Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Title

"Emailgate?" Really? Unencyclopedic. I propose "Hillary Clinton Email Controversy." Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That... doesn't make sense. There are plenty of controversies titled with the "-gate" suffix. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And most of those do not use the "-gate" suffix as the article title. They redirect, sure, but usually are not the title, except for Watergate, because, well, it happened at a place called Watergate. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding "gate" to any controversy is considered very trite, somewhat ridiculous, and is discouraged by news sources widely except for partisans of any type, and encyclopedia style is less loosey-goosey than even that. I am unsure how many Wikipedia articles use this as a title; few, I hope! I will change it soon; I had hoped for more comment but so far it's 2:1 in favor. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I can find very few sources referring to this matter as "Emailgate". I submit the article should only be called this if proper sourcing supports it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Email Controversy is the name used by most news outlets refer to it. Not every controversy needs the -gate suffix. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A google search of 'emailgate' yields 236,000 results and scrolling through shows plenty of reliable sources. The title seems proper. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In contrast to the 11,600,000 results for Hillary Clinton Email Controversy. Sources referring to it as an email controversy include CNN, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. Sources that refer to it as Emailgate include the Daily Mail, Breitbart News, and Bustle with most results being about a separate controversy about the T&T Integrity Commission. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For me it's 68,600. https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+Email+Controversy#q=%22Hillary+Clinton+Email+Controversy%22 Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

'Emailgate' is used by www.bbc.com, www.theguardian.com, www.newsweek.com, www.aljazeera.com, www.washingtonexaminer.com, www.huffingtonpost.com, www.dailymail.co.uk, www.slate.com, theweek.com, www.forbes.com, www.foxnews.com and those were the first 2 pages. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is used by some outlets, but rarely in mainstream news. Most instances I have found surround it in scare quotes or make fun of it. I think Hillary Clinton email controversy makes much more sense as a title, and it definitely has more support in mainstream media (by at least one order of magnitude). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article that calls in "emailgate" actually says that the author is "still amazed I haven't read one piece that dubs it 'emailgate'" Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That was 11 weeks ago, but I see here clear consensus for the move and went ahead and executed it as a show of support. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit semi-protected (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent decision. Let's hope this can remain stable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Just wait until someone wants to move it to "Hillary Rodham Clinton email controversy" Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Ha! :D Edit semi-protected (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus my foot. There is no such consensus emerging. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was my declaration as being the only holdout on two possible names for this article. Hillary Clinton email controversy is more encyclopedic and more neutral. Avoiding the "scandal" terminology was also important. What is wrong with our usage? Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

POV

The article does not include any of comments and releases made by Clinton on his campaign, and related press coverage about this supposed controversy and therefore it violated WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton in her campaign and included in this article, made comments about the emails to be turned over to the State Department and about the emails since deleted. The State Department also "classified" some of the emails prior to public release. If you have any ideas to expand and improve this article please be BOLD and add them. Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Vague handwaves at "there's stuff in this article that I dis/agree with" are rarely helpful. Suggest specific additions or subtractions, or the tag will come off shortly. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some issues that once addressed can make the article compliant with WP:NPOV:

• On the release section, there is none of the declarations from Clinton made to the press
• There only a short mention of the State Department release schedule, and there are many reports including comments from Clinton.
• On the issue of the private emails, there is only but a short mention of its contents as declared by Clinton and her aides.
• There is no mention whatsoever on the first batch of emails released, which most of the reports say that there was nothing in these emails to be deemed "controversial".
• The "pundit commentary" section, includes a singe arbitrary commentator Chuck Todd, when there are many others viewpoints.

- Cwobeel (talk)

If you want to make the sections relating to your POV on what the Clinton campaign says please do.

If you want to expand on the State Department's court ordered release schedule please do.

If you believe there are better citations to include mentions by Hillary Clinton or her aides please do.

If you believe there is nothing "controversial" about the "first batch" of emails as sourced, please explain why so.

If you believe the Chuck Todd section is UNDUE. I agree. Even terminology of "pundits" is a mistake. Edit semi-protected (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will with your help and the help of others. Until resolved, the POV tag will remain. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The POV tagging is fine if true. Can you enunciate what you find as being POV? We can fix it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop the Edit Warring

@Tarc:@Professor JR: Seriously guys, "take it to the talk page" is not a valid reason to edit war. Especially when neither of you have actually used the talk page to discuss this in the first place! Tarc I recommend you pick specific sections of JR's edits that you find objectionable and explain your reasoning as JR's edit includes many different changes to the article. I do not personally have an opinion on the edit, but please don't edit war over it. Thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42:@Tarc: Thanks for your constructive advice and suggestions Winner 42 -- greatly appreciated. Will try pursuing matter on a Talk Page with Tarc. Again, many thanks. Professor JR (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: Maybe we start by you doing what Winner 42 recommends, then I'll respond.Professor JR (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale changes that slant an article into a hit piece will be removed on sight. The proposer can make his/her case on the talk page for INclusion, not the other way around. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I doubt there are many/any here who wish to engage single-purpose accounts; I'm sure several here will no doubt recognize whats' going on now is what surrounded the Obama articles from 2008-2010 or so. If there are legitimate editors around who wish to explain how this slanted text can possibly conform with WP:NPOV, we're all ears. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: w/courtesy copy to:@Winner 42: ..My validly-sourced, and well-intentioned edits to this Article -- if you actually take time to read them -- can hardly be characterized as either "wholesale changes", nor as "slanting an article into a hit piece"! One might be inclined to conclude it is you who are attempting to slant an Article here, perhaps based on personal biases -- without even being willing to make the effort to provide objective, credible, specific reasons for your challenges to my edits, nor to tie them to specific sections of the Article in question, as User:Winner 42 has very constructively recommended. Some might contend that, anything less than you doing that, when doing the type of total undo's that you have done here (with rather misleading Edit Summaries, I might add) is almost tantamount to vandalism. Are you willing to provide any specifics -- to which I can then, and will respond -- so that we are able to proceed in a constructive fashion here?? Professor JR (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of you clearly have very strong opinions on the topic. I'd like to remind you both that WP:TALKDONTREVERT is policy and so is WP:CIVIL. Characterizations that JR is trying to turn this into a hit piece are unfounded as are the allegations that Tarc's reverts constitute vandalism. Tarc, reverting Anythingyouwant's contributions was uncalled for as well as completely reverting JR's productive and uncontroversial changes. Can you please explain how "On the same day as" is less neutral than "On the day of" and slants the article into a hit piece? I've reverted your edit into a more neutral version because you removed many productive changes. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I incorporated Anythingyouwant's edits into my last edit, but missed a few. Had intended to fix that, but was called away for IRL matters. Now I see you have re-added the SPA's nonsense, so congrats on making this into even more of a mess than it was before. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I went so far as to removed what I believed was the contentious material from the edit while restoring the productive sections. Unfortunately, I wouldn't know what you believe those sections are because you won't tell me. I'm trying to mediate and create a compromise here, but the name calling and assumptions of bad faith are not appreciated. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no evdence of the dispute being discussed here. You should have discussed the matter here before asking for a third opinion.

One comment that I would make now is that the lead should be a summary of the body article not a place to make points or edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

The current title is Hillary Clinton email system. That is meaningless. Why not add the word "controversy" or "scandal" or some such? This is not an article about her email system proper. It's about the controversy swirling around her use of it. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is only a "scandal" or "controversy" in fringe publications, most likely. Legitimate sources have been critical of certain aspects of Clinton's e-mail releases, but not every criticism is a full-blown -gate scandal. Tarc (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am quite sure that many reliable sources have called this "controversial". I am not talking about any "-gate" scandals. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And the controversy is not simply about her "release" of selected emails. It's about the fact that a Secretary of State went against federal protocol and used a private email server for her official federal job. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC news are hardly "fringe". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC cover the subject in a fair and balanced manner, without the screaming "CONTROVERSY" AND "SHAME" type headlines from the likes of Breitbart and Fox. he current title is neutral and accurate. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current title is neutral and accurate. So much so, as to be devoid of any meaning whatsoever. It is clearly POV. This is not an article about her email "system". It is about the controversy surrounding it. I will be changing the title soon. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC News (and others) have certainly referred to this as a scandal and/or a controversy. They are clearly RS's. They don't need to "scream" anything. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Criticism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. If there is no controversy, scandal, disagreement, etc., why do we even have an article about Clinton's email "system"? Then, if there is no controversey, scandal, disagreement, etc., this article should be deleted? No? LOL. I assume you want to have it both ways? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want the title to be more descriptive, try and think of a title that does not imply negative criticism. Maybe "Clinton email disclosure issues".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the word controversy implies negative criticism. It states that there is a disagreement (i.e., a controversy). A disagreement or a controversy always, by definition, has two sides. What's the problem? Perhaps "scandal" is overly negative. The word "controversy" is neither positive nor negative. It is as neutral as a word can be. It indicates a "disagreement". If we really need to wear "kid gloves", then what about Hillary Clinton email disagreement or dispute? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to conform with this? It's just an essay, but seems widely accepted. If we end up including all the relevant info, what's the big deal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The "big deal" is that the article is entitled "Hillary Clinton email system". And this is not an article about her email system. It's about the issues, questions, controversies, etc., surrounding said email system. There are a gazillion RS's that have called this a scandal or a controversy. However, it's clear that you want the title to be as "white washed", generic, cleaned, non-descriptive, POV, politically correct, leaning in favor of Clinton, etc., as possible. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just trying to comply with a Wikipedia essay that reflects usual procedure across Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't ring true. Doesn't pass the smell test. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think WP:Criticism reflects usual practice across Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote what I said (below): 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) 23:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also about the State Department. Is omission of the State Department from your preferred title a whitewash? I think not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Add the term "State Department". I have no problem with that. An adamant insistence that this is not a controversy is clearly an attempted whitewash. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Her server was in Montauk. Is it whitewashing to exclude Montauk from the article title? I don't mind telling you, Joseph, that I regard the possible election of Hillary Clinton as a horrible thought, and I would first vote for any of the GOP contenders. But the fact remains that WP:Criticism is a norm at Wikipedia, not a whitewash.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being so, um, silly? Bringing up infantile arguments? Such as State Department and Montauck. If I say "yes" to Montauck, you will bring up another silly and infantile argument. (Example: Oh, the guy who runs the server was wearing purple pants. If we don't add that, is that also a whitewash?") Those are your arguments? Really? The fact remains. This is a controversy. Everyone knows it is a controversy. Every RS under the sun calls it a controversy. But, we have to be "PC" and wear "kid gloves" so that some Democrat Clinton lover does not get "offended". Holy shit. The inmates are running the asylum, for sure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

• Side point, wouldn't Hillary Clinton's email system have more precision than the current title? Just want to gather some opinions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a little better. I would prefer "Secretary of State Clinton's email system" because it indicates time frame.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rename this? (June 2015)

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)

• Support, per my reasons above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC) struck by –Chase (talk / contribs) as the nominator starting the RM is an implicit support, and this only appears to have been added to make it look like there are more support !votes than there really are

• I oppose the proposed title, but am open to a move to a different title. I agree with the nominator that it's not the system itself that is notable; Clinton's usage of it is what's notable. With that being said, "controversy" articles, no matter how well-intentioned, tend to become negatively-slanted POV fests. I would not be opposed to a more accurate title that simply calls it what it is, such as Private email usage of Hillary Clinton, that doesn't use words with a negative connotation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I isn't just private emails that are involved it is also official emails, so dropping "private" from that would be better. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "Private" has more to do with the fact that it's a private server than the contents. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Criticism. I would support Private email usage by Secretary of State Clinton. This indicates both the time frame and the fact that we're talking about official emails rather than personal ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 26 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)

• Other titles have been proposed that make it clear that the system itself is not what is notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and I added another one. To be explicit, Email usage protocol of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or somesuch. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

This incident has been labeled as a "controversy" by a gazillion RS's. I have added it to the article, well sourced by both The New York Times and The Washington Post. Some editor, through POV and an agenda, keeps deleting it. Please advise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Even the Obamacare and Patriot Act articles don't say "people describe think this as a controversy" in the lead, and those are two of the most controversial pieces of legislation this generation. Your addition comes across as unprofessional, petty, and seems to be made more to shore up your disagreements on the talk page here rather than a a genuine effort at article improvement. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone on God's green earth would (and did) call this a "controversy". Why are you so adamant that that word not enter the title? Nor the article proper? Give me one valid reason. And pushing your POV agenda is not a valid reason. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight, Joseph. "Some editor" was actually two editors: myself and Tarc. I was not engaging in POV or agenda-pushing; I don't have much of an opinion on Clinton's politics anyway. I cannot speak for Tarc but I'm sure they were not engaging in POV either. As stated above, your addition seemed pointy especially in light of the above RM. We don't need to highlight any "controversy" labels when the media reaction can speak for itself. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversy. But, we can't call it a "controversy" in the title? LOL. We have a million reliable RS calling it a controversy. But, we can't add that into the article. LOL. Why is that? Hmmmmm. I wonder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so I am clear. The following RS's (The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, and so forth, ad nauseum) can – and do – label this a "controversy". But some liberal leaning, white-washing editor (translation: Democrat and Clinton supporter) is "offended" by the word "controversy", so that one Wikipedia editor trumps all of those RS's. LOL. Yeah, no agenda there, huh? No POV there, huh? LOL. Don't insult the intelligence of Wikipedia readers. Do you work for Clinton's campaign? I heard that they hire people to "scrub" Wikipedia articles. I'll find the source, so I don't have to listen to any whining. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source, from The New York Times: [1]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I think we've arrived at the heart of the matter; you appear to be present on the Wikipedia to right great wrongs, coupled with the insults, accusations of paid editing. Lovely. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Great diversion tactic. Great red herring! And I see that you didn't answer my valid question. Just changed the topic, so that no one would notice that you avoided the valid question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I assume now that you have accused Tarc of undisclosed paid editing, that you will file an appropriate report at the noticeboard along with appropriate evidence, because to make an unsupported accusation in such a manner would be a personal attack. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Show me exactly where I made that accusation. Exactly where, please? I will be waiting for your response. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you work for Clinton's campaign? I heard that they hire people to "scrub" Wikipedia articles. That question, which reads far more like an accusatory statement, was unnecessary and completely ridiculous. Suspicion of paid editing because of a disagreement? Get real. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Which question did you wish an answer to, Joseph? There were a lot of question marks in that...energetic message, and it is difficult to parse the queries from the hyperbolic assertions. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the question to which I was referring: Why are you so adamant that that word (the word "controversy") not enter the title? Nor the article proper? Give me one valid reason. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered that, as have several others. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)