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 Hilary 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)