Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Rename this? (June 2015)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. TL;DR version: the support arguments outweigh the oppose arguments based on both strength of argument (in the context of Wikipedia policy) and by count of !votes.

Closure rationale

I will start off by saying this wasn't easy to judge. If you have any objections to my reading of consensus here or interpretation of Wikipedia policy, please go directly to Wikipedia:Move review (regardless of what it says about contacting me first — I do not want this "move controversy" continued on my talk page).

Most of the oppose arguments centered around WP:CRITS, which is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It consists of the opinion(s) of several or even many Wikipedia editors, but it does not have the same level of consensus and thus obligatory application as a policy or guideline would. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that following WP:CRITS is required, the essay itself has the following to say regarding article titles containing "controversy":

[Use] the term "controversy" in an article title only when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic)[.]
— Wikipedia:Criticism

As the nominator points out, the vast majority of sources use the word controversy for the subject of this article. To say that the sources do not support the word "controversy" appears to an outside viewer like myself as an almost WP:ICANTHEARYOU-level of intentional ignorance.

We are all aware that discussions are not a vote, but we all tend to count !votes anyway. By the numbers, I count 9 bolded support !votes, including the nominator, and 6 bolded oppose !votes. Given that the support argument has the weight of the preponderance of sources behind it, the consensus is to move the page to Hillary Clinton email controversy. —Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: While additional different titles were proposed in this discussion and in other sections of this talk page, none of them received any significant support in this discussion, and thus would be inappropriate to select as a result when closing said discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Hillary Clinton email system → Hillary Clinton email controversy – The article is about the controversy surrounding the system, not the system proper. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it is implicit by me being the nominator, I support the proposal. For clarification, I am not "married" to the title "Hillary Clinton email controversy". I just think that the current title is God-awful. And, I assumed that when I filled out that "rename" template – which I had never done before – that I was required to add something into that field for "new name". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the subject matter is indeed about the e-mail system, Clinton's personal usage of it, and the subsequent release of the emails themselves. That any of the subject's actions in the affair are believed to be "controversial" is a reflection of the conservative point-of-view, which per WP:NPOV, we should not reflect in an article title. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It is literally laughable that anyone can claim this is not a "controversy". Multiple RS's have called this a "controversy". To not include the word in the title is an attempted "whitewash" and in itself violates NPOV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Here are some of the RS's: The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, and so forth, ad nauseum. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Even so, there's more to this article than just the reaction. The actual use of her email system is notable as well. So your proposed title is not completely accurate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh? The "use" indeed is the controversy. So, then, how exactly is my proposed title not completely accurate? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the use is what made the news, and the controversy followed. The controversy - the media/public reaction to the news - is only one part of it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. But that is simply linguistic gymnastics, just semantics. But, I will respect the point you make. Nonetheless, the current title (Hillary Clinton email system) is silly, inappropriate, and POV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You already made this point...repeatedly...above, and I responded there You opened the RM, so I get my say on whether to support or oppose, and will not be re-arguing this again here. Don't bludgeon the process. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You think that this "Move Request" is personally directed to you? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Um...no. I meant that this exchange already took place above, and an RM should just be for voting. I see no need to duplicate the earlier discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, since the controversy about her email use is what makes this topic notable. Any other topic, including the current one, is white-washing violation of NPOV. --В²C ☎ 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Whitewash is exactly what's going on. And a clear violation of NPOV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is not about an email system. This is about her email usage protocol and the controversy surrounding that protocol. The private email system is a email server that is used by her and Bill Clinton, installed in the Bill Clinton Presidency, so the title is highly misleading, as it is not an article about the email system. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's about the sources Let's look at what the major sources say. Not going to actually vote until that is clearer. update July 2 -- Sources are 6 "controversy", 1 "scandal", and 3 others. I think "scandal" is a stronger form of "controversy", so I score that as 7 to 3. All 10 sources are major sources -- nothing minor, which I would ignore. Therefore, I support Hillary Clinton Email Controversy. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To User 70.51.203.69. Everything you say is 100% correct. But, welcome to this article page. We are not allowed to use the word "controversy". Because some Democrat Clinton lover might get "offended". Because it is not PC. Yes, the inmates run the asylum. Every RS under the sun calls this a controversy, but we "cannot". And the other Wikipedia editors will use all sorts of linguistic gymnastics and quote policy, chapter and verse, to convince themselves that this is not a controversy, nor should it be considered one. LOL. They think the Wikipedia readers are borderline retards who can't see through their bullshit. The inmates run this asylum. For sure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The only reason this topic is notable (or discussed at all) is because of the controversy. The current title almost seems like some kind of a joke, "email system", huh. --Pudeo' 17:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed: Wikipedia is not a forum, especially not a partisan forum. —Darkwind (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's unusual, not controversial. Republican's are using something unusual to attack a major political opponent. A better title would be Taxpayer-funded Republican attack on Hillary Clinton. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, etc., all consider this a controversy. You yourself do not consider this a controversy. Your opinion should trump that of The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, etc.? Is that what you are suggesting? Really? How exactly do you justify/rationalize that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It isn't the use of the private email server that is controversial. The political storm that followed is what created a controversy, because of how it was linked to the Republican's Benghazi obsession. Republicans have successfully conflated two different things to create a "fauxtroversy" (as they have done many times before). It's all political. Wikipedia should be able to rise above all that nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Which does not answer my question at all and, in fact, avoids it. All of those RS's call this a "controversy". You disagree with them. So, should Wikipedia go with all of those RS's? Or go with you? And, if the latter, how would you justify that? Thanks. That's the question posed above that you did not answer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • This was a global news story, by all news outlets in Finland even where I live for example. I doubt the Republicans are controlling the global media just to use this for their political gain. Stop making this a farce. --Pudeo' 18:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a more accurate reflection of the article's contents. The title implies an article about the email system but only one or two paragraphs deal with that system. The rest deal with the controversy surrounding her use of the system. As far as NPOV goes, a number of the article's sources use the term "controversy" (or something similar) so Wikipedia is not blazing a new path in this regard. Using the term controversy does not make Clinton guilty of doing anything wrong and is a normal title for such articles (cf. Bill Clinton pardon controversy, George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies). —  AjaxSmack  02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Most coverage of the topic deals with Clinton's use of a private email system and not the system itself. That's why the article is more similar to this, instead of that. The topic didn't become notable until it was relieved that Clinton had used a private email system when she was Secretary of State. The article was created about two weeks after that news became big. Just look at the first sentence of that article version, the author clearly started this article with controversy in mind. Also take a look at one of the first news stories about the "Hillary Clinton email system"(that I could find). Why would a story like that be one of the first instead of something like "Newly appointed Secretary of State opts for private email server instead" or "Hillary Clinton announces that she "probably won't use a government email address"? Maybe because it is controversial, that is why it became big news when it was revealed recently. Also, (people will probably say this isn't a good reason) wouldn't the first sentence of the current article sound better with the new name?

"The Hillary Clinton private email server relates to the use of a personal email account by Hillary Rodham Clinton for official business during her tenure as US Secretary of State." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:CRITS says Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. However this is a relatively new part of WP:Criticism, added in November 2012, and if you look down through Category:United States presidential administration controversies, for example, you'll see plenty of articles titled with and without "controversy", for example 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction and Bush administration payment of columnists are without while Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy and Bush White House email controversy (which by the way reads a lot like this article just with the two parties switched) are with. But I think in general it's better to do it without, because then the title doesn't prejudge the extent to which the matter in question is a legitimate controversy or just played up politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed: irrelevant discussion of proper move procedure. —Darkwind (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I just moved a few article titles to remove "controversy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: You did so unilaterally? Or through Talk Page consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is no reason to believe a move will be contested, then I follow WP:BRD. If there is reason to believe a move will be contested, then the appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Requested moves.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: And, in light of the above conversation (whether or not to use the word "controversy" in the title), what was your assessment in those other articles? You had no reason to believe that a move will be contested, so you followed WP:BRD? Is that what you are saying? If so, in light of the above discussion (about this page), what would give you reason to believe that a move will not be contested? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You will not find me moving this article any time in the foreseeable future without going through Wikipedia:Requested moves. I had no idea that this would become so controversial. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: My question above was not about this article, but about those others. I believe you said that you had already moved them. I assume you mean that you excised the word "controversy" from their titles? And then I asked, if it was so controversial here, what would make you think that it would not be there, also, at those other articles? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Because I don't think that WP:CRITS is generally controversial at Wikipedia. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Criticism, the idea that an article should have a title broader than just covering a "controversy" is, well, uncontroversial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: All Wikipedia policies are open to interpretation. And nearly all of them are grey-area with fuzzy guidelines. Rarely are there bright-line steadfast "rules". If the word "controversy" is being so adamantly debated on this article, I would suspect the same for the others. The main difference being, those other articles are probably not currently in the news. Therefore, the articles receive much less traffic. And, hence, any individual edit or move (or rename) has a good chance of going unnoticed, when it otherwise would not be. Can you list here the names of the "controversy" articles that you moved/renamed? I assume I can see all of this in your edit history. But, it might be easier if we have it all here in one place. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally not. Occasionally, people go a little overboard with articles that are edge cases or articles that are about controversies. The move of Bush White House email controversy to Bush White House email system implicates the exact same issue as this article. That, and the move of Code name Geronimo controversy to Choice of code name Geronimo could also be disputed, because the only significance of the choice of the name is the controversy that arose over it. The move of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006 is more solid in my opinion because that was a notable event in the Presidency of George W Bush, irrespective of whether anybody considered it a controversy. I can't say that most editors would agree with me here, only that there could be some reasonable debate over whether the first two of those articles should be moved. However, I don't think BRD requires editors to avoid any edit that anybody could possibly disagree with. If an article is quiet with few editors or disputes, uncontroversial, and it's not part of a mass edit of dozens or hundreds of articles at the same time, then I think it's just fine to be bold and change the article name. Frankly, the only reason why most people care about this article is that it's very current in the news and a lot of people have been editing it. If you took the word "controversy" phrase out of an article title about a matter of political concern 100 years ago, nobody would really care. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was kind of interesting that the Defense Department claimed "Geronimo" was merely chosen at random. As if it's just happenstance that Gemoniro and Remogino were not chosen. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because controversy is what it is. Hillary Clinton's email account is not an independently notable thing — otherwise we would have an article about every famous person's email account. It is not really an incident either. The only thing notable about it is that there is currently a political controversy swirling over it. Controversy may not be the right word, but I don't think that a single precise succinct word exists for a campaign issue in the form of a political brouhaha. WP:CRITS is not really applicable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I think it's just very interesting that the Secretary of State would put a server in her house and use it for official government business for whatever reasons she says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you make some good (and valid) points. However, this is not an article about "Hillary Clinton's private email server". It's about the controversy that her use of said server has caused. If this was indeed an article about her "server", it would not be notable in the least and we would have no Wikipedia article at all about it. I am willing and open to titles that don't use the word "controversy" (as long as they are fitting and appropriate). To call the article such a generic phrase as "her email system" or "her server" is utterly meaningless. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and per SmokeyJoe support Hillary Clinton private email server. Randy Kryn 00:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as nominated, and oppose current title and the counterproposal. Neither Hillary Clinton's email system, nor her private email server are in any way notable in themselves. Per WP:1E (or an extension of that, since it applies strictly to people) we don't make an article on a non-notable subject just because one notable event took place in relation to it. The article should be focused on the event, i.e. the controversy, not on the system in general.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Some are arguing that using the word "controversy" in the title violates NPOV. However, a multitude of reliable sources are calling this a controversy. Wikipedia is here to report what those reliable sources report. By not calling this a controversy (as is well established with all of the reliable sources), now that violates NPOV. If reliable sources are calling something a "controversy", who are we (certain editors) to "trump" or "override" those sources? And when, exactly, can we call something a controversy, if we can't do it when the reliable sources uniformly do? Never? Ever? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Point of order

Collapsed: irrelevant discussion of proper discussion etiquette. —Darkwind (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In renaming discussions like this, it is considered really bad form for an editor to reply to every !vote. It is especially bad form to reply to every !vote they don't agree with, particularly when some of those comments are aimed at other editors personally. Tarc already wisely made this point above, but it seems as if the offending editor did not get the message. In summary, cut that shit out, if you please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I heard you correctly? Did you say "cut that shit out, if you please"? Just checking. First, I do not believe that there are Wikipedia rules that limit how many times I can offer a statement in a "rename" discussion. I could be wrong. Please point out that policy to me, so that I can read it. And, two, you are accusing me of "responding to the comments with which I disagree". If you read the above discussion, you will see more than one occasion on which I added comments to those other comments with which I agree. So, I am not sure what your point is. And, again, did you tell me to "cut the shit"? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you heard correctly. It was meant to be a jokey statement (which is why I used italics). No, there are no "rules" that specifically address this, but the essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process is instructive and at some point it becomes tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Considered to be "bad form" by whom? You and Tarc? There is no policy or guideline about this. It's certainly not an offense. However, I, for one, am offended by your last sentence. That is offensive. --В²C ☎ 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
See my comment above, and try not to be so overly sensitive. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It is considered unhelpful in more or less any process discussion on Wikipedia (and possibly unwise in real life too). Part of the issue is that most people aren't following the discussion in real time, they read an existing discussion from start to finish. If every other comment is a rebuttal from a single editor, the whole thing because tedious. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem out of hand here, I read this whole discussion without particularly noticing it. The worst seem to be deletion discussions, where the nominator feels like they have to counter every point made. At some point people just stop paying attention. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is, the more one talks in a discussion, the less impact the words hold over time. Sometimes it is better to speak your mind clearly and concisely, then step back for a bit to let others carry the conversation. Interjecting every time to every person with whom one disagrees will just make others tune out after awhile. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You make some good/valid points. However, a "discussion", by definition, involves "give and take" and "back and forth" between the parties. It does not mean that one registers their comments and then leaves the conversation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for title

The best way to decide on a title is to look at how major sources describe the subject. I'm going to start a list below and invite people to add to it. The sources often use multiple terms, but I think the right way to categorize them is how they describe it in the headline (if such exists) or lead section of their articles. Other terms can be noted, as I've done with the CBS source.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Email scandal --

  1. CNN/RCP, here: [1]

Server

  1. CBS, here: [2] -- also says "private email", "secretive", "not transparent",

and "controversy"

Personal email

  1. NYT, here: [3]
  2. Hillary Clinton herself, here:Clinton's press conference at UN Hdqtrs, 2015-03-10.

Email controversy

  1. The Washington Post – Hillary Clinton responds to e-mail controversy (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  2. The New York Times – Top Obama Aides Knew About Clinton's Private Email in 2009 (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  3. NPR – Does The Drip, Drip, Drip Of Clinton's Email Controversy Matter? (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  4. CNN – Hillary Clinton donors frustrated by email controversy (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  5. AP (Associated Press) – Clinton avoids email controversy at women's event (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  6. Reuters – Email controversy may overshadow Clinton presidential launch (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  7. MSNBC – Hillary Clinton to address email controversy (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  8. NBC News – ANALYSIS: A Defiant Clinton Brushes Off Email Controversy (refers to "controversy" in body of article)
  9. CBS News – Hillary Clinton to respond to email controversy Tuesday (refers to "controversy" in body of article)

Note: I had already mentioned this in some above posts. But, it looks like we are formatting a new conversation, so I am adding them here again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Actual links would be much more helpful than an assertion. If you put in the links, feel free to delete this comment.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I had the links several days (weeks?) ago when this first came up. But, I don't have them at this exact moment. So, when I have time, I will put them in. A Google search will confirm my assertions with not one, but many, instances of the word "controversy". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Links being added. There are plenty of RS's using "controversy". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Titles are determined by a combination of style guidelines and editorial discretion, not weight of the sources. We could use sources to establish that a controversy exists/existed, or that the controversial aspect of an event is a primary part of its notability, but that would be from the body of a source, not its title or headline. Headlines tend to be inserted at the last minute (and changed from one edition to the next) by section editors, not journalists, and their purpose is to grab user attention, not to communicate the substance of the story. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you agree that all of those sources (The Washington Post, The New York Times, Reuters, etc.) are heavy-duty reliable sources. No grey areas. No fringe sources. If the headline has the word "controversy", I am quite sure that the body does, too. Do you want me to double-check each and every case? Is this really in question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I hate to make extra work for you there, but yes, finding that the body of the article supports describing the phenomenon as a controversy would be more convincing than citing headlines. Headlines are all over the map with news publications. Just surveying the front page of the online Washington Post right now, I see headlines like "The burning of America’s black churches" and "Tiny house, big benefits: Freedom from a mortgage — and stuff". I don't think anyone would argue that these are good cues that we should title the encyclopedia articles accordingly. I do agree that from what I've read to date, it is reasonable to include 'controversy' in the article title, mostly because that's what the article is about and that reflects the primary reason for the subject's notability, both of which do come from sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
With the exception of one, all of the sources listed above had already named this as a "controversy" both in the headline as well as in the body of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can we not keep this in one section? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How about we go with: "Clinton's Secretive, Private email Server"? Professor JR (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This cannot be a serious proposal. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


@Tarc: @MissPiggysBoyfriend: Why not? (As MissPiggysBoyfriend has pointed out above -- CBS has referred to it as: "private email", "secretive", "not transparent", and as a "controversy"; and CNN has called it as an "Email scandal.") If you're going to contend that this suggested title "cannot be a serious proposal" -- please enumerate and explain your reasons why not, and back up your contention. Professor JR (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Chasewc91: And, Chase is right: Can we not keep all this in one section? Professor JR (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you are seriously suggesting that the article title be Clinton's Secretive, Private email Server, then I think your continued participation in this topic area should be curtailed. It is so so outrageously WP:NPOV-violating that it borders on the farcical. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Other title ideas

The facts are these:

  1. Hillary Clinton used a private email server whilst Secretary of State.
  2. This was unusual, but legal.
  3. Political opponents are trying to use this to score political points.

We need a title that reflects these facts, but does not fall into the non-neutral trap of using opposition and media hyperbole. These are my ideas:

  1. Atypical email usage of Secretary of State Clinton
  2. Anomalous email usage of Secretary of State Clinton

-- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but ... those are not the only three "facts" that pertain to this matter. There are many other facts (e.g., she deleted some; she decides on her own judgement which are "relevant" and only releases those; etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Except none of that is a problem. It was the same with previous Secretaries of State too. The NPR article I link to above partly explains that. We need a neutral title that isn't as stupid as the one we have. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "none of that is a problem"? That is exactly the problem. And, whether or not it is technically "legal" is not important. It certainly at least looks fishy. And has evolved into questions, investigations, subpoenas, etc. Whether in the end it was legal or not, it has still sparked a controversy. And, also, I think I read that it did, in fact, violate administrative governmental rules. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Scjessey: You said that several other Secretaries of State did the same thing. Then, why would you propose words like "atypical" and "anomalous"? That's a direct contradiction. Also, for what it's worth, I can envision Wikipedia readers typing in "Clinton email controversy" into the search bar. I cannot fathom that a single reader would ever type in Atypical email usage of Secretary of State Clinton or Anomalous email usage of Secretary of State Clinton. Also, a gazillion RS's have called this a controversy. Have any called it Atypical email usage of Secretary of State Clinton or Anomalous email usage of Secretary of State Clinton? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And, even if several other Secretaries of State did it (which I am not aware of), how many of them were running for President? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"It looks fishy" is a ridiculous comment. Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use only the government email server, so are all previous Secretaries of State guilty of "fishy" email habits? Of course not. "Questions, investigations and subpoenas" are all coming from Republicans seeking to find ways to attack a political opponent. It's just more of the Benghazi Nothing Burger. Worried about my proposed titles? Don't be - nobody is going to be searching for "Hillary Clinton email system" either. Almost certainly, they will come here by clicking a link in another article or search for "Hillary Clinton email". Finally, the fact that she is running for President has nothing whatsoever to do with her time serving as Secretary of State. You are conflating two separate issues, just like her political opponents. By your apparent rabid desire to label this slightly unusual email usage as "controversial", I must conclude that you have no interest in producing an article that simply reflects the facts in a neutral manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not calling this a "controversy". The reliable sources are. For example, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, etc. But, I guess that each and every one of those reliable sources is staffed by Republicans who have an axe to grind against Clinton. Is that your theory? Yeah, that makes sense. OK. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

Best practice at Wikipedia is to exclude the word "controversy" from article titles except when it has become part of the common name for the event, such as the antinomian controversy. Best practice is described at WP:CRITS, although that practice is admittedly often not followed (see WP:Other crap exists), especially for articles that pre-date the pertinent portion of WP:CRITS.

Deleting "controversy" from an article title is not a denial of controversy, just like not putting "State Department" in this article title is not necessarily a denial that emails involved the State Department. Excluding "controversy" from the title is just a recognition that the article covers other stuff besides controversy, including stuff that has derivative notability because of the controversy.

This Wikipedia article includes much information that is not controversial at all, such as when and where the server was installed, even though it became notable because of controversy. The reason for keeping "controversy" out of this article title is merely a special case of the more general rule that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. See WP:Precision. In this case, a title like "Private email server of Secretary Clinton" would be precise enough, and the word "controversy" does not remove any ambiguity, and instead confines the scope too narrowly.

If Lincoln had no career in politics, then we would have no Wikipedia article about him, but still we have an article titled simply Abraham Lincoln. The Empire State Building is notable because of its height, just like this article is notable because of controversy, but we do not put height in that article title; there would be no Wikipedia article about the Empire State Building if it were two stories high. Consider yet another example: Kirk Douglas is notable because of his movie stardom, just like this article is notable because of controversy, but neither of these reasons for notability belong in the article titles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) If best practice is to not use the term "controversy", why does Wikipedia have specific categories called "controversies"? In other words, we cannot name an article a "controversy", but we can clump it into a category called "controversy"? Is that what you are saying? Does that make any sense at all? (2) Some articles at Wikipedia will be entitled "controversy" and some will not. So, who decides? Are you saying that – even if and when reliable sources consistently call something a controversy – we still cannot call it a controversy? (A) Who are you (or any editor) to "trump" those reliable sources? (B) Which editor gets to pick and choose what we will or will not call a controversy? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
According to your theory, then, nothing in Wikipedia can ever have the word "controversy" in its title or in its categorization. Is that correct? Option A: If that IS correct: If that is correct, that is nonsensical. Some things are, indeed, controversies. And, we should call them just that – controversies. Some things are not controversies. And, of course, should not be labelled as such. And, as I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia in fact already has several categories that are named "controversy". Option B: If that IS NOT correct: If my prior statement is not correct, then Wikipedia will have some articles that are labelled "controversies" and some not. So, who is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? You? Me? Some other editor? No. I expect that the answer will be "reliable sources". So, if we are to continue this conversation, which "Option" are you suggesting, "A" or "B"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Side Note: I have asked the above question about 4 or 5 times now. And I still have not received an answer. So, I am not sure if this "further discussion" is referring to Option A or Option B. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You are not listening. Your question was: who is to decide what is and what is not a "controversy"? I have repeatedly said that I do not deny this article involves a controversy. How many times does it have to be said? I also do not deny that the Kirk Douglas article involves movie stardom, but that doesn't mean we should change that article title. Same here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it is you who is not listening. Obviously, this article involves a controversy. That is not the question. The question – seventh time asking now, if my count is correct – who gets to decide when / when not to call an article (in its title) a controversy? I have repeatedly asked this. You have repeatedly avoided answering it. And you keep re-framing the question to some other question, so as to appear as if you are answering it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You said, "who is to decide what is and what is not a 'controversy?'" I answered that. Now you are asking "who gets to decide when / when not to call an article (in its title) a controversy?" Wikipedian editors get to decide, based on Wikipedia rules, and based on article content that is compliant with those rules. Just like we would decide whether to move Kirk Douglas to Movie stardom of Kirk Douglas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Come on, now. Obviously, this entire discussion has been about the title of these articles. And not about whether or not an editor personally "feels" that the incident is or is not a controversy. In fact, this thread is called "Rename This" and the subsection is called "Other title ideas". Was it not clear that the discussion I was having was about the title of the article? And not what editors feel is/is not a controversy in their opinion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
So, when all the reliable sources call something a controversy, we should still not name it a controversy? We should "go against" all the reliable sources (in some cases, but not in other cases)? Who decides which cases "get" the title and which do not? So, in some cases, we can "trump" the reliable sources? And in some cases, not? If that is your proposal, how does that not violate NPOV? In fact, it makes it a magnet for NPOV violations. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You apparently took the position that omitting the word "controversy" from the title was tantamount to saying there was no controversy, or tantamount to saying that the subject matter is notable regardless of controversy. If that was not your position, or you have changed it, fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought my position was abundantly clear. The title should be "controversy", not "her email system". Was I not clear on that? In fact, it was I who started this whole "rename and move" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is obvious. It is also obvious that you have elaborated upon that position considerably.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In this post, you state that it is obvious what my position is and that I elaborated considerably on my position. In the immediately preceding post (18:09, 7 July 2015), you were unclear on my position and asked me to clarify it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move review

I don't intend to seek a move review, and don't know if anyone else will. However, I do strongly disagree with the closer's suggestion that people like me may be "intentionally ignorant" about WP:CRITS. I have followed up by commenting over at that essay's talk page.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I directly apologize if I sounded like I was trying to say people were being ignorant of the content of that essay; that was not what I intended at all. You are free to interpret WP:CRITS however you want, that's kind of what essays are for.
What I meant was, if one is trying to say that reliable sources don't contain support for the word "controversy" used to describe to Clinton's email usage while part of the State Department, then I really don't see how anything other than intentional ignorance is in play. Moving past that, whether or not one agrees with the application of those sources to support "controversy" in the title is a completely separate matter, and 1) is personal opinion, and 2) should be guided by the quoted section of WP:CRITS if one is ostensibly applying the content of that essay. —Darkwind (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I see you arbitrarily excluded my !vote when you counted, because you decided my comment about it being "unusual" instead of "controversial" was inappropriate. Charming. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Darkwind, thanks for the reply. Just for the record, I was not trying to say that reliable sources don't contain support for the word "controversy" used to describe Clinton's email usage while part of the State Department. All I meant was that that's not enough (by itself) to justify putting that word in the article title. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to beat a dead horse. But, if "that's not enough", then what additionally would be needed? To "justify" the use of the word "controversy" in the title, you would prefer to see two things: (1) reliable sources and (2) _____ (what else)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That "Hillary Clinton email controversy" is the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. And what title would that be? What title is the most frequently used? (Certainly not the old title, Hillary Clinton email system, I will assume.) Wasn't this very question asked and answered directly above? There is a section (up above) with the heading "Sources for title". It lists the following: "Email scandal" (1 source); "Server" (1 source); "Personal email" (2 sources); and "Email controversy" (9 sources). Is not that the answer to your question? Do you have a title that is more (or, most) frequently used? And, if so, why didn't you list it up above in the appropriate section where this very issue was being discussed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The old title ("Hillary Clinton email system") did not use one of the words like "scandal" or "controversy" that triggers the requirement of adopting the title that is most frequently used.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the close was solid and accurately reflected the consensus. Can we move on now? Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the nominator. So, obviously, I feel the close was solid and accurately reflected the consensus, also. Yes, of course, we can "move on now". However, this exact same debate as above (whether or not to include/exclude the word "controversy" or "scandal" in article titles) is happening at several other article pages right now. Not just this page. Including: Talk:IRS targeting controversy; Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; and Talk:Bush White House email controversy. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sampling

"Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets." is within the NYT's source that is cited. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem with this section as we have no way of finding out how serious any violations are, or their nature; while Trump can go on about criminal prosecution and Hillary can claim no violation whatever. She said in Iowa that it was likely a dispute in how strictly to interpret the rules; likely but we are not going to be able to look at examples. This leaves an unstructured stimulus to react to with the usual results: reactions which tell us more about the reactor than the object. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
See NYT's editors note. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Judge orders confirmation on State Department emails

@Scjessey: Your claim of editing out hyperbole and right wing propaganda source does not stand up. What hyperbole? What propaganda? Your edit culls out important facts – “under penalty of perjury” and “no later than August 7, 2015” to name two. I can see your point about “blockbuster ruling” and will leave it out. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, we don't need a breathless blow-by-blow every time something "new" is uttered by CNN or Fox. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The “something new” is a District Court ruling – the importance speaks for itself. BTW where did Fox come into it? Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The case was brought by Judicial Watch, so having a quote from Judicial Watch is totally unacceptable. That's the right wing propaganda part. Other than that, there is no need whatsoever for the full quote and the repetition of legalese ("under penalty of perjury" is standard legalese not worthy of mention). The summary as I presented it is more than sufficient for this non thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Judicial Watch can be cited for basic facts about themselves on their own article perhaps, but never in anything else. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to think we would need the full text from the judge (which is full of boilerplate legalese), when a summary is perfectly acceptable. Let's keep this article neutral, please. The Clinton-haters will just have to restrain themselves a bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The “under penalty of perjury” is not standard legalese nor is the short one week to comply. You want to forget the CBS source. Stop trying to whitewash the issue. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a legal blog, we'r not writing word-for-word blows of a judicial order into this. The article is full of day-by-day bloat as it is, this is overkill. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let’s use the CBS source – the under penalty of perjury ruling is significant and unprecedented. No later than August 7, 2015 must be included. Both CBS and Politico mention the under penalty of perjury clause - CBS characterized the ruling as being chided over releasing Clinton's records; while Politico called it turning up the heat. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted. Descriptions of legal consequences are generally rhetorical puffery when in sources, and not part of an encyclopedic treatment of the issues. It's like repeating the formulaic statements by the parties that they look forward to a "vigorous defense of the issue" or that a claim is "entirely without merit". AFAIK, almost any government action is made under penalty of perjury. That's just a recital, because whether or not stated explicitly, making false statements on government legal documents is perjury, that's the definition of perjury. When used in a non-legal context, it tends to create a false implication that somebody has done something wrong or is in some kind of trouble. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not in this case read the source characterizations. I'm up against 3rr and have to let it go for now. Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll have to let it go, period; 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 revers per day. Viewing it as such will only end in tears. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Tears? Over editing a Wiki article? What a scary thought. I can see the need for caution to avoid falling into that hole where one sees Fox phantoms that don’t exist. Grahamboat (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename and shorten section

I think the section currently titled "Classified information in the emails" should be renamed and substantively edited to reflect the reality that exactly none of the emails were actually classified, amongst other inaccuracies. The NYT's "reporting" in this matter has been torn to shreds, including by the New York Times itself, as well as numerous other mainstream outlets. The whole section seems grossly non-neutral now (per WP:WEIGHT), seeing as it has all amounted to nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the section title might have to mention the time period; at present the July 31st batch of emails is not included, and we don't know whether this topic will be relevant to future batches of emails. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that the above NYT link includes as an example this link to the Washington Post, the current version of which does not mention criminal investigation but only concern that classified information is now stored on a private email server and a thumb drive in ways which violate classified information handling rules. Current reporting seems to be oriented this way, rather than toward criminal investigation. Because the thumb drive is the lawyer's copy of the emails, the "in the emails" part of the section title seems appropriate. However, this article is about emails so it is somewhat redundant. Perhaps "Classified information management issues" would be a more general title. There might be a need for a subtopic of the marking and reclassification of material -- isn't there background material already in Classified information in the United States? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not that Clinton forwarded classified emails; she didn't. The problem is that some of her emails include information that is classified, so far, low level confidential or sensitive information. This area is not clearcut: anyone who reads media such as The New York Times or The Washington Post, to mention just two and also has access to the flood of low-level classified intelligence reports "knows" lots of confidential information the volume and variety of which is nearly impossible to keep track of. The situation is aggravated by the convention that just because classified information is published in the mass media does not remove its confidential status. Someone in Clinton's position, with both a flood of intelligence briefings and wide media access is in an untenable position. They can't comment on nearly any foreign policy issue or talk with anyone that does not have comparable security clearances and access without breaking the rules if they are interpreted strictly. So, even the most low-level conversation about, say Libya, will contain classified information, much of it already of public record, but still technically classified. Bill Clinton pegged it well as a matter of interpretation. Some one like Trump is clearly exploiting ambiguity, but so is Clinton by saying such things as "No emails were labeled classified." User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This thing is becoming a lot clearer: the notion that anyone can eyeball information and decide its classification status is a nonstarter. Information needs to be reviewed by a professional who is up to date on the situation regarding each matter; clearly not Clinton or any of her aides, whose expertise is elsewhere and who lack access to the relevant information necessary to make appropriate decisions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's true either in Wikipedia articles or in American diplomacy. If there is one authority in classified matters it is the Secretary of State. But perhaps indicative of why a trivial incident is being promoted as such a scandal, political operatives looking for mud during election cycles. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The Secretary of State does not, and could not, make such fine-grained decisions, and get anything else done. Do we look for mud, not exactly, we summarize information published in reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

Facts have to be stated as facts and opinions have to be stated as opinions with full attribution. The recent material added to the lede is in violation of these core principles, forwarding certain viewpoints in Wikipedia voice, as if these were facts. Tagged POV.

After the intelligence community's inspector general reported finding some emails (in a small sample of those she turned over to the State Department) that contained very sensitive information classified "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information",[1] she agreed to surrender the server.[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Anita Kumar, Marisa Taylor and Greg Gordon - "‘Top Secret’ emails Found as Clinton Probe Expands to Key Aides: Four former aides have turned over personal emails; Senior senator skeptical of the extent of the review; Intelligence investigators say they have yet to see aides’ emails", McClatchy Washington Bureau, August 11, 2015. Retrieved 2015-08-12
  2. ^ Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman - "Hillary Clinton agrees to provide private e-mail server to FBI", Washington Post, August 11, 2015. Retrieved 2015-08-12
  3. ^ Ken Dilanian - "Clinton Campaign Says email Server to go to Justice Dept.", The Associated Press, August 11, 2015. Retrieved 2015-08-12
  4. ^ Labott, Elise (11 August 2015). "Hillary Clinton to turn over private email server to Justice Department". CNN. Retrieved 12 August 2015.

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We need to be cognizant of the fact that this is a highly politicized issue (after all, Colin Powell, George W. Bush's first secretary of state, used a personal laptop in his office and a personal email account to conduct business, and that was never made to be an issue), and avoid using this article as a political pamphlet. State the facts and fully attribute significant opinions and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Let's see if I follow your logic(?) -- two wrongs make a right, okay, and surely none of this email stuff of Clinton's is what it looks like (depending on what your meaning of "is" is).  Looks like a duck to me --- Professor JR (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, my logic is this: This is a highly politicized issue (or non-issue for some), and if we are to say that Clinton surrendered the server and a thumb-drive, sure lets say that in the article. But to write that the reason Clinton did that was because of the intelligence community's inspector report about two email message, and say that in Wikipedia's voice as it was a fact, that is not acceptable. Let's not use this article to reflect campaign politics talking points, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Professor JR. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: Clinton relinquished the server when asked to by the FBI, for she knew they would subpoena it if she did not. Your own words right back at you: "Let's not use this article to reflect campaign politics talking points, please." --- Professor JR (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't speculate. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel is correct; surrender of the server and thumb drive were not based on the finding of classified information, but simply a matter of cooperating with law enforcement. We should not say otherwise. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Leaving out the dates makes it look like she denied the claims (July 9) and turned over the server (August 11). You found a sanitize version on AOL see here Colin Powell did not use a personal email account exclusively and did not use a personal private server. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I can see that dates are now in the article, so we are fine. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK with lede. Section Server turned over to Justice Dep still needs work. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This should be upgraded to Scandal...it is no longer a "Controversey". Are Hillary supporters hawking this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.14.9 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
They will loudly disavow that they're hawking this article, but  Looks like a duck to me. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
When reliable sources change their headlines and descriptions of the matter, and perhaps settle on some common handle, we may conform, or not, with it. The purpose is to make the information easier to find. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
To anon and friend(s), please check your political leanings at the door and tone down the accusations of bad faith. Describing editors as being advocates for or against a candidate during an election cycle disrupts efforts to collaborate on an encyclopedia. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the tank for Wikipedia! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is now a Scandal. The days of "Controversy"are over.

It used to be a "controversy", but it is now a scandal. Current search of Google news shows all media outlets reporting "scandal" on the order of 7 times as often as "controversy". At this point, anyone who vigorously defends the term "controversy" is most likely a biased supporter of Hillary Clinton at best, or part of her campaign at worst. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=nws&q=hillary+%22email+scandal%22 https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=nws&q=hillary+%22email+controversy%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.14.9 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Incidentally, nearly all of the sources that appear in your "scandal" search are opinion pieces, mostly from right-wing sources. The "controversy" search turns up actual news pieces among alongside the editorials and advocacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a kerfuffle, a fuss. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is/was a guideline somewhere – I can't find it right now – that something current should be called a "controversy" until it is past and it is known how serious its effects are, at which point it may if warranted be called a "scandal". If you look at the articles that currently have "scandal" in their title, they generally conclude with political careers ended and/or high-ranking people getting fired and/or people going to jail. See Watergate scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Oregon land fraud scandal, Congressional Post Office scandal, Wedtech scandal, Cunningham scandal, Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal, and so on. Or at least some salacious content combined with attempts at censure or impeachment, see Newport sex scandal or Lewinsky scandal. But in this case, so far none of this has happened. Maybe it will, maybe Hillary will be indicted on charges of exposing classified material, or maybe she will have to withdraw from the race, or maybe she gets trounced in the general election with exit polls indicating this was the major issue. In that case it will have earned the name "scandal". But what if she rides it out and nothing major happens as a result and the election goes on and win or lose this isn't a big factor. Then it will stay "controversy". At this point, we don't know, so it should stay where it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is very confusing and seems to fail the Who, What, Why, Where and When standards.

For example basic background facts are lacking., I came here because I forgot the date that Hiliary turned her emails over to the State Department. I believe in late in 2014, but I don't see that here. The article makes it read like it only happened in response to a NY Times article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7031:1600:B950:C562:F515:5D96 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two iterations, one centers around congressional inquiries about Benghazi, the other about the discovery of classified materials in the emails. It is quite possible the second would not be public knowledge if not for The New York Times. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No scandal at this time. This section is a waste of time, Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Controversies go best with violence and scandals typically have sex. Government IT work is neither sexy nor violent. What we have here is a failure to not communicate. That is, a brouhaha. "Kerfuffle" is just about right, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NOT NEWS

Not every single back and forth between critics and Clinton's campaign need to be added to this article. See WP:NOTNEWS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED You are correct that only summaries are appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about censorship, Fred. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect an historical perspective - in other words, how would the article look a few years from now? Petty squabbling of the likes Cwobeel describes isn't worthy of attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Labeling "The Washington Times" a: "non-neutral right-wing rag,
replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary"

@Scjessey: With regard to your edit summary accompanying your revision #676818520 to this article, wherein you wrote with respect to a Washington Times reference citation: "opinion piece from non-neutral right-wing rag, replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary" --- Wow! Do you really consider that statement appropriate as a non-POV assessment of The Washington Times? Other editors might disagree, and in fact that publication is cited as a valid source in numerous Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of subject matter. (I'll put you down as a "maybe" on whether you think it constitutes a valid source for use in Wikipedia.) I think it behooves all of us to exercise some degree of caution before making such inflammatory, and potentially libelous statements about a major U.S. news organization. I'm curious though, what sources exactly would you consider valid enough to be cited as Wikipedia sources? --- Professor JR (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: While Scjessey's statement is definitely harsh, I have to agree that a speculative Washington Times editorial is not a reliable source for the statement which it supported. I was not able to find any non-partisan sources to support it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Winner 42: I agree with you, and that's why I didn't challenge or revert Scjessey's edit that had deleted the material in question. Nevertheless, such a vitriolic attack on any cited source is completely unwarranted, not to Wikipedia standards, and the sort of thing we should all keep working together to try to discourage herein. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Times is an extremely right-wing news organ that nobody takes seriously because it is owned by the Moonies. It's similar in stature to World Net Daily. The extraordinarily racist and non-neutral (and arguably libelous) tone of the article you used as a reference should've been a dead giveaway, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Scjessey's opinion is sound. Nothing from The Washington Times about any controversial subject should be used a source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Note, however, that C-Span uses it quite a bit, so there is an argument that it simply represents a right-wing point of view. Many of the people who work there are professional journalists. Nevertheless it contains significant misinformation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It is important to distinguish between straight reporting and opinion pieces. The article linked was an opinion piece that immediately started making unsubstantiated claims about lying, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
"opinion piece from non-neutral right-wing rag, replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary". While I have little interest in the subject of this article, I would like to point that our NPOV policy only affects our writing. Our sources do not have to be neutral and even unreliable sources can be used to source statements. Does this editorial represent a notable point of view regarding this subject and how it is handled by the media in general? Dimadick (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly it does, but, in itself, it is a primary source. A reliable source might be found which characterizes The Washington Times, or Fox News, for that matter, but the editorials, or rants, for that matter, are primary sources. View the Fox News clip... User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Observer source

contains the language "had the unsecured server at her home." No source I have seen claims the server was unsecured. Any amateur server is likely not configured optimally, but there is no good source that this particular server was not secure, in the sense of being easily accessible. We just don't know. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also the language: "rest assured there will be no evidence of the Benghazi murders or Huma Abedin’s conflict of interest, because those emails were not produced by Mrs. Clinton and are no doubt among those she may have successfully destroyed." Again, there is no reliable source that Clinton tried to destroy anything. This is not a reliable source, to use legal language, it assumes facts not in evidence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep using the talk page as a dumping ground for your random thoughts? Please actually propose something, or stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing not using this source. Seems obvious to me what the purpose of commenting here is. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So you created a talk page section so that you could post about a source you don't think should be used? Jesus Christ. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you using "JC" as an expletive there in the signature block, or are you trying to make us all think the comment is from him? You really need to get some fresh air. --- Professor JR (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The material is used now in the article; it was recently added. Rather than removing it, then trying to talk about it, I started with a discussion of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"With a cloth"

When asked if she had "wiped the server" Clinton replied, "With a cloth?" This was apparently not a facetious response. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How does this improve the article? -- (unsigned comment by Scjessey)
The quote is from a New York Times article used in our article which illustrates the innocence of Hillary Clinton with respect to technical issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This section should not be "hidden". It is indeed about the article and/or suggestions for its improvement. As User:Fred Bauder states, it could be used in our article to illustrate the innocence of Hillary Clinton with respect to technical issues. Or, it could indicate that she is flippant and dismissive about a very serious issue. Either way, it certainly can be placed into the article. And, again, this section should not be hidden. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Joseph A. Spadaro. --- Professor JR (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A rather sophisticated analysis in The Washington Post User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Thanks to ‎@Neutrality:’s edits (06:28, 20 August 2015) the article is now fair and balanced – facts presented with good RS. I fully support his work but fear any further “tweaks” will lead us back to neutrality problems. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree is better. 70.215.14.33 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
He has sorted out the spaghetti nest of federal lawsuits. Actually, there may be about a dozen in all, but no need to put them here absent any notable rulings. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Legality of press conferences

Are statements made to reporters during press conferences admissible in court if charges are filed and a political corruption trial is pursued by a prosecutor with relevant jurisdiction? (i'm starting law school next week so I'm sorry if my question sounds forensically retarded!!) 71.55.25.172 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Public statements are admissible, especially if they are admissions against interest. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, is it true (unfounded statements made on reddit rarely are ever, right?) that if you write anything bad about politicians that they can sue you and force wikipedia to tell your ISP to dox you? I read and admittedly tried to be skeptical that there's no way this can happen in 2015 without EVERYONE having heard about it -- specifically that 2-3 wikipedians were forced to sign an NDA and reimburse the litigants for cost of investigation back during the 2012 political season, etc... Note I don't want to write this somewhere like on a noticeboard because it's just a laughable reddit theory -- but was paranoid because there's always the 1-in-a-million chance that the conspiracy exists. 71.55.25.172 (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically possible. It is the Wikipedia editor who is liable. Being hauled into federal court a thousand miles from where you live and having to file paperwork is nasty, but I've never heard of anyone ever filing a case. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion polls

It is my understanding that – during the 2016 presidential campaign – several public opinion polls have been conducted on the issues of Hillary Clinton, her trustworthiness, the email scandal, etc. My understanding is that her poll numbers keep dropping lower and lower, in large part due to this scandal. These polls should either have a section in the article or, at the very least, be mentioned. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has ever learned anything meaningful from an opinion poll. Encyclopedias are for teaching. Certain opinion polls, like "Would you rather A or B for President?", are notable only for their consequences (on the final answer only). An event having consequences on a poll is only significant in an article about the poll, not the event. Very few polls have their own articles. This one certainly doesn't. Best to leave that sort of stuff where you read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "opinion poll" wasn't the correct word. Approval ratings is perhaps better. And, yes, they are very relevant. Her approval ratings are sinking, quickly, in large part due to this scandal. I think it's notable to mention within the article. These ratings polls are done through respectable and reputable services. And, I assume that they use scientific and statistically sound methods. And they are clearly covered by RS's. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
An "approval rating" is for those already in office, usually the Oval Office. And scientific and statistically sound they may be, asking 1,000 people something isn't going to get an answer that accurately reflects what over 300,000,000 people think, except by dumb luck. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No, not relevant to most issues, lest we become poll-o-pedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This sort of thing could be integrated with Wikidata. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So far no good sources pinpoint the email controversy as a prime cause of Clinton's gradual fall in the polls, which, by the way, is only 2%. The news actually is that her support is holding firm despite a significant rise in negative opinion of her. I have put part of that into the Hillary campaign article. Some sources suggest Biden's exploration of running may be partially due to her problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Beltway media likes to speculate that the totally predictable drop in Clinton's approval rating has something to do with the emails, but this is extremely unlikely and impossible to directly associate. The real reason for the drop in approval rating is almost certainly because she's a politician again (running for office) and not a public servant (Secretary of State), and everyone hates politicians. Either way, opinion polling has no place in this article (and arguably no place in any article). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe in the super-titled Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries. Or the slightly more concise Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Maybe also Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 or Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016.
When an article is filled with the same kind of useless noise, another drop in the bucket doesn't stand out as particularly insignificant. Though yeah, you'll still need a source connecting the 2% movement to this brouhaha. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1136795221"