are speedbumps far less significant in the life of the subject than achievements in substantial offices held. bd2412 T 23:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the subject's being the first first lady to be subpoenaed is trivia and unsuitable for the lead. The various accusations and investigations against her have gotten enormous press coverage and are covered in the body, so I think they merit a mention in the lead, along with the negative result. The concept of investigation seems more salient than grand jury. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brought here from the RSN thread and agree with SPECIFICO. This is ridiculous. That such a statement is in the lead is UNDUE. It is not widely covered by RS. In fact, over on RSN only a half dozen sources were offered... for a person who has literally 1000s of pieces written about them. If you want to discuss criminal history, subpoenas, etc., do it in the body of the article and with proper WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing tag

Incidentally, I have removed the verification tag twice now on this statement on WP:BLP grounds. Whatever the tag is supposed to mean to us editors, the implication created for many if not most people of the hundreds of thousands of people reading the article lede daily who are not experienced Wikipedia editors is that it is dubious to say that Clinton has not been charged with a crime, which would be a rather severe BLPVIO. As a note, out of sensitivity to editing process I will not remove the tag again, but please consider the issue before re-adding a similar tag here. The correct action if the statement is dubious is to remove the statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the article is under 1RR restriction. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the tag further, but as a point of order there is a BLP exemption, and as BLP goes implying that Clinton may have been charged with crimes is a big one. If you don't think that's the implication, feel free to disagree. - Wikidemon (talk)

Point of order taken, and I do see your point. I suspect the content will be gone within a few days anyway, given the responses so far at WP:RSN. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor is apparently doubling down on the BLPVIO,[8] at 2RR and counting, to falsely claim Clinton was "charged" with an offense, apparently based on somebody in London giving her motorcade a parking ticket. Just a hint for the clueless, parking violations are not crimes, and receiving them is not being "charged" with an offense. The editor seems to be acting contrary and obstreperous to prove a WP:POINT, not something you want to do on an article read by 100K+ people per day. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes - parking tickets in London (though not everywhere in the UK) are a civil, not criminal, matter [9]. You can't even be charged with a crime if you refuse to pay them (Page 2 of this document), though Clinton paid up anyway. So the content, being untrue, is a clear BLP violation. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"...the content ... is a clear BLP violation." Is not, Laura Jamieson. WP:BLP says:

"For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ... suggesting that the person ... is accused of committing a crime..."

Clinton's a public figure, not a private one. A parking violation in London is a civil offense, not a crime. Clinton wasn't just accused¹ (by a civil-enforcement officer) of committing the offense², she accepted she was in the wrong. The questioned content ('Other sources say she's been charged with parking offenses.') is true, not untrue.

Well sourced, no BLP violation.

¹ "charge. To accuse (a person) of an offense." Black's Law Dictionary 1718 (10th ed. 2014).

² "public tort. A minor breach of the law (such as a parking violation) that ... is considered a civil offense rather than a criminal one... — Also termed civil offense." Id., at 282. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that BLP supports the position that it is permissible to include a false or misleading synthesis of information about a subject so long as they are a public figure. bd2412 T 12:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. She didn't commit a crime. A civil offence is not a crime. Therefore I have no idea what Dervorguilla is talking about, regardless of whether Clinton is a public or private figure. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your legitimate concern, Laura Jamieson.

The question is whether Clinton was formally accused of a civil offense relevant to a controversy, not whether she "committed a crime".

See lead ("...no charges were ever brought against her related to ... any ... controversy") and RSN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it normal to criticize the person in the lede?

Why does the lede mention Whitewater, the Lewinsky Scandal and Benghazi? Whitewater is a nothing-burger, HRC is rarely associated with the Lewinsky Scandal and Benghazi has been trumped up beyond belief. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Aside from that, I think it should be noted that she specifically opposed the part of the Bush tax cuts where they went to wealthy AFAIK. Also, I don't recall Alito being filibustered? Are her votes against Roberts and Alito prominent enough to merit inclusion in the lede (I don't recall ever hearing about them)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the lede should include more of her political positions and beliefs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete response:
Is it normal to criticize the person in the lede? We don't praise or criticize, we simply report things, striving to be proportional to coverage in reliable sources, per WP:DUE. The lead attempts to summarize the important points from the body, per WP:LEAD. Whitewater is a nothing-burger As I recall, the press strongly disagreed. See preceding. (I don't recall ever hearing about them) What we recall is not among our criteria for anything, thankfully.
As I said, incomplete. Others will probably chime in later. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My opinion: Whitewater & Lewinsky scandals definitely belong prominently, they featured in defining public perception of her. Roberts and Alito votes were normal partisan behaviour, probably belong in the article not the lede, they don't define her. Bush tax cuts, ditto, normal partisan behaviour. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to have a discussion, not file a 100-page briefing explaining the problems with the lede, so cut the snappy attitude. The point about "recalling" is my way of saying that it's given undue weight: it's an issue that's never brought up in recent years and her role in the votes against the two SC nominees wasn't even prominent at the time. The numerous Whitewater investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing. If ledes are going to reflect scandals that amounted to nothing, I think it's only fair to edit the Donald Trump to similarly to reflect scandals (whether they panned out or not). Note that I don't think Trump's page should have a bunch of scandals in the lede either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether the Whitewater investigations produced any charges isn't the point - they played a prominent role in shaping public perception of her. That's why they belong in the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, no snappy attitude intended. I tend to read literally. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the person and the length of the lead. Obviously a controversial person will have more coverage of controversy than a non-controversial one. There is also mention of controversy in the leads of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon who, together with Clinton and Trump, are probably the most controversial people to run for president as major party candidates. TFD (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I were to remove the Alito and Roberts votes from the lede? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Personally, my view is that the 4th and 5th paragraphs should be merged, with the following struck-out text removed:

Clinton was elected in 2000 as the first female senator from New York, the only first lady ever to have sought elective office.Following the September 11 attacks, she voted to approve the war in Afghanistan. She also voted for the Iraq Resolution (which she later regretted), sought to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (which she later commended). She voted against the Bush tax cuts, and voted against John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the United States Supreme Court, filibustering the latter. She was re-elected to the Senate in 2006. Running for president in 2008, she won far more delegates than any previous female candidate, but lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

My view is that none of the struck-out material significantly defines our perceptions of her. While the underlying events were newsworthy, her particular participation in them was not at the time - these seem cherry-picked to ride particular hobby-horses after the fact. A better replacement for the struck-out text would be some neutral assessment of her relative adherence to party line for those years with possible mention of notable deviations from it. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

She played a direct role in matters of war and peace, so the struck-out material should not be struck out, IMO. Especially since it's way more important than the name of her Chicago suburb, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's support of the invasion of Iraq must be mentioned, because it was a significant issue in the 2008 and 2016 primaries and in the current election. TFD (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The vote for the Afghanistan and Iraq war(& regret) were particularly major items and probably need to be in the lede, but I agree with striking the rest. It's a long lead, and covering assorted noteworthy votes should stay in the body of the article. In the recent comments I only see one person proposing removal of Afghanistan/Iraq, and I only see one person disagreeing with removal of the rest. I'll implement the edit as (hopefully) an approximation of consensus. Alsee (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep the war votes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the lede is still too focused on scandals and controversial votes at the cost of noncontroversial but major accomplishments and highly relevant facts. I think we should mention that as SoS, she negotiated sanctions on Iran in the lead-up to the Iran deal. As Senator, she was leading on health issues related to 9/11 (Zadroga Act and so on). I think it would also be fair to note that she left SoS with very high approval ratings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see more of the platform she has for the 2016 election in the lede. Given that that's what most people checking this wiki page are probably interested in and taking account of the fact that she's running for the most powerful office in the world, I think it's definitely not undue weight to place some of her signature issues in the lede. If you look at her opponent's page, his 2016 positions are in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

From the "Hillary Clinton" article at Britannica.com:

"Some of Hillary’s financial dealings ... led to major investigations after she became first lady. Her investment in Whitewater ... came under close scrutiny."

"Major" investigations, says one apparently unbiased encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Earth to Dervorguilla, come in Dervorguilla. Do you copy? This is not Encyclopedia Brittanica. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Brittanica's editors are better trained and paid. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Material in lead about polarized response

Gouncbeatduke simultaneously removed some new text about Whitewater and restored the text, '...her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public'. He explained, "Please bring to talk page, previous discussion agreed not to include this".

No such "previous discussion" has been found. Rather, Gouncbeatduke appears to have ignored Talk and reinstated a reverted edit, without even trying to obtain consensus. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 05:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed all of your continuing edit-war edits because no consensus exists for you continuing edit-war edits. Please see your own talk page for details. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are those details, which were added to User talk:Dervorguilla by Wikidemon (at 09:34, 1 August 2016):

Please do not edit war articles, particularly articles such as Hillary Clinton, which you did after receiving the above notice regarding discretionary sanctions. You have added a tag three times that I have challenged as a serious WP:BLPVIO to suggest that Hillary Clinton may have been charged with a crime. What on earth are you thinking here?

That comment by Wikidemon misrepresents my three good-faith edits. I added three different tags, not one tag, and I added each tag one time, not "three times".

See the WP:TPNO guideline about misrepresentation of others by not being precise in quoting their edits. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Say what? Are you trolling, or just WP:CIR? You're arguing about correct sentence structure? His meaning is more than clear enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think my meaning's clear enough too, Mandruss. Again: All three edits look like good-faith edits, not "WP:BLPVIOs". --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to commit BLPVIO (or any other error) in good faith, you know, so I don't know why you would present that as a binary. I don't see anyone challenging your good faith, so I suggest we leave faith out of it. I believe the tag in question was on content that is no longer in the article, so this is a somewhat pointless (and POINTy) argument anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, "I don't see anyone challenging your good faith..." Read Gouncbeatduke's comment, Mandruss. He says he "removed all of [my] continuing edit-war edits because no consensus exists for [my] continuing edit-war edits".

Gouncbeatduke brought it up, not me. Twice in one sentence.

Perseveration: The tendency to focus on a specific word, phrase, or idea without the ability to move on to other topics. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good faith - "Honesty in dealing with other people. Honesty or lawfulness of purpose." Edit warring has absolutely nothing to do with honesty or the absence of it. Commonly misunderstood at Wikipedia, and to its detriment. I'll now demonstrate my ability to move on to other topics. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Mandruss.

Wikidemon said, "Please do not edit war articles ... which you did after receiving the above notice..." Gouncbeatduke then said that he "removed all of [my] continuing edit-war edits" and that "no consensus exists for [my] continuing edit-war edits".

I am categorically denying that I made even one 'edit-war edit'.

If you yourself believe I did, Mandruss, please point it out (and explain your reasoning). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking sides in a dispute that no longer has any relevance to anything. I merely pointed out your misinterpretation of the term "good faith". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed conclusion to Clinton email controversy

This is what I propose to Clinton's email controversy.

Clinton maintained that she did not send or receive any confidential emails from her personal server. In a Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders on February 4, 2016, Clinton said, “I never sent or received any classified material." In a Meet the Press interview, Clinton said, “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." On July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

On July 5, 2016, the FBI concluded its investigation. FBI director James Comey read his statement live. Among the FBI's findings where that Clinton both sent and received emails that were classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level”. They found that Clinton used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, both sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. The FBI accessed that it “is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Comey stated that although Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”, the FBI was expressing to the Justice Department that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges.

Please weigh in. Thank you... KamelTebaast 00:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I missed this when you first put it up. I agree with many of the aspects you are trying to include, but the points can be made much more succinctly. For example, it's enough to say that the FBI findings contradicted multiple Clinton statements about something rather than listing out examples of those statements. It's also important to briefly convey why the FBI didn't recommend criminal charges. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Way too long. Just say that the FBI determined that Clinton's use of a private email server was wrong, but did not constitute a crime, as defined by relevant legislation. TFD (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we need something like this that summarizes the key findings. Less length is inappropriate, given the coverage and that integrity issues are central for any politician. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

TFD: That would be OR. Additionally, it's not true. Actually the FBI director's testimony the next day made it clear: Comey said on 7/7/2016 that he had "grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody ... for gross negligence." And that a prosecutor has done it once that he knows of in a case involving espionage, and so he didn't recommend it. His statement is a clear reference to the oft-discussed 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), which says Anyone entrusted with it who, through gross negligence permits [stuff relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Why is it not worth mentioning that the only statement Clinton gave repeatedly during the debates about the emails was not true?--Elvey^(t•c) 03:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)(revised 01:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

That is your interpretation of the statute, but the FBI director determined that she did not violate the statute. It is important to remember that the wording of statutes is interpreted by courts and one needs to look at precedents to see how the court interprets them. While a reasonable person may think that Clinton showed "gross negligence," it does not meet that level as interpreted by the courts. No properly instructed jury could have convicted her or higher courts upheld a conviction. Note that the paragraph was written long before email was invented and even in the wording it is clear it does not apply. Clinton did not "remove" her emails from their "proper place of custody" because they never were in a proper place of custody. It is possible that the statute should be re-written to criminalize her actions, but I suppose no one anticipated that anyone would set up a private server in their basement. There was a case a few years ago in Canada where a woman shot her fetus in order to miscarry. There was no specific statute that outlawed that and the woman was never charged with anything.

Not sure why you think it is OR. It was of course OR on behalf of the director, but it is not OR to report what someone said or, if their view is consensus in reliable sources, to report their conclusions as fact.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed that the article said, in wikipedia's voice, that "none of the emails were marked classified at the time they were sent". This is now known to be false. (Unless you don't belive the Director of the FBI.) So I corrected the article, and made some technical improvements, (edit summary: Correction. "a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information"-FBI)) but my entire edit was reverted (edit summary: Because the proper headers were not included, it would be more correct to say "not properly marked as classified". Now, "the proper headers were not included" is WP:OR, as is "not properly marked as classified", AFAIK. It WAS generally believed to be true that none were MARKED as classified, but IS not generally believed anymore. In other words, Clinton led folks to believe that none of the emails sent through the server had classified markings. The FBI investigated and the Director reported that some of the emails sent through the server had classified markings. I quote him, above. I've followed up on the revert by putting the statement by the Times, that is now known to be false ("None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent.") into the voice of the NYTimes, the source. I left it in, but I think the section should be reworked to eliminate it unless we can present it concisely.

Also, there's no mention that due to the lack of encryption between the Blackberry and the privately maintained server, experts say the system was probably hacked.

--Elvey^(t•c) 03:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Geez. Wikidemon came in and nuked most of the paragraph rather than participate in the discussion collegially. I'm not OK with this edit. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been here for a long time, and participate in the article on the subject. Your proposed content took things in the wrong direction. Devoting most of a paragraph to describing how a publication said something that was later found not to be true is undue detail that is about the reporting, not the controversy. Several of the other paragraphs in the section ought to be "nuked" as well. The section is overlong and goes into other irrelevant detail about who said what when. What appears to be the case based on the most recent sources is that Clinton claimed that they were not marked as classified, which is true, but that "a small number" contained markings from which it could be deduced that they were classified, which is also true. If we want to run through it, it would be useful to figure out here on the page exactly what that means, and then say it directly in the article without paragraph after paragraph of people opining as things unfolded. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I can't take you seriously when you make arguments from authority and straw man me like that. Clinton claimed that they were not marked as classified, which is NOT true, according to the head of the FBI. The FBI director's congressional testimony made it clear: Comey said on 7/7 that he had "grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody ... for gross negligence." And that a prosecutor has done it once that he knows of in a case involving espionage, and so he didn't recommend it. His statement is a clear reference to the oft-discussed 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), which says Anyone entrusted with it who, through gross negligence permits [stuff relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Demon, I'd ask you why you think is it not worth mentioning that the only statement Clinton gave repeatedly during the debates about the emails was not true, but you deny reality. You can repeat the lie 'till you run out of electrons, but it won't make it true in my eyes. I don't think the FBI director was lying. You do?--Elvey^(t•c) 01:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Comey identified just THREE emails marked as classified, but it was established they were not properly marked (no classified header) during Comey's hearing. I have provided a source to back this up. So Clinton can rightly claim to have not sent/received emails marked as classified. The facts are established, and the project does not need the right wing spin added as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive spin attempt there, doctor. You've provided no such thing,Scjessey. You claim to have provided a 'source' but a source that reports hearsay is not a reliable source. Especially when we have that source speaking directly.

“ Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

”

FFS!

--Elvey^(t•c) 07:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not spin. The 3 emails Comey referred to were missing the headers that indicate they are classified. That's simply a fact that you cannot dispute. There are many, many more sources out there that cover this. Here's an example. Here's another. Put as many in as you feel is necessary, but don't try to rewrite the facts to support your inaccurate narrative on Wikipedia, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This addition will guarantee proper neutrality is observed. Only 3 emails, not properly marked. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's spin. They WERE marked as classified. Not perfectly, but clearly enough for a child to understand. Again:

"

“ Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

"Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

”

Again: what about the "S", User:Scjessey? I give up arguing with you. Opening an RFC. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Without prejudice to whether there should be an RfC, I've removed the RfC text you added[10] because it does not neutrally state a proposal or question of the sort answerable in an RfC. If you re-add or rephrase it, I won't remove it again, I just wanted to get in there before it becomes fixed as people comment. "Is it false to state" is more of an argument than a content proposal. Keeping in mind that there have been many RfCs on Clinton-related articles in the past weeks and months, and that they are open for weeks and generate a lot of commentary, poorly-posed RfCs can be disruptive to orderly discussion and article editing. If you're just having a disagreement with Scjessey, best to work it out directly with him or else ignore him and try to address the wider group. I'd suggest you try a little more before throwing it open to an RfC, which won't get any resolution for a long while. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was inappropriate to remove the RFC, instead of asking User:Elvey to rephrase it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You believe lots of stuff is inappropriate. If the malformed RfC had started gaining comments it would have been a much bigger mess to clean up or live with. Would you mind concentrating on improving article content, not accusing other editors of stuff? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. It didn't begin to look like a valid RfC, per WP:RFC. We can't just ask people to "weigh in", slap {{rfc}} on it, and call it an RfC. No need to waste community time on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There was also something wrong with the formatting, causing the section below to get picked up in the RfC listing.[11] That should be easy enough to fix if there's a do-over. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That would have been because Elvey failed to sign it.[12] Redrose64 added Elvey's signature almost two hours later, apparently after the RfC was listed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Elvey: Would you like to try again? I would hate for you to feel intimidated/discouraged by what happened.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This does not look like an editor who is easily intimidated/discouraged. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, Elvey "tells it like it is" about Wikipedia editing glitches. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are the relevant instructions from WP:RFC.

Include a brief, neutral ... question about the issue in the talk page section... Sign the statement with ~~~~ or ~~~~~.

And here's one neutral way you could word the question.

"Should the 'Email controversy' section say that none of the emails were marked classified when they were sent, that some were, or that a particular number were? ~~~~~"

Over to you, Elvey. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(Spinning of) Comey's statement

This edit restored content to the effect that Comey stated that the "small number" of emails that contained classified markings "were not properly marked as such". The sources don't support that claim.CFredkin (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually that edit removed content which is necessary for NPOV in a BLP. As to what the source says:

"Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton."

So it's pretty much straight from the source. Which has been pointed out to you, but which you chose to ignore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. This is the first time I've seen that sentence. I agree that it supports the content and will self-revert.CFredkin (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what source are we talking about? That sentence appears in Comey's statement? Bullshit. The quote is from an article that merely reports on hearsay from someone who's hardly neutral- a spokesperson for State. That spokesperson says something - that Comey "said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C”" that I think is very likely to be false for one of the emails-as it was given the classification SECRET, for which the correct letter is "S". For us to report in wikipedia's voice that "they were not properly marked as such" would require consensus from multiple reliable sources. Comey's statement is the most reliable, neutral source around for these matters; we should rely on it. --Elvey^(t•c) 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the "S", User:Scjessey? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a statement by a government official is not a reliable, neutral secondary source. It is a primary source as to exactly what the government official stated, but with anything that significant we can find plenty of secondary sourcing about his statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote is from Comey's testimony, as reported by multiple sources. It is in the source provided. I have no idea what Elvey is talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of [One] was given the classification SECRET, for which the correct letter is "S" do you not understand?--Elvey^(t•c) 23:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My point is: Comey's statement is the most reliable, neutral source around regarding whether Clinton "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified", and how many emails were marked classified. His statement IS a reliable neutral secondary source regarding what was in the emails (which are a primary source). The article currently reads: "were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses". I believe that's false, that we don't have reliable sources to back it, and that one was marked with an "S" for secret. The claim that "a statement by a government official is not a reliable, neutral secondary source" is not only wikilawyering, it's bad wikilawyering.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

All confidential emails are meant to have appropriate headers. None of the 3 emails Comey highlighted had those headers, and he testified that Clinton could easily be unfamiliar with the "portion markings" the emails did contain. Ergo, Comey backed up Clinton's statement that she did not knowingly send or received classified emails with her private server. That's all that matters. There's no story here. The end. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Clinton's health

I notice that the radio interview with KABC in which Dr. Drew questioned Clinton's health status was quickly archived as a "BLP violation." However, Dr. Drew is board certified physician, so his comments on reviewing her publicly-released medical record is an expert opinion and not a BLP violation. If she didn't want her record evaluated by physicians, then why did she publicly release it? Apparently, there have been several articles in mainstream publications such as the Washington Post discussing the allegations that she had Parkinson's Disease or damaged her brain when she had that stroke several years ago. We probably should discuss adding a sentence or two to the article about the current concerns about her health. Thoughts? TweedVest (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source discussing Dr. Drew's expert opinion. TweedVest (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unethical for a physician to offer a public opinion about someone's medical condition when he hasn't examined the patient. If he had examined the patient, then it's a HIPAA violation. Those "mainstream publications" serve to debunk the theory, and the Moonie Washington Times is not a mainstream publication. Let this die in the dust bin of other crank conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is one of the many reasons why The Washington Times is such a shitty source.- MrX 19:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is possible for an expert to interpret a medical file. However Dr. Drew is not an expert, he's a radio personality with a medical degree. Even if he were an expert, you would need to show that his opinion has received widespread coverage, per weight. If it had, then other "experts" would have contributed to the conversation and we would know how valid his assessment was seen by experts. At present a reasonable person reading his assessment has no idea whether it is valid or not. By putting it into the argument we are giving it a value that it does not have. TFD (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This would fall under WP:FRINGE, and is certainly not the type of material that would be considered for an article about a presidential candidate.- MrX 19:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The persistent insinuation of these smears also violates at least two Arbcom rulings, I hope Admins will consider recent editing history on this and related pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Drew concerned about her health

BLP Violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently in a KABC interview Dr. Drew said that HRC appears to have "brain damage" judging from a review of her medical records. Dr. Drew is notable medical professional. Include in the article? TweedVest (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC) No. Speculation does not belong in any article about a living person. Barring that, Dr Drew is not Hillary Clinton's doctor – That's Dr Lisa Bardack, who just so happens to disagree. Even if this wasn't a BLP issue, Dr Drew and his observations have zero relevancy here. —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)