Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton email controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 21 days

Computing: Networking / Software B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Hillary Clinton B‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hillary ClintonWikipedia:WikiProject Hillary ClintonTemplate:WikiProject Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Internet B‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Clinton's signature appears on document saying she received training on how to handle classified material, but she claims she never had such training

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004146/ 71.182.241.137 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need a better source and a good argument that this isn't WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong or broken reference

The reference link #242 " Michael Biesecker, GOP Files More Lawsuits Seeking Hillary Clinton Records, Associated Press (March 15, 2016)." seems to be linking to an ABC news website about the elections "http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election" and I am not sure how to find this link or correct this. Yoe Dude (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead. I've tried searching it in the archiving sites but couldn't find the article. I've tagged it though. MediaKill13 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

newsweek article as comparison

An editor advocates including (via multiple edits [1], [2], [3]) some Newsweek content to the Hillary Clinton email controversy#Comparisons and media coverage section. The general content appears to already exist in two other locations within that section. Please engage in the WP:BRD cycle, rather than WP:DE. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UW Dawgs Understandably, you have confabulated several edits that ultimately merged into one citation and reference. One intervening edit by another user (who endorsed having the material in this article – but only once – corrupted the reference; and I corrected that. The current statements and structure are fine with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was some kind of editing going on. You removed, and now I have restored, Newsweek reported that 22 million e-mails, including critical ones making decisions to enter into the Iraq War, were allegedly "lost" from the administration of George W. Bush^[1] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed this because?

Newsweek reported that 22 million e-mails, including critical ones making decisions to enter into the Iraq War, were allegedly "lost" from the administration of George W. Bush^[1]

Different source, statement and perspective. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what does the edit have to do with Clinton's email controversy?CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first three paragraphs of the Newsweek article, which explicitly compares the two (both as to scope, method, and investigations or lack thereof). [Copyrighted material redacted] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the selective attention and outrage, paid to Clinton while Bush's was ignored. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Burleigh, Nina (September 12, 2016). "U.S.: The George W. Bush White House 'Lost" 22 Million E-mails". Newsweek. Retrieved September 13, 2016.

I wouldn't support including Bush simply to say tit-for-tat that his administration's scandal was vastly more extensive, but rather as part of establishing context regarding the US executive branch and its relationship with secrecy, records, and conflicts of interest. It might even be useful to go beyond a single US presidential administration and describe the overall treatment by the US and perhaps other governments, agencies, corporations, etc., with corporate email accounts and usage policies. Establishing context is useful in Wikipedia for any article on any subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu & Wikidemon are both correct. This is not just about "politics" and "paybacks." It is about context and standards, however. That is what the Newsweek article says, and it does it in a concrete way in a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this edit by User:UW Dawgs which REMOVED the reference altogether, and then said "agree w/ Muboshgu's placement as clearly better." This makes no sense. There is no "placement" of this reference or its content at all.

16:55, 13 September 2016‎ User:UW Dawgs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,101 bytes) (-610)‎ . . ((edit conflict) per Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy#newsweek article as comparison, agree w/ Muboshgu's placement as clearly better)

I think that there was an edit conflict (which confused me too). But which side are you on? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I remove my objection.CFredkin (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No thematic objection to the citation from yesterday's story. Someone should offer language to show how this will be more gracefully integrated with the two existing statements, already on point. I think the proposed Iraq war callout narrowly is absurd, given the article's focus on ~6 years of the and 22M emails, while also covering both the PRA and historical context of multiple Presidents beginning with Reagan. The more relevant and direct comparison is made re the litigation/discovery process, the server being maintained outside of the government (RNC in this case), and deletion via disabling auto-archive (inclusion of each of those elements is unnecessary as we already link to that full article). Use the quote parameter in the citation to include secondary context if helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Combetta (Hillary's computer specialist)

Combetta may have used Reddit to get tips on how to delete her emails, as reported by News & World Report and The Hill. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, where somebody learned how to delete emails does not seem particularly relevant to anything. Do you have a content proposal? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting bit here is Spoliation but I think its too soon to go there now. If this gets further legs though, that may certainly change. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikidemon and ResultingConstant for the advice. I will wait until this story has legs. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama pseudonym

I rolled back edits that mentioned Obama emailed Clinton under a pseudonym. This doesn't seem at all significant, and with such little coverage it would appear to violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it seems trivial. What would be a reason for including that? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatime quote duplication - FBI Investigation para. 9

Hello, Randomer here. The Ninth paragraph of the 'FBI Investigation' sub-header reads:

In a Meet the Press interview, Clinton said, “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." On July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified"

Just for readability, could we condense this to a single sentence referencing that it was said verbatim on two different dates? Sorry, not most accustomed to wiki guidelines

109.150.58.51 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Burleigh-1] Burleigh, Nina (September 12, 2016). "U.S.: The George W. Bush White House 'Lost" 22 Million E-mails". Newsweek. Retrieved September 13, 2016.

[1]