Talk:Hillary Clinton

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Latest Wikileaks information

A few of the latest Wikileaks revelations deserve mention: Clinton's dream of open boarders and her public and private views on Wall Street. Numerous published and reliable sources are available.Phmoreno (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Not really. An echo chamber, maybe. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/ No, it's not clear what she was referring to here, but considering the context, it seems more like she was discussing trade and energy policy, not immigration policy. Centerone (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The most potentially damaging leak involved an email discussing "FOB" (friends of Bill) being given preferential treatment for State Department contracts for work in Haiti following the earthquake. 'FOBs': How Hillary's State Dept. Gave Special Attention to 'Friends of Bill' After Haiti QuakePhmoreno (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Wikileaks emails have not been confirmed as authentic. Indeed, they are known to come from Russian intelligence. So the reliability of any source relying exclusively on the Wikileaks emails is entirely contingent on the reliability of Russian intelligence as a source of factual information. Given that Russia is known for media manipulation, I think this is very low. If content from the Wikileaks is to be included here, then I think it must be put into this context. We cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, implicitly assert the authenticity of the hacked emails, and it should be pointed out that the source is Russian intelligence, which some sources have speculated calls into question whether the emails might have been manipulated for political ends.

Also, the ABC story, while it seems to be a good source (the above overall critique of the Wikileaks hack notwithstanding), has (to quote TNR) "paragraphs governed by words like 'appear' and 'perception'". According to the report, State Department spokesman John Kirby "an important coordinating hub" for U.S. and international relief efforts. The emails, he said, "show State Department employees working across agencies and organizations, including President Clinton’s aides, to identify potential resources, solve problems and achieve the department and the U.N.’s shared goal of helping Haiti." So there's nothing but optics here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks has a record for 100% accuracy. As for the Russians hacking Podesta, if hacks of his iPiad, iPhone and Twitter account are an indication, his gmail account was probably so easy to hack that the Russians didn't have to do it. “Dollars to donuts, his Twitter account password was Runner4567, like his Gmail account,” Hackings of Podesta's devices and accountsPhmoreno (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno, this is simply not true. Wikileaks claimed to be releasing Turkish government e-mails and instead released other information including the personal information of female voters. [1] Wikileaks is not completely reliable and where it is used it should be used with great caution. Knope7 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I am morally opposed to Wikileaks. However, the Clinton campaign has not denied the veracity of the content of those e-mails, and there appears to be no proof whatsoever, only hearsay, about Russian involvement. (If there is an official statement from the USDHS, I would like to see it, as at least with them we know they want to keep us safe; otherwise anything coming out of the Obama administration is pure partisan politics, as the Obamas are actively campaigning for HRC.) I think we should have the same policy as the media on this: add that the information comes from Wikileaks each time, but not censor the information: relay the information as per weight of reliable third-party sources. Ultimately, HRC's secret views on specific policies are in the public interest: voters deserve to know who they are voting for.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is that these are hacks (not leaks). The source is unknown. So we cannot use them as reliable sources, particularly when there is strong evidence tying them to Russian intelligence (per official US sources), which has a long history of outright fabrication. The official State Department statement is vastly more reliable, and is basically "nothing to see here; move along". Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I think you're saying you're morally opposed to them (as I am), but since the press has published lots and lots of information about them, I don't see why we would have to follow USDS guidelines of obfuscation. Wikipedia is not run by the US government.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the veracity of the material, it is not yet clear if any of it is biographically significant in an article about Clinton's entire life. This article is meant to be written from an historical perspective, so I think it makes sense to take a step back and see how it develops. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

They do spread over her career though. As a result, I believe some information (for example about Haiti) may be relevant to this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Given concerns about the authenticity of the material, I think it is important to focus on reliable sources. These include official statements by the State Department, intelligence agencies, and the White House. In the specific issue under discussion, that of 2010 aid to Haiti, there seems to be nothing of biographical significance. Insofaras reports have created an "aura of controversy" without actually pinning down anything specifically unethical, that might be better suited in the campaign article than the main biography, if anywhere. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to those "official statements" you refer to? The White House is the Obamas, who are actively campaigning for HRC.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as I said before, those "official statements" would not prevent us from relaying information from reliable third-party sources. If the press publishes it, we should relay it the way they do: with a word of caution. But we shouldn't treat Wikipedia as a USFG website, because it's not.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree most emphatically that documents of unknown source and authenticity should be treated as equally reliable as US official statements (such as the State D3partment). This is asking for a creation of a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Regarding official statements implicating Russia, the FBI currently names Russian intelligence as a suspect. Acting CIA director Mike Morrell has said it was "absolutely clear ... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this." http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/ There was also a White House statement to that effect several weeks ago.

Finally, this discussion is becoming increasingly divorced from the fact that the State Department has already dismissed seeking aid for the victims of the 2010 Haitian earthquake as part of business as usual, not something biographically significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Mike Morrell has endorsed HRC for POTUS, and the Obamas (White House) are actively campaigning for her. The FBI says it is a "suspect"--which means they don't know at all. So the rumors about Russia are just that--rumors. Finally, we would be using reliable third-party sources from major media outlets as references.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll leave talk of vast conspiracies of the intelligence agencies (CIA), law enforcement (FBI), national security (POTUS), and the Clinton campaign to Breitbart. They can print whatever they like. But reliable sources universally agree that Russia was the source of the Wikileaks hack. In any case, sources aren't born good, with the burden of proof being to show that they are compromised. On Wikipedia, the WP:BURDEN cuts the other way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. "Conspiracy theory" is the phrase the Clinton campaign has been trying to spread--she came out with this specific phrase after her summer of fundraisers, when she finally talked to the press on her plane. (I remember watching it on youtube.) There is no such thing, as indeed the FBI "suspects" it; it is a known unknown, not necessarily the truth. Sometimes, suspicions (I prefer hypotheses) prove to be correct, but only with evidence. Apparently there is none (or we as nobodies/members of the public are not allowed to know). In any case, I would regard it as highly bizarre if the entire media (CNN, The Guardian, etc.) was reporting on this and we couldn't relay this information. By the way, CNN tells us, "But the campaign has not challenged any emails in other WikiLeaks releases and this is the second time transcripts from Clinton's paid speeches have been made public by the group.". Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, use plebes will probably never have proof. But reliable intelligence sources have said the are "confident" the source of the documents is the Russian government. The director of the CIA is on the record saying there is "no doubt". So, spin that as a "known unknown" or whatever at Breitbart. But Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And the FBI is providing zero evidence. Only hypotheses. We can certainly add that the FBI is hypothesizing that it comes from Russia, but we cannot say that it does. Nobody knows that. What we do know is that the campaign has refused to release her speech transcripts, and that they have "not challenged any emails in other WikiLeaks releases". Please just stick to reliable third-party sources (the media). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is now over on this point. I have made my point beyond reasonable doubt. Feel free to read the reliable third-party sources with on-the-record statements from federal agencies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue of whether Wikileaks is a reliable source is a red herring. Mainstream news media, which we should be using as a source, are and whatever they say about the information in the leaks is therefore reliable. It is odd that someone would claim Wikileaks "are known to come from Russian intelligence." That has not been proved and it comes from the same people who told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. So if [insert name of mainstream medium here] says, "according to Wikileaks, Clinton said x, that is what we say. And if [insert name of mainstream medium here] says, "Clinton said x," that is what we say. Because we accept the expertise of reporters to sift through sources and make a judgment what to report and how to phrase it, rather than Wikipedia editors make the call. Certainly much of what is published in the news turns out to be untrue. But the guiding principle is verification, not truth. TFD (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But then it's down to he-said-she-said between Wikileaks (i.e., probably fabricated Russian intelligence) and official on-the-record state department sources. It's pretty clear that's a WP:FALSEBALANCE. We go by reliable sources. In this case, that's the state department. If you want to argue that state is not the most reliable source (because WMD) perhaps we should refocus the question on whether discussion of Wikileaks belongs in the article at all? I think the answer is no, not at this time. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the perfect explanation that User:The Four Deuces gave us for using reliable third-party sources from CNN, The Guardian, etc., about those speeches and e-mails: "Because we accept the expertise of reporters to sift through sources and make a judgment what to report and how to phrase it, rather than Wikipedia editors make the call.". I couldn't agree more with this. We don't run a news organization; we edit an encyclopedia based on "verification, not truth".Zigzig20s (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the very essence of writing an encyclopedia involves making editorial judgments based upon Wikipedia policies, guidelines, best practices and guiding principles. We explicitly are not a compendium of everything ever said about everyone in a reliable source — if we were, all of our articles would be endless stacks of word salad. What we do is precisely make the call about what belongs in an article and what doesn't. That something has been published in a reliable source is merely a minimum baseline which permits inclusion, not a mandate which requires it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE says we should not not give equal validity to minority views or extraordinary claims. That should be obvious because NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In other words, we do not assess the reliability of claims ourselves, but let mainstream media do that for us. We do not determine what views are worth mentioning, but let mainstream media do that for us. The only judgment editors are supposed to make is to determine what mainstream sources report. TFD (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Lots of things have been said about Hillary Clinton in her life — our biography of her expressly does not include everything which has ever been said about her, good or bad. Otherwise it would be 100,000,000 words long. We are making editorial judgments every time we decide what should be included and what shouldn't be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not making editorial judgments but "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you have a problem with that, get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the USDS is a primary source. We can quote them saying they disavow this content, but we can't take their word for it. They're not third-party.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Er... no they're a secondary source. The alleged leak is a primary source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends if you're talking about the content or its veracity. In any case, reliable third-party sources from major media outlets trump both (pun unintended).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we have such reliable sources that documents exist and what their contents are. We have no reliable sources about their authenticity. Period. So they cannot be used in a BLP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we can, as User:The Four Deuces explained earlier, with a cautionary note. Just read above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We can only use them if properly attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That brings in the question of what relative WP:WEIGHT to assign the opinion of Russian intelligence in a BLP of a US politician. I think not much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there is no proof about Russia, so we can't dismiss the text with this blanket assumption. But yes, we ought to attribute as The Four Deuces said earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the OP has duped us. On set of issues comes from Russian intelligence via Wikileaks. The other is actually from an foia request by ABC. I think that article speaks for itself, and is not biographically significant. (Reasons given above.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is getting boring. There is no proof about Russia. It won't make it more true if you keep repeating it. Nobody knows. There are hypotheses. Intelligence is based on hypotheses: it is not an exact science. I am sure the FBI staff are fabulous, but they cannot write history.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. We have no proof. The exact words are that intelligence is "confident" Russia was the source of the documents, and that there us "no doubt" that Russia is involved. Since Wikipedia is unlikely to be privy to the classified intelligence leading to this conclusion, it is necessary for us to rely on secondary sources for that assessment. In this case, the secondary sources have told us that Russia was involved. You obviously don't like that answer, but those are the sources we have. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I explained this earlier. The FBI is a primary source when it comes to the veracity of the text. (Secondary from the perspective of the text itself.). The way to reference this is to follow the example of the third-party sources (the media) by saying that the text comes out of Wikileaks, etc. Wikipedia is not Pravda; we don't take government hypotheses as the absolute truth. Unless they can show hard evidence like Russia-based IP addresses, they are just doing their job as intelligence analysts: reaching conclusions based on a series of logical hypotheses. Once again, let's stick to reliable third-party sources (the media).Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You really don't put out a statement like this if you're not damn sure. If you're not gonna take DHS's word for it based on the classified info they're not gonna release, I don't think there's anything else we can tell you to convince you that it's Russia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And as for the RS's, here's a headline: "Scandal! WikiLeaks reveals Hillary Clinton to be . . . reasonable." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And I quote from the DHS website, "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." and "However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.". I LOVE the DHS and I'm so glad they're keeping us safe, but this is intelligence at its best: a series of hypotheses leading up to an inconclusive assessment subject to judgement. Not an exact science. Otherwise it wouldn't be intelligence; it would be facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And we can report what the RS's report: "US finds growing evidence Russia feeding emails to WikiLeaks", "Donald Trump stuns experts by refusing to accept intelligence on Russia", "Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war", "Mike Pence Admits ‘Evidence’ Points To Russia Interfering With U.S. Elections" ... – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the DHS release pretty much ends all reasonable contention that it was not Russia. We can debate about how to present that fact, but if we include discussion of Wikileaks at all, it is clearly necessary to include the Russian involvement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

They are "not now in a position" to say whether that's the case or not, but they have a hypothesis, yes. Read above.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is the best secondary source we currently have. If you want to suggest another source, of equivalent reliability, by all means do so. But you were among those insisting that articles be based on secondary sources. This is practically the gold standard here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, this is tedious. We can say the FBI hypothesizes this is a Russian affair; we can't say that it is. They don't say that it is; the DHS doesn't say that it is either; they say they hypothesize that it could be but they can't tell for sure. Please read a book about intelligence if you don't know; it's not an exact science. I don't have time to argue about this endlessly; just stick to the sources please.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The lede of the DHS report states, right up front, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." The director of the CIA is on the record saying that there is "no doubt" about Russia's involvement. Let us know when and if you get secondary sources that support your POV that it is not Russia. But the very best sources we have at the moment do say that Russia is behind the hacks, and so should our position, per WP:NPOV. This "it's only a hypothesis" is a standard tactic of denialism. It's the opinion of reliable secondary sources, and the good news is that (as far as I am aware) all of the reliable sources are in complete, 100% agreement. If you wish to present other sources, please go ahead. But the sources are not at all ambiguous on this point. Also, the quotations that you gave above are cherry-picked and out-of-context. They are in reference to foreign probing of elections systems, not the DNC and Clinton email hacks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am confident that my boss will give me a raise if I have time to prepare my two meetings for tomorrow. I am confident that she will fire me if I don't. Is English not your first language? Confident does not mean that it is true; it means that they strongly believe it should be true. The DHS webpage goes on to say, ""We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." and "However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.". This is the second time I've had to show you this. They do not know for sure, but they hypothesize that it is the case, on their website. Now, I've just looked up "John Brennan Clinton" on Google News and I did not find his statement; if you're talking about Morrell, he has endorsed Clinton and he is thus not a reliable source on this matter. Anyway, I must go and prepare my meetings for tomorrow, or I am confident that my boss won't be happy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Either you didn't read the DHS report carefully, or are deliberately misrepresenting its contents. (If the former is true, I would encourage you to reread it. If the latter, then you are reminded that this page is under discretionary sanctions. In either case, you should drop this line of argument now, or expect to see the matter rapidly escalated.) As I already pointed out, your quotation "we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government" is entirely unrelated to the subject of this discussion. It's true that "confident" does not mean the same thing as "certain". Nothing is absolutely certain, per Descartes, Hume, etc. But this is just tendentious litigation over the wording. The director of the CIA is on record saying that there is "no doubt", in case there was any concern over what "confident" actually means in a US government official memorandum. We don't assert summary facts as if they were unsubstantiated hypotheses like you would have us do, per WP:YESPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My Gosh. It says, "could have". If there is an official statement from Brennan, I wouldn't mind reading the whole thing. I have not found one.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, intelligence is about substantiated hypotheses (not unsustantiated ones). They don't magically become facts though.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The key question is whether any of this belongs in this biography, as opposed to the article about Hillary's presidential campaign. I can't see where any mention of it really belongs in this article at this point, given that the general thrust of the media coverage has been that the purported leaks are a giant nothingburger, revealing nothing of significant substance. That it has been an issue for her presidential campaign to deal with is undeniable, but whether anything in it is important enough to discuss in her biography, I'm unconvinced. But perhaps someone could write a draft of what they think should be included, and propose it here for discussion and consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant to both articles, as it spans her career. We went over this earlier. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's OK to briefly mention the Wikileaks leaks in the campaign section, but we should not go into any detail about the contents of emails that may or may not be authentic.- MrX 16:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, because they directly contradict her public statements on specific policies, as has been reported by the media. We shouldn't try to hide that. We should relay the information as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you write a draft of what you think should be included, then post it here so other editors can know precisely what you are proposing to include, and what sources support that inclusion? Then we can engage in informed discussion about what belongs and what doesn't, and establish a consensus around the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should start a draft together. Right now I must prepare two meetings for tomorrow (she is busy in real life), but I will look into it soon. Thank you for the invitation.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose material for inclusion, but I don't see any evident consensus that detailed discussion of Podesta's e-mails is relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently his risotto recipe is a gamechanger. I'm not aware of anything else significant to come from those emails, despite reading synopses of what has been released. Nothing she's said regarding philosophies and/or policies has contradicted itself directly. Nuance is a good thing for a presidential candidate to have. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot actually, including open borders and no need for more financial regulations, which contradicts her public statements. As User:Phmoreno suggests, there is also a Haiti controversy. I haven't had time to read everything in the press and certainly won't have time in the next 24 hours, but there is much to be aware of in terms of significance.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

At most, according to PolitiFact, the statement suggests she believed at that time in a long-term goal of developing a hemispheric common market with free trade and movement of people within the Americas at some point in the future. It is not correct to use that statement to claim that she supports "open borders" allowing anyone to immigrate from anywhere today. And again, as this relates to a relatively minor political position, it should probably be included in the appropriate sub-article, Political positions of Hillary Clinton. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot to read. Most of it sounds like new/contradictory policy positions, which could go in several sub-articles. But some of the new information could also go here, as it spans her career.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no basis to consider these purported leaks to be valid WP sources. If they are genuine copies of emails sent as alleged, they are still primary sources. But we don't know that they are genuine. We know that Assange hates Clinton and wants to do whatever he can to defeat her. How do we know he didn't write these purported Clinton emails in the confines of his London hideout? SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks has released thousands of email, the authenticity of none of which has been challenged. Who obtained the emails would be nice to know, but the authenticity is really the issue. Until someone comes forward and denies having written any of the statements or that any were altered, they stand. Whatever the FBI, CIA or other agency says about actors or motives is largely irrelevant. The fact that they issued a statement is proof they are genuine.Phmoreno (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on the matter don't change the WP policy wrt sourcing of contentious material, I'm afraid. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Guys, we've been through this. We won't cite the e-mails/speeches. We will cite the press (reliable third-party sources). This is what we do on Wikipedia, as User:The Four Deuces explained hours ago. We don't have to keep going round in circles about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion here is whether and how to discuss them. Obviously, this discussion would be based on the highest-quality secondary sources. The current highest quality source is an official DHS memorandum attesting that the hacks were conducted by Russian agents. So, if we mention the Wikileaks at all here (which no one has yet given compelling reasons for), then per WP:WEIGHT we must point out that the source of the hacks was Russian intelligence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No!!!. They say "could have". My Gosh.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct, and we also do not have verification that each email text is genuine. So for example the Russkies could have hacked a bunch of convincing emails about XYZ's travel and public speaking schedule -- corroborated by public knowledge sources -- and then slip in some phony emails with damaging content cooked up inside the Ecuadoran enclave. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is what Tim Kaine said earlier. That's why I think she should release the speech transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Could have" is just a wrong and tendentious interpretation of that report. You've been warned once. Consider this your second warning. There are discretionary sanctions in place here. The actual DHS report is rather longer than your two word summary, "could have". The first sentence of that report is: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." So, per the conclusion of US intelligence, the hacks were directed by the Russian government. The last sentence of that paragraph does include the words "could have": "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." So, not only did the government direct the compromises, but also only the most senior officials could have directed those efforts. We can, of course, quote the report or whatever if it comes down to including a discussion in the article. But any discussion of the Wikileaks hacks must include a discussion of their Russian origin. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you stand by the quotation you provided earlier: "However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government." This is good to know, if this winds up at ANI. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not mine. It's a direct quote from the USDHS website. Please leave me alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

So you maintain that this quotation is relevant to the subject under discussion (the Wikileaks hacks). As I said, good to know. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, I have zero time for Wikidrama, and I don't care if it's Russia or an Eskimo who did this. I was only suggesting that we remain cautious and NPOV. I should note that Reuters uses the word "if" in their headline, and that they add, "U.S. intelligence officials believe Russia is behind recent email hacks targeting Democratic Party officials". So they are cautious in their approach.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, you also have zero time to read the sources you quote. And, yes, Pence used the word "if". So what? He's not a reliable source, like the DHS, director of the CIA, POTUS, etc. Anyway, this discussion seems to have gone completely off the rails. I think there is zero likelihood of getting any consensus out of it. 22:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Reuters is cautious, that's all. But I don't have time to talk to you endlessly, especially if you won't assume good faith. Please stop. I won't reply any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs)'s claim that we do not use reliable sources if their information may have originated from Russian intelligence is not supported by policy. There is no such thing as WP:ITWASALLJUSTRUSSIANINTELLIGENCE. Furthermore, I see a consensus developing and it appears only Sławomir Biały alone vehemently opposes this. Quantity of argument, and it has been endless, does not equal quality.--v/r - TP 22:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is rather puzzling. Do you mean to suggest that Russian psyops are reliable sources? I think a stop over at WP:RSN would probably set you straight on that matter.

Regarding your bizarre claim of consensus: there is absolutely zero consensus for the original proposed edit, "Clinton's dream of open boarders [sic] and her public and private views on Wall Street," nor the followup "The most potentially damaging leak involved an email discussing "FOB" (friends of Bill) being given preferential treatment for State Department contracts for work in Haiti following the earthquake." No one here seems to have proposed anything else.

The argument above regarding Russian intelligence was a tendentious editor who was denying that there were any reliable reports of Russian involvement. Instead, the most reliable sources we have regarding the email hacks say that the source is Russian intelligence.

It remains up in the air what, if anything, about the hacks should be discussed here, in the main Clinton biography article. No editor has really addressed this, let alone reached consensus, since we've been swimming in Zizig's endless barrage of red herrings. But, clearly if this article does discuss the email hacks, then WP:NPOV does demand that we fairly represent the issue, which includes the assessment of intelligence agencies that the documents came from the Russian government, and that their authenticity has not been confirmed by any independent source. Since the hack seems to have so little of biographical relevance to the article, I don't see why folks are so insistent on mentioning it. Perhaps if they would put up a definite proposal, we would have something to discuss. But before that, there is no consensus because (apart from the original suggestion, which was thoroughly demolished) there has been no suggestion. My advice to anyone wishing to claim "consensus" is that they should start a new discussion, with a clear proposal. The one in this section was DOA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There are reliable sources. There is no basis in policy to ignore the reliable sources, such as CNN and Politico, based on the possibility that their source may be Russian intelligence. If you continue to push that proposal, or to reply with strawman's, then I'll be forced to ask WP:AE to remove you from this discussion and all discussions about the US elections.--v/r - TP 00:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What "proposal"? If you want to add a statement to the article that "According to documents released by Wikileaks, XYZ", then whether that statement is referenced to CNN, Politico, ABC, or the Associated Press, then it is directly relevant information that the source of the documents was Russian intelligence. CNN et al are indeed reliable sources on the existence of the documents, as well as their contents. But unless they are independently verified by news organizations, the contents of the documents are not magically transmuted into "reliable sources". But this really seems like what you're saying. Also, claiming consensus when there is none (see below), and threatening to take other editors to AE when they disagree with you, does rather look like tendentious behavior. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would take issue with TParis' claim that there is any "developing consensus" about this material or how we use it. A rough count does not indicate even a majority, let alone a consensus, of editors have expressed support.

Generally favoring inclusion of Wikileaks material: Zigzig20s, The Four Deuces, TParis, Phmoreno

Generally skeptical of inclusion of Wikileaks material: Sławomir Biały, SPECIFICO, Muboshgu, Scjessey, Knope7, Centerone, myself.

We don't !vote on Wikipedia, but this certainly isn't representative of a "consensus" in favor of inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:NorthBySouthBaranof: Your userpage says you work for the USFG, which may suggest a COI. Now, I do not support inclusion of so-called Wikileaks material. (I am morally opposed to Wikileaks.) Please don't put words in my mouth. I support inclusion of information based on reliable third-party sources (mainstream media) which may refer to these e-mails and speeches, because we cite newspapers all the time.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to drag an editor's day-job into this. It'd be pretty hard to say that every single employee of the US Federal Government, all 21 million, have a COI with election topics. Unless the USFG was asking NorthBy to make these edits. Please do not make the discussion every more poisoned by raising such a red herring.--v/r - TP 01:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be confused about the difference between saying "Hillary Clinton said x" and "according to Wikipedia, Clinton said x." When we repeat a claim it does not mean that we are verifying it. For example. we can say that according to Christians, Jesus was the son of God. That does not mean we are saying he was the son of God. If anyone disagrees with me on that, please explain. TFD (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what Jesus has to do with anything. My take on the above discussion: (1) Someone proposed adding an assertion about open borders and public/private positions, and (2) a discussion of internal State Department emails during the 2010 crisis in Haiti. Neither of these proposals had any consensus.

I pointed out (correctly) that the source of the Wikileaks has been identified as coming from Russian intelligence. This highly undercuts their credibility if we are going to say "According to the leaks, XYZ." Instead, it would have to read "According to sources that US Intelligence is confident originated from the Russian government, XYZ." In that case, we might legitimately wonder why Wikipedia is simply parroting Russian psyops, which are known for their media manipulation.

Then Zigzigs20 came along and basically said there was no evidence that Russia was involved, and no official statements. That then degenerated into a discussion where, when presented with an official DHS report and on-the-record confirmations by intelligence and national security, Zigzig continued to retreat into litigating terms like "confident", outright misrepresentation of sources, etc.

So, if there's a proposal in any of this, please make it. In a separate section. Any claims of "consensus" out of this mess of a discussion are utterly spurious. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not know where the documents came from. There are conspiracy theorists who claim they came from Russia, but then conspiracy theorists say the moon-landing was faked. But NO ONE IS ASKING US TO USE THE WEAKILEAKS DOCUMENTS AS RELIABLE SOURCES. We are asking that mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.) be used. The Jesus parable that eludes your understanding is that there is a difference between what is reported and what actually occured. For example, we can write "Bill Clinton said he never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." That is not the same as writing, "Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Do you understand the difference?? TFD (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not "conspiracy theorists" who say they came from Russia, it is the considered and publicly-announced conclusion of the United States Intelligence Community. Whether Wikipedia is to be complicit in a foreign government's attempt to interfere with the American presidential election is absolutely a factor we may consider in using editorial judgment as to what to include and how to weight that material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There are reliable sources of the highest quality that identify that the documents came from Russia. Do you understand the difference between an official statement of the US Department of Homeland Security and the moon landing conspiracy theories? Also, at least one editor has suggested that the hacked emails are a reliable source (User:TParis).

I realize you personally are not making this suggestion that they are a reliable source, in the sense that we can cite them directly. Instead, we can cite options about them. But if we are restricted to discussing opinions and secondary sources about the documents, then we also must cite the best, most reliable sources. It just so happens that the most reliable sources here are the United States government official statements. These are more reliable than opinions of reporters and talking heads because (1) they are written by experts on Russia, intelligence, and national security, and (2) they are written by individuals with access to more information than reporters have (classified intelligence).

This is similar to how we weight the opinions of reporters on a medical treatment versus peer reviewed studies. Peer reviewed studies generally receive greater weight on Wikipedia, because they are written by experts whose opinions "count" for more. Likewise, intelligence experts who have actually examined these documents carries more weight than analysis by reporters. The reporters' analysis is not insignificant, but given the legitimate questions about the documents' provenance, if this article is to discuss the Wikileaks documents at all, we must include the weightier opinions of official bodies. This does not mean that we (necessarily) shouldn't allow reporters such as the AP and ABC news to opine, but Wikipedia needs to be up front that the consensus in the intelligence community is that the alleged "leaks" are the work of Russian agents.

I think I've made these points about as clear as they can be. Conspicuously absent is any actual proposed edit to the article. Some here have opined that there really is not much in the hacked emails that's biographically relevant. Maybe some nuance and optics (see, for example, The New Republic's discussion of some of these nuances), but no startling revelations that add much we did not already know about HRC (and have much more reliable sources).

So, if there are some specifics editors want to get into, I'd encourage them to start a new discussion. The discussion at the top of this section has not gotten anywhere though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The United States Intelligence Community lied and said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. They lied and said the Vietnamese attacked the U.S. in the Gulf of Tonkin. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the CIA or Russian intelligence but follows a policy of reliable sourcing, mostly mainstream media and academic writing, that can evaluate the veracity of reports from various sources. TFD (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, they were wrong about the WMDs. But if they were to lie about this, it would definitely be a scandal worthy of a Gulf of Tonkin. But it is partly for this reason, that government sources are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny then just about any other sources, that makes them the most reliable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did not say the Wikileaks release was a reliable source. We have reliable sources such as CNN and Politico. If you continue to intentionally misstate others and ignore others strong policy-based arguments then we're going to have to get WP:AE involved. Last warning.--v/r - TP 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The strongest policy-based argument here is that nobody has actually proposed an edit so we're basically going around in circles until someone does. This has been a civil discussion and making threats about hauling people to AE is unbecoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I'd be more than happy to discuss that, NorthBySouthBaranof, but first we must all agree not to misrepresent each other with strawmans. I hadn't said Wikileaks is a reliable source in any way, fashion, or form and saying I had violates the discretionary sanctions in this area of editing. Perhaps you could speak to Sławomir Biały and help deescalate the tensions created when discussions are disrupted by fake arguments.--v/r - TP 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we all need to take a step back from this Mobius loop until there's an actionable proposal or proposals, and I'll take the lead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis, it was unclear what you meant when you wrote "we do not use reliable sources if their information may have originated from Russian intelligence is not supported by policy". Rather than clarify your intention, you instead threatened to go to AE. Twice. You still have not clarified your intention. As I wrote above, CNN etc are indeed reliable sources for the existence of the documents, as well as their contents. But unless the contents of the documents are independently verified, they are not magically transmuted into reliable sources. A statement of the form "According to documents provided by Wikileaks to CNN, Hillary Clinton wrote XYZ" sourced to CNN might be, strictly speaking, verifiable, but since the source of "Hillary Clinton wrote XYZ" is not reliable, and indeed there are strong reasons for believing that it is unreliable, to be consistent with WP:NPOV, we must include a fuller discussion of the origin of these documents. This is in fact because our criterion is verifiability, not truth. Printing something we have good reasons to think are compromised, even though we are doing it in CNN's voice, gives it the stamp of truth. This must be avoided. (Also, TParis, your very first comment here contained a threat, directly against me. Every subsequent one of your posts, save one, has also contained one. This included two immediately consecutive "warnings" to go to AE, during a time period in which I was not even active. I find this behavior rather puzzling. Perhaps you would like to engage in a civil discussion rather than continue with this aggressive and unwarranted behavior?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My post is absolutely clear to anyone w/o an agenda. My posts aren't aggressive at all, I'm not the only misrepresenting others and throwing out strawmans.--v/r - TP 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also remind you please to WP:AGF. It does not seem like this is a courtesy you have extended me in this discussion. And indeed, you have systematically not responded to any of the substance of my posts, preferring instead to resort to threats and (now) accusations of my having an "agenda". The substance: CNN, for example, says "The Clinton campaign declined to confirm the authenticity of any of the transcripts and CNN cannot independently confirm their authenticity". In other words, we can cite CNN for the contents of these documents, but CNN is not in any way vouching for their reliability. This explains my puzzlement in the first reply to your post (which you have referred to several times as a "straw man", without showing any evidence of having read it beyond the first sentence, nor generally of AGF). Perhaps I should just ask you, flat out, "Does being quoted in CNN make the quoted passages reliable as statements of fact?" My interpretation of your post is that merely being quoted in a reliable source is good enough for us to quote the same. If not, what is the best way to clarify that they are not reliable as statements of fact? (CNN includes this disclaimer; how should Wikipedia?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This was already explained to you here. There are two ways to write sourced information. "John is a person<1>" and "According to CNN, John is a person.<2>" Per WP:NPOV: Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." We'd be saying something to the affect of "Leading up to October 2016, Wikileaks expressed in several tweets that they would soon release thousands of emails they claimed were from the DNC and HRC. In October, they began releasing the emails which containd < , , , >. HRC's campaign has not denied the authenticity of the emails, however, they did attribute the leak to Russian Intelligence and expressed concern that a foreign intel service was meddling in the US Election. The Russians denied that claim." Obviously I'm not suggesting a direct copy and paste of my suggestion, it's a very rough draft. But that's how I'd word it.--v/r - TP 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with this. The above argumentation seemed largely to pivot on the contention that there was no evidence that Russia was involved. I have been arguing that we musts include text to the effect of Russia's involvement, and that there has been no independent verification of the alleged leaks. Also, it is more than just the Clinton campaign that attributes the documents to Russian intelligence, but actually the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, and the White House. We could summarize this by saying that the consensus in the United States Intelligence Community is that documents originated from the Russian government (sourced to the above DHS official statement and CNN story). Also, include Russia's denial. Finally, I struggle to see how our opinions differ, and why you have decided to carry on in this aggressive manner with me, rather than simply say what you mean. Please remember to WP:AGF in the future. Thanks again! Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Follow up. I find it hard to understand that anyone would not know the difference between reporting what someone said and endorsing what they said. If they do not, it would be an interesting cognitive disability and please post a note on my user page. TFD (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to someone in particular? This doesn't seem to match any part of the discussion, although User:TParis's post appears to come closest. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a "Follow up" to my last posting. [00:05, 17 October 2016]. TFD (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow! It seems like there has been a ton of discussion in the last few hours over this, and most of it has ignored the key issue here: this article is about Hillary Clinton's entire life, and there is no way any of this WikiLeaks material has reached the point where it is biographically significant enough for inclusion yet. We have no idea what fallout (if any) there will be, and there are ZERO reliable sources claiming otherwise. As I said before, we need to wait until this matter has had a chance to mature so that we can properly assess how significant any of it is from the historical perspective we are expected to adhere to. In the meantime, all this bullshit over the minutiae is absolutely pointless. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of information here: Strassel, Kimberley A. (October 16, 2016). "The Press Buries Hillary Clinton's Sins". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 17, 2016. .Zigzig20s (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord have mercy! Not lots of "information" -- lots of opinion -- right? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's an opinion column in the WSJ. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Opinion columns are not prohibited. Just read Donald Trump - it's full of them.--v/r - TP 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And read WP:NEWSORG. Specifically the part about opinion reporting being reliable for attributed opinions of their authors, not "facts", as was suggested here. Also, I did not notice any obvious opinion sources at the Donald Trump page, but if you are concerned about any of the sources there, then you should raise the issue on that discussion page. Typically we shouldn't be using opinion columns in a BLP, unless there is strong consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was not suggesting we cite this. Just that she mentions a few relevant issues from those leaks in one article that we could add more content about (by citing other sources about these specific issues).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please point out anyone who has suggested publishing anything contained in those emails as a fact. The facts are: the leaks happened, the leaks contain some material with serious implications, HRC blamed Russians, and the Russians denied it. Those are the facts and those are covered in reliable sources. If anyone is suggesting that the crimes implied in the leaks are facts, then point that out. But, be sure you're not misrepresenting other people, again. You better take a clear hard look at what other people are saying and make sure that you are WP:AGF yourself, like you've suggested I do after you accused me of trying to push the allegations as fact (twice) resulting in me telling you to knock it off or we'd go to AE. You still have yet to apologize for misrepresenting me and not AGF - instead resorting to telling me to AGF myself.--v/r - TP 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you really want me to deconstruct your post above, instead of just assuming good faith? Fine. You said "Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs)'s claim that we do not use reliable sources if their information may have originated from Russian intelligence is not supported by policy." First of all, I never said "we do not use reliable sources if their information may have originated from Russian intelligence". My position in this discussion has always been that it is perfectly acceptable to cite reliable sources on the contents of the documents, as long as the source of the documents is properly identified and attributed. The highest-quality reliable sources (namely the Department of Homeland Security and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency) identify that source as the Russian government. However, given that the source is Russian intelligence, which has a history both of fabrication and of manipulating elections, it certainly falls under our editorial purview what WP:WEIGHT to assign the document disclosures originating from their psyops. This was pointed out by User:NorthBySouthBaranof. The source is part of the calculation of determining what goes into an encyclopedia article: we don't include absurd quotes from the Trump campaign in the HRC article, no matter how much press they get. "There is no such thing as WP:ITWASALLJUSTRUSSIANINTELLIGENCE." As I said just above, the origin of the documents is quite relevant to determining the reliability of their contents for statements of fact. I attempted to clarify this position here. This is true whether the documents are just primary sources sitting on a Wikileaks server, or are quoted but not confirmed by CNN. The whole "Jesus" thing that you referred to above is a giant red herring. Usually, when we cite CNN, the source is clear. For example, CNN might quote Qadafi as saying "XYZ", and we can say "Qadafi said XYZ" with no real regard for whether XYZ is true. The documents in question are of a different kind, because news outlets have explicitly said that the source could not be independently verified. Suppose that the documents had an email purporting to be from Podesta saying that "XYZ". Then saying "According to documents released to CNN, 'XYZ'" is rather misleading, because the source of the documents is not identified. We are giving "XYZ" the stamp of CNN's editorial authority and integrity for fact-checking, when indeed no such fact checking has taken place. They even say this right in their article. Per the best secondary sources on these documents, the source is the Russian government. Finally: "Furthermore, I see a consensus developing and it appears only Sławomir Biały alone vehemently opposes this." This is demonstrably untrue, and you were corrected on this point (twice). So, if you're looking for an apology, I suppose I should have realized from your claim of consensus that you had not carefully read the discussion up until that point, and that the rest of your comment really was as clueless as it seemed to be. In that case, I'm sorry if you actually were in violent agreement with me this whole time. I'm willing to chalk this off as a big misunderstanding, if you are willing to please WP:AGF in the future.

None of this is, of course, relevant to the question of whether an opinion column in the WSJ is an acceptable source for factual content in an encyclopedia. It is not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your initial assumption of bad faith that I would use Wikileaks as an RS to smear a BLP is what led to you being told to knock it off or you'd be taken to AE. You can apologize for that, you can keep spinning the story to make yourself feel like the victim here, or you can get over it. Either way, I don't care. But if it happens again, we will be going to AE. So, keep your wild accusations about others, your mudslinging, and your "misinterpretations" to yourself and AGF about everyone here.--v/r - TP 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made my point TParis. This discussion ceased being productive since you have made it about threatening other editors. I will no longer be communicating to you. If you wish to pursue mediation, please do so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Potentially serious ramifications New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emailsLawmakers Allege "Quid Pro Quo" Between FBI And State Over Altered 'Classified' Clinton Emails Patrick Kennedy, applying pressure to subordinates to change classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the publicPhmoreno (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please wake me up when there's a viable content content proposal emerging from all this stuff. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. This has been a waste of time so far. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

One word of caution if we decide to mention Russia: they've denied it.

• "Putin Denies Russia Trying to Influence U.S. Presidential Elections". Haaretz. October 16, 2016. Retrieved October 17, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that PolitiFact has run through some of the misleading or false stories that the Wikileaks e-mails have given rise to (some of which are repeated in this talk, with users calling for their inclusion in the article: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/17/10-misleading-trump-attack-lines-wikileaks-email-d/ . Hopefully, it can set some of the ridiculous suggestions to bed and focus efforts on worthwhile content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, they are quite controversial, if you read the third paragraph of the lede over at PolitiFact.com .Zigzig20s (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What Wikidemon said. Also, Washington Times is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

According to the emails, the former Hillary Clinton $675,000 from three speeches she made at Goldman Sachs and reportedly $3 million more for speaking at other major corporate banks and financial firms in the Wall Street. --87.156.237.183 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The main issue with her six-figure speeches is HRC's public and privacy views on financial regulations, which seem to the polar opposite.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Iran, there is this:

• Wilner, Michel (October 16, 2016). "Behind closed doors, Clinton spoke of willingness to bomb Iran's facilities". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved October 18, 2016.

Where could we add this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the citations you've listed, this is not the proper article for the material.Cinteotl (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Iran, it is not the purpose of this article to promote the subject by highlighting allegations of their strength in supporting an ally and opposing a perceived enemy. bd2412 T 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it could go in the "U.S. Secretary of State" subsection. The problem with Wikileaks is that the content of the secret speech transcripts and e-mails stray so much from what she has told the American public, it would be helpful if she gave a four-hour press conference explaining herself at this point. But until she does, we should do what the mainstream media do--say it comes from Wikileaks (whose methods I am morally opposed to), and relay the information nonetheless. Between you and I, I wish the USFG had taken down Wikileaks years ago because they are abhorrent, but we cannot in good conscience censor reliable third-party sources (the mainstream media) on Wikipedia. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Where in the subject's public statements has she said that she would not use military force if needed to destroy an Iranian nuclear program? Again, to me this merely sounds like an effort to bolster the subject's support among conservatives. bd2412 T 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, between you and I, I have been wondering if those leaks are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy against Trump, as even her secret position on financial regulations ("who needs them") sounds like a right-wing position. The bottom line is, nobody knows for sure because she won't be transparent about any of this--she'd rather talk about gossip than policy. It could also be an attempt to give her votes to Jill Stein, the only truly left-wing candidate in the race. I don't think we should speculate, just relay the information.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

When reliable third-party sources confirm the contents of the leaks, then we can cite those as her policy positions. But the leaks have not yet been confirmed by any reliable sources. Indeed, the reliable secondary sources indicate that the source of the documents is the Russian government. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We've explained to you many times that we can and should do what reliable third-party sources (the mainstream media) do--say it comes from Wikileaks, yet relay the information.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Extensive coverage is necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion. The content of the emails have not been authenticated, nor are they biographical. They may be appropriate for inclusion in the campaign article and possibly the policies article, but only to a limited extent. Feel free to start an RfC, but it is clear from this discussion so far that there is no consensus for including this material.- MrX 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The only independent reliable secondary sources on the leaks are official statements by the DHS, White House, and CIA, attributing them to the Russian government. CNN, etc, have not confirmed the contents of the leaks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. HRC's former employer, and current employer for many of the people currently involved, and a historical opponent of Russia, is absolutely not an independent reliable secondary source. Nor are government sources considered published and independently verified. They are a primary source.--v/r - TP 19:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Exactly. Wikipedia is not Intellipedia. We rely on the mainstream media and academic journals.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. They are a secondary source. The primary source is the (classified) intelligence reports. The point still stands that without independent confirmation of the contents of the alleged leak, they cannot be used in a WP:BLP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. We don't even think of classified content because we've never seen any (I certainly haven't). If you have, this could imply a COI with the USIC, and you shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the first place. I will assume good faith though and simply repeat that we rely on the mainstream media and academic journals. If we cite the USFG, we need to say it comes from them; we are not their mouthpiece.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Classified material from the USFG is primary but unlcassified is secondary? No, that's not how our sourcing works. The question is who is doing the publishing. The USFG has multiple reasons, that I've listed, to be in a COI here. The material is not secondary.--v/r - TP 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there are no reliable sources attesting to the authenticity of the leaks. Reliable sources say the leaks are from the Russian government. They cannot be used. Start an RfC if you disagree. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my Gosh. Reliable sources (the mainstream media) say the content comes from Wikileaks. That is all. The USFG is not necessarily a reliable source as they may be POV on this. The USDS has a COI with HRC for example, as explained before. When we relay the information, as the mainstream media have, we will say it comes from Wikileaks. That is all.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus in the US Intelligence Community is that the source is the Russian government. Not a single reliable source has confirmed the authenticity of the Wikileaks documents. They cannot be used in a WP:BLP. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Start an RfC if you disagree. We're done here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And the Russian government denies it. See the article from Haaretz I posted earlier. It is not our job to take sides when it comes to diplomatic obfuscations.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV The points of view expressed in the documents must be attributed, but it is also required that the opinion be verifiable. So these opinions, because they are of unverifiable (probably Russian) origin, cannot be used because they cannot be properly attributed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What opinions? Both the USFG and the Russian government have responded; we cannot take sides. That's all. But it doesn't matter anyway. No one is asking us to take sides. We will only cite the mainstream media and academic journals.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The opinions expressed in the documents provided by Wikileaks cannot be verifiably attributed. These are (quite possibly) the "opinions" of the Russian intelligence service. But they cannot be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:V. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We will just say, "According to Wikileaks", just as the mainstream media do.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What WP:WEIGHT do the opinions of Julian Assange carry in the article on Hillary Clinton? Also, can we verifiably attribute the opinions expressed in the Wikileaks documents to Assange? (Are they his opinions? Are they the opinions of the Russian government? Are they actual emails?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please ask the mainstream media. Not us. There are also references saying the Clinton campaign has not denied the content, simply dodged the questions, like CNN. I posted a direct quote from this CNN article earlier/above. Can you please stop asking the same questions over and over again?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And the mainstream media says that they have been unable to independently verify the Wikileaks source. So, I think that the source is factually not reliable (WP:NEWSORG requires specifically fact-checking and accuracy), and we are unable to verifiably attribute it as a biased opinion source (unless you want to allow attribution to the Russian government). Our guidelines proscribe the use of such material. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think User:TParis has explained this to you several times already. I am exhausted.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[ec]Regardless of whether government statements are considered primary or secondary sources, an assertion by a US government agency that the Russian government is behind the email hacks should be attributed as just that, an assertion by an agency. We have plenty of bona fide secondary sources, namely newspapers saying that the US government has made that claim, so we don't really need to consider sourcing the claim to itself. Regardless, I don't think the question of Russians hacking, or trying to influence the US election, is biographically significant to Clinton. The fact of the hacking and release of documents are not either, that's at best a campaign issue but more likely fodder for a stand-alone article. Some of the content of the documents may or may not be relevant, or useful to source facts about Clinton, but it's probably too early to know. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, except that there are russophobic passages in Living History, but we would need to cite serious analyses connecting the dots. For now, the main problem (at least for me) seems to be that we haven't had time to read everything about this issue in the press.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon, as has been said already. We can attribute it to the USFG, but the USFG itself is not an independent secondary source so we cannot make a statement of fact.--v/r - TP 20:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we disallow the USFG sources, then the argument for inclusion collapses because the opinions expressed in the Wikileaks documents cannot be verifiably attributed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Then whose opinion is expressed in the documents released by Wikileaks? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, please read the CNN article. No need to keep asking the same question over and over again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

From the article: "CNN cannot independently confirm their authenticity". That ends the discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And CNN also says, "But the campaign has not challenged any emails in other WikiLeaks releases and this is the second time transcripts from Clinton's paid speeches have been made public by the group.". I copied and pasted this exact quote three days ago. Can you please stop asking us the same question over and over again?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop. It is pretty clear that there is no consensus for discussing the Wikileaks documents in this article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually there appears to be some consensus to include the information. You just don't like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The number of editors generally sceptical of inclusion strictly outnumbers the number of editors who are pro-inclusion (by almost 2-to-1). It's tough to spin that as "consensus". Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, even you agreed that my draft was acceptable. And a consensus built on false assertions of policy is not a consensus. You've kept pushing that 1) Sources aren't valid because their own source may be Russian, and 2) That the USFG is a secondary source w/ regard to HRC and Russia. Neither of those are supported by policy. Also, the amount that you have been posting has been extraordinary and you've hampered collaboration. Try backing off a little so we can actually see a consensus develop instead of being disrupted by you replying every single time.--v/r - TP 22:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Some statistics of this conversation:

• Sławomir Biały - 76 comments
• Zigzig20s - 63 comments
• NorthBySouthBaranof - 29 comments
• The Four Deuces - 16 comments
• Phmoreno - 9 comments
• TParis - 9 comments
• SPECIFICO - 9 comments
• bd2412 - 8 comments
• Scjessey - 6 comments
• Muboshgu - 5 comments
• Volunteer Marek - 4 comments
• Cinteotl - 3 comments
• Knope7 - 2 comments
• Centerone - 2 comments

Slawomir Bialy has commented a full 20% more than the 2nd highest commentator and has commented a little under 50% of everyone else combined. He has contributed 30% of this conversation despite 14 editors being involved. That's 23% higher than an equal share. If we only go by editors with 9 or more comments, it's 36% and 25% higher than an equal share. That's significant and easily explains why consensus has been hard to develop. The discussion is being derailed.--v/r - TP 23:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And still those wanting inclusion have not put together anything like an actionable proposal. Why not start an RfC, in a separate section? That seems a lot more likely to get some kind of consensus than whining about other editors. (So far nine out of your ten posts here have been addressing me personally, most of which contained threats, rather than any meaningful consensus-building.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please step away. Your domination of this thread has create an aggressive atmosphere and turned other editors away preventing consensus from developing. That is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This needed to be said. I find Bialy and ZigZag way over the top with nothing new in most comments. That's defined as WP:TE and it's blockable, so I would like to see less density and more diversity of opinion here. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I felt I was baited to respond constantly and I wasted a lot of my time. I am happy to contribute if we can focus on specific content to add (for example, the contributions I tried to make about her policy positions on Iran or financial regulations), but otherwise I don't have time to argue endlessly about the validity of this Wikileaks content.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy to make a seventh comment here! It is absolutely inappropriate for TP to attack editors for how many comments they have made and list them on an article talk page. How is that improving the article? Please stay on topic or say nothing at all. The fact remains that there is still nothing in reliable sources that suggest there is anything biographically significant here. That said, the way to move forward is to suggest some appropriate text and then seek the opinions of other editors and build consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment #6: I still don't see any specific proposals to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point too. If no reasonable proposals are forthcoming, it would be better to archive this section to prevent further bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you two have just proven my point. I made a draft proposal here and you apparently have missed it because of the mountains of text. Please give the draft a read, it's a basis for how to structure a single paragraph and Slawomir Bialy already said they agreed with it. And it is not an attack to provide evidence that this discussion has been overwhelmed. If you believe it is, I welcome you to bring it up at a relevant noticeboard.--v/r - TP 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed a good start to a draft, but it needs a lot of work. What sources and what specific statements would you propose to include? I would prefer to see complete ready-to-paste proposed text before agreeing that anything should be added. I note also that the draft references both DNC and HRC emails. My understanding was that Wikileaks has thus far released only DNC emails. HRC emails would obviously be far more pertinent to this article, since DNC emails could merely reflect third-person campaign strategies with which the article subject had no involvement. I would prefer to limit inclusion of Wikileaks material to content authored by the article subject. bd2412 T 18:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was easy to miss as this whole talk page is in tl;dr territory. I agree that's an okay start, but needs some fleshing out. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, the sourcing and the wording needs a lot of work - it's a very rough draft. It's a skeleton at best. I'll get started on fleshing it out.--v/r - TP 18:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion about whether or not to include the Wikileaks stuff at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Specifically, the content of the leaked speeches regarding her apparently opposite views on financial regulations and open borders; the anti-Catholic rhetoric; and possibly the dissent among her campaign staff. There's a lot of RS suggesting this is relevant to her campaign, and it's happening during her campaign, but that's up to you to reach consensus. I am very busy with work this week and I won't have time to argue endlessly for inclusion. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 is against including these various things, such as an email about Catholics being somehow "anti-Catholic". You're the only one pushing for inclusion, so if you're too busy with it this week, then it becomes unanimous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of editors actively watching one page is no real consensus at all. Please let the community decide. Give us some time. Let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your take on consensus sounds like Trump's take on the polls: it's not accounting for all this imaginary support. This is not how consensus works and I think you know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Let us breathe. Give us a week. My Gosh. There's a reason why we have a bot archiving discussions after a while: most of us don't have time to contribute to talkpage discussions within a couple of hours. We need time.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Calm down, there is no rush. You, BD2142, and Slaw all agreed that I had a good rough draft. Two or three other editors, besides Zig and I, also supported inclusion in some list above. I've been very busy this week with work and I'm not in some hurry to include this. I'm not on some politically motivated drive to push this before election season. I'll get to it when I get to it.--v/r - TP 19:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, don't know what gives you the impression that I'm not, or that I haven't "calmed down" in the two days since my last post here. I'm quite happy to see this delayed until after the election, since that would alleviate the concerns of electioneering. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not delaying anything or promising to wait until after the election. I'm just not in a hurry to beat it either. I edit when I find the time.--v/r - TP 00:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Realistically, this article is a lifetime biography of the subject, not an up-to-the-election biography. It would not be at all surprising if anything proposed to be added at this point took a few weeks to yield consensus-approved language actually being added to the article. bd2412 T 01:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

wikileaks section needs adding, stop covering things up people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.44.41 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton

Any thoughts about drafting the above article using Presidential transition of Barack Obama as a model? --101.161.174.247 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Obama article was not initiated until the day after the election. That seems like a reasonable timetable; otherwise we will also need to start a Presidential transition of Donald Trump article. bd2412 T 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why either can't be drafted now, using the sandbox or draft space, but neither should become an actual article without a president elect. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no hurry, particularly because there isn't much coverage in reliable sources yet. Just a smattering here and there. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What I really meant is the "smattering" can be collected somewhere to make an easier start for the article on November 9. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to a Draft:Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton or a Draft:Presidential transition of Donald Trump. Of course, even if Trump loses the election, he may attempt a presidential transition. If it makes you happy, I have started Draft:Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton; add to it as you wish. bd2412 T 16:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

bd2412, I came across your HC transition draft, and thought I'd make mention of an already existing Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton article (a similar article exists for Donald Trump), which, if she's elected POTUS, could easily, and I imagine would, be moved to Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize those existed. One could easily become the "transition" article, but are we going to keep a "planned transition" for the losing candidate? Are those set of plans that don't come to fruition notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess so, based on past precedent of Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the draft is not needed at all. One candidate's "planned" transition will in fact become their transition. bd2412 T 18:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Language on "reopening" of FBI investigation.

An editor has sought to add the following language to the article:

On October 28, 2016, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] said the bureau is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. <ref name="bbc">{{cite web | url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525/ | title=Hillary Clinton email probe reopens | date=Oct 28, 2016 | accessdate=Oct 28, 2016 | publisher=bbc.com}}</ref> Mr Comey had previously called Mrs Clinton's handling of classified information during her time as secretary of state "extremely careless", but cleared her of any criminal wrongdoing.<ref name="bbc"/>

I believe that this merits a discussion for notability with respect to the general biography article, and for wording. Since the article identified as a source states that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant", it seems premature to include mention of it in an encyclopedia article. The line regarding Comey's previous characterization is redundant to content already in the article. Thoughts? bd2412 T 18:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is most likely notable but there's conflicting reports about what it actually means. My understanding is that they got new emails, which are not Clinton's, which they have to review and so they're legally bound to report this to Congress. This doesn't mean the investigation is re-opened (except I guess in a sort of colloquial sense). But we'll see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we have an entire section on the emails, we should mention the FBI has reopened the investigation after finding more emails, probably the ones Clinton deleted as personal. TFD (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The FBI has not "reopened" the investigation. They will assess new emails. Comey did not say they were reopening the investigation; bad headline writers did. The articles themselves don't say it's "reopened". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Can you provide a source for the proposition that these are "probably the ones Clinton deleted as personal"? Reporting on the matter seems to suggest the opposite, with one source stating that "it doesn’t pertain to emails Clinton herself sent". bd2412 T 18:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No such sources, in fact, some comments from journalists on twitter suggest these are not even Clinton's emails or emails she received. Too early to find out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is Ari Melber talking about how little we know about this development, the many things it could or could not be, and how we should be careful to rush to any conclusions, especially to the idea that these are "deleted emails". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is relevant discussion about this at Talk:Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. We have concluded that Comey did not say "re-opening" although some news reports and news headlines did. In fact some sources have rewritten their initial headline to remove the word "reopening". We have a consensus paragraph in the article which you all are welcome to copy here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and these are obviously not the "deleted e-mails". Comey said they were from an unrelated case. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as there is information that would support this being relevant to Clinton's general biography, I see nothing worth including. As a practical matter, the more reporting is done on the issue, the less it seems to involve Clinton at all - not her emails, not withheld, not from her server. bd2412 T 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The story should be included definitely (unless it becomes clear that this is a nothing-burger). We shouldn't call it a "re-opening" until RS describe it as such consistently (it seems as if RS are moving away from that description, if anything). Because Comey's letter was so vague, I feel that we need to be fairly quick to include reporting from "FBI sources", as well, given that the most recent reporting seems to suggest that this is a nothing-burger. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, strike that! The changes on this story are drastic. I'm less inclined to want to add this to Clinton's main article if this just revolves around checking the classification of 3 e-mails found in related to Weiner's sexting scandal[2]. I think we should at the very least wait for a couple of hours of reporting before we add anything to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. This seems like small potatoes for her biography. Relevant for the email subarticle, yes. If it's only three emails, it may be even less relevant than we've thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Three? According to the NYT article linked by Snoogans, "The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands". --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I might've seen an inaccurate number. It's hard to know what info is legit. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's Newsweek [3]. This is starting to look more like a political stunt by a couple Republican representatives desperately trying to save Trump's campaign. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Newsweek link doesn't say anything about Republican representatives. Instead, it says Comey had no choice; he had to reveal this information to suppliement his sworn statements to Congress. For that matter, Comey himself is a Republican, but I'll AGF that he was just doing his job in informing Congress about this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

We probably ought to watch any discussion over at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy to see how that goes, rather than having two separate discussions on the meaning and import of the announcement. Based on that we can decide what if anything to summarize here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Shamelessly desperate stuff from the HRC-kissers. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically the case was not re-opened because it was never technically closed. Maybe we could say "resumed," since there is no doubt it had become inactive. TFD (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Attorney General: Hillary Clinton Email Case Is Closed", July 6, 2016 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, she used the term "closed" in her address.[4] But I do not see why we should use her phrasing when the FBI says it was never closed. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did the FBI said it wasn't closed? Loretta Lynch outranks James Comey. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Newsweek, "technically it was never closed.”[5] And Comey writes about the investigation in the present tense. Certainly Comey, who is director of the FBI and one of the nation's leading prosecutors is in a better position to describe the nuances of FBI procedure than Loretta Lynch. This isn't Prussia where we assume that the higher rank one has, the more one knows. TFD (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The higher the rank the more authority applies in the U.S., and the FBI is part of the DOJ. So if it was never "closed", it definitely hasn't been "reopened". This whole thing is confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

All this discussion is irrelevant. There's clearly nothing in this significant enough to make it worthy of coverage in a biography of Clinton's entire life. It's not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the case was never closed, and there is new Hillary emails, then this fact should be reflected in the article, otherwise, as many, many, have suggested about Wilipedia, there is BIAS AFOOT! Wikipedia should NOT be used as a medium to protect private biases, it should be used to inform.Hmmreally (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Says the person who called the Southern Poverty Law Center a "hate group". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree there, Scjessey. Although the latest emails may not be relevant to Hillary in the long-term - and from what I've read there's nothing to indicate they will be - their significance is enough if it could influence the election and her nomination, perhaps in a major way, and you've already got The Economist saying so. I think it should probably be included the email section of the article as soon as possible, especially since it's already in the lead of the respective article. Jr8825 • Talk 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence it could influence the election whatsoever. It would take days for polling to even suggest such a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the letter Comey sent to Congress ... www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0 Paraphrased; he states that he felt it was important to supplement his previous testimony and he felt the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps. Due to the timing and negative backlash he must have known he would receive, it must have been extremely important to let the public know his previous testimony was incomplete ... shouldn't we also make sure Wiki is current at such an important time? In the Hillary Clinton Wiki article, the following statement is attributed to Comey ... "On July 5, 2016, the FBI concluded its investigation. In a statement, FBI director James Comey said: ..." If Comey felt it was important enough to supplement his previous comments and disrupt the Presidential election, shouldn't his comments be updated here as well? I'm sure it will need to be updated again once the details are revealed, but what is in there now is incomplete. Adding the contents of Comeys letter brings the article up to date. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.83.76 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources for the propositions that Comey "felt it was important to supplement his previous testimony", or that this "must have been extremely important"? Some sources now appear to indicate that this was a routine update required by the rules of the House Committee, not a judgment call on Comey's part. See, e.g., this article stating that "it does seem that Comey’s letter could be a fairly routine notification delivered to Congress". bd2412 T 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The higher the rank the more authority does not apply in the U.S. When Bush was president, Wikipedia did not suddenly declare that the world was created 6,000 years ago. TFD (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing related to Weiner or the investigation of him belongs in this article. As far as this article is concerned, it's a trivial matter. (Only far right conspiracy theorists care about Clinton's emails anyway). --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Only far right conspiracy theorists care about Clinton's emails anyway

I presume this is ironic. And why does the word seizure not appear in this article? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

bd2412 - The source is FBI Director James Comey in the NY Times article I linked above. He said, "... I am writing to supplement my previous testimony." He also stated, "I believe it is important to update your committees ..." But you can read the whole N.Y. Times article yourself so there is no ambiguity. Here is is again. I hope that helps. :) www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.83.76 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading the whole letter, it sounds to me like he's simply saying as he previously testified that the investigation was completely, he felt it was important to let them know he'd re-opened it. Our article obviously should mention the investigation was re-opened and this can include Comey updating his testimony but I think re-need to wait until we see how secondary sources respond to see whether it's a big deal before we go much further. Notably important (enough) to .. disrupt the Presidential election appears to be WP:OR. The alternative view is that Comey felt it was his duty to handle the investigation however he normally would (despite the allegations of Trump and his supports to the contrary) regardless of the persons involved. Aand recognised delaying the annoucement (of forgoing the investigatio) would be seen as allowing himself to be influenced by the politics/trying to help Hillary. While the contrary could happen, ultimately "this is what I would have done if there was no political mindfield" is difficult to counter. Anything involving national security is likely to be seen as important enough to require thorough investigation by the FBI. I'm sure others could come with yet more personal theories. In other words, until and unless Comey comments on his reasoning, we shouldn't mention or be influenced by OR of his reasoning. I guess if there is widespread discussion of his reasoning in secondary sources, we could mention that, but we'd need these first. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that there is broad difference of opinion on the importance of this development. I therefore propose that we open a request for comments to obtain the complete sense of the community on this. bd2412 T 15:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not another premature RfC. Just hold on a little and see what happens. It's already emerged in the 24 hours since this particular event that the new emails have more or less nothing to do with Clinton. Whether it becomes a campaign issue or just inaccurate news of the day won't be known. No point muddying things further with an RfC that is a month-long attempt to take a snapshot of a moving subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is the classic definition of recentism, and as someone mentioned above, a moving target. Not 24 hours from the first report, much conflicting information - especially regarding whether the investigation is "re-opened". Absolutely does not belong in the biography of her whole life at this point. No indication of whether this will have any impact on anything, let alone her life story. Not yet. Stop this - we don't need an RFC now, we don't add anything - just sit on your hands. I know it's hard, but do it. This is absurd. I agree with Wikidemon.Tvoz/talk 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a distinction between "recent" and "recentism." I hope when the election is decided no one will ask to exclude the results because of "recentism." The reality is that if we have an entire section of the email scandal, then we should mention that the investigation has been resumed. TFD (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous point, sorry. Of course the results of the election are not recentism, any more than reports of deaths and births are - things that are clear facts. Read WP:RECENTISM to explain this simple point. There has been no indication that this will amount to anything. Too soon to know, utterly wrong to include it now. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey just wrote the same talking point at another Clinton article and I will repeat what I said to them. Calling the statements of other people ridiculous may be an effective tactic on Reddit, but here it is just disruptive. It masks the fact you have no case and are resorting to an argumentum ad lapidem. A reasonable response would have explained how "recentism" relates to the information. It's not some sort of chant that makes unpalatable information go away. The email controversy is not "an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The Clinton campaign itself is a recent event and what happens in its final days is significant if it becomes the focus of the 24 hour news cycle. In a perfect world of course the mainstream media might have ignored the story, in which case we would have excluded it. TFD (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"The investigation" has not been "resumed". That is a fiction. Comey stepped out of line, tying an unrelated matter to Clinton, and is now receiving the appropriate scorn for the Department of Justice and the mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The criticism appears to come from Clinton and her surrogates. They were defending him last summer.

According to an article in the New York Times, "In a conference call with campaign surrogates...Clinton advisers asked them to push a coordinated message in news media interviews and with voters: that the F.B.I. investigation had not been reopened; that none of the new emails had emerged from Mrs. Clinton; that the F.B.I. had to release more details about its inquiry; and that they were concerned that Mr. Comey had taken this action." I was not in on the conference call, but this article should not be based on Clinton campaign talking points.

TFD (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comey's also being criticized by apolitical colleagues. Of course the Clinton campaign has a coordinated message. That's nothing new. The comments by former DOJ officials is clearly not a campaign talking point. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

They are not apolitical Peter Zeidenberg is a partner at DLA Piper the 5th largest donor to the Clinton campaign and served in the Obama administration. Nick Akerman is at Dorsey & Whitney, another Democratic law firm. Matthew Miller, according to the article, is "a former Justice Department and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman." Dan Richman was a federal prosecutor, which is a political appointment. TFD (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Being a partner at a law firm does not in anyway make a person political. That sounds like guilt by association. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Politics is about association. He and his associates decided jointly to be one of Clinton's largest donors and he has contributed individually as well.[6] Previously he was a federal prosecutor, which is a political appointment. Clearly he prefers Clinton over Trump. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it excludes one from being "apolitical," which is the claim Muboshgu made. TFD (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a real stretch. Besides, everybody prefers one politician over the other. It does not exclude everybody from being part of a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No it is not a "real stretch" to say that people who receive political appointments and contribute to political campaigns are not "apolitical." Also kindly do not misrepresent me. I did not say it does not exclude someone from being part of a reliable source. As you should be aware, I was replying to Muboshgu's statement "Comey's also being criticized by apolitical colleagues." Since we are discussing opinions, the issue is neutrality not reliability. BTW your comment that "everybody prefers one politician over the other" contradicts your support of describing commentators as "apolitical." I would be more impressed if you would present a coherent internally consistent argument rather than conflicting arguments hoping one of them will stick. TFD (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on who is apolitical or what is a stretch, but there is absolutely no basis for claiming that being a partner at a law firm makes one politically aligned with the law firm. That's not how partnerships work, and all sorts of POV problems lie that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography, yes, but it contains a multiple-paragraph section about the email investigations. That should definitely include a sentence or two about the latest development. There is no question that this is a big story, even if it winds up producing nothing of significance in the end. Here is one possible wording, adapted from the lede of the email controversy article: On October 28, 2016 Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case. Law enforcement officials stated the emails were found on an electronic device shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Nonsense. Even if it is a "big story", it is a big story for the Comey article, not the Clinton article. Please explain to me how, from the historical perspective, this email matter concerning someone other than Hillary Clinton, will end up being a significant detail in a biography covering her entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This may be the pinnacle of Comey's career, but any discussion of someone else's estranged husband would be ridiculous in the Hillary Clinton article. --Tataral (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It may, eventually, turn out to be more about Comey than anyone else. But for now, every Reliable Source in the country is treating it as a major headline story and as an item about Clinton, while her opponent has made it into a major focus of his recent speeches. We only look foolish by withholding it from this article and pretending it isn't happening. Worse, we leave readers in the dark when they come here to find out what the latest headlines are about. Straw in the wind: the article Hillary Clinton email controversy has gotten 100,000 pageviews in the last two days. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you have utterly failed to explain how this issue is significant to a biography of Clinton's entire life. This has gone beyond reasoned argument into blatant POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, I can see that you feel very strongly about this, but please don't accuse people you know nothing about of "blatant POV-pushing". You have no idea how I feel about this election, and I don't believe my editing here and at the Trump articles has shown any bias. The answer to your objection is simple, really too simple to need pointing out: this biographical article already contains a multiple-paragraph section about the email controversy. Obviously the email issue has long since been judged significant enough to include; that issue is settled, and there is no need to defend it all over again. Given that the section already exists, there is nothing POV about wanting to add an additional sentence to that section to bring it up to date. In fact, as TFD points out below, leaving that information out is misleading; it implies that the investigation ended in July. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring any editor conflict, the issue is not judged to be significant simply because the article has evolved in that way for the moment — the email controversy thing has grown unduly long and detailed. It may be worth a mention, somewhere between a passing mention and a career-ending issue, but we just don't know. The section definitely should be cut back, unless she loses the election and it is sourced as a leading cause. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That section has been in the article for many months, and in fact it used to be longer than it is now, so it hasn't exactly "evolved in that way for the moment." Its long-time presence indicates long-time consensus, and only consensus can remove it. We are not debating whether the section should be there or not. We are debating whether to give it a one-sentence update. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's way too long as it is, having accumulated far too much material. That's no argument for making it even longer. - Wikidemon (talk)

I don't think this Comey goof up deserves mention in this prominent biography. It belongs in the email controversy article as evidenced by MelanieN's pageview stat, with a brief mention in the campaign article. It is entirely unclear what connection, if any, there is the HRC, although that may change in the next day or so. - MrX 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If the email controversy is significant to her life, then so is the fact the investigation has resumed. Otherwise we are misleading readers into thinking the investigation ended with Comey's statement in July. That is not "blatant POV-pushing." TFD (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Hillary Clinton is now once again under criminal investigation by the FBI needs to be acknowledged clearly in the header of this article. I could not find it there. It is far more relevant to her biography than the more ephemeral chatter included there. If every page on Wikipedia is to be locked, perhaps you should go back to the Brittanica model of having, you know, people with actual credibility writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

But, she's not under an active criminal investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

She is. And the FBI is executing a search warrant, which is only available to them with cause. TFD (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's another fiction. The search warrant is not being executed against Hillary Clinton, but against Weiner and his poor wife. Saying Clinton is under active criminal investigation is an astonishing BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's Hillary guilt by association with Weiner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD, you undermine your own credibility when you make such a juxtaposition, implying that Clinton is the subject of a search warrant.- MrX 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

We continue to look like fools, or at the very least to mislead our readers, to have the "email controversy" section end with "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges." Now we are getting outside editors trying to add the new development (and getting reverted), because it so obviously needs to be there. After several days of discussion at the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign article, we added two sentences to the "email controversy" section which simply document the information released Friday, without any lurid detail, and without any attempt to follow the twists and turns the story has taken since them. IMO that is the minimum that needs to be there and it needs to be there now. Here is what we added:

On October 28, 2016 Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case, adding that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant". The emails were found on a Clinton aide's private computer in the course of an unrelated investigation.

References

I propose that the same two sentences be added to this article so that we don't mislead our readers by stating that the investigation is over, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How can we assign encyclopedic significance to something where the investigating agency says it doesn't even know whether there is any significance to it? bd2412 T 18:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How can we continue to state that the investigation ended in July? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The only evidence we have is Comey's letter, which does not contradict the previous closure of the investigation. It merely says that there may be something else out there of unknown significance, being looked at in a different investigation of a different person. bd2412 T 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the course of cutting down the section by about 50%, particularly a lot of the back-and-forth arguments and developments that have since been settled, we should probably correct the seemingly inaccurate statement that the investigation was "closed", and possibly mention in half a sentence that at present the FBI is reviewing an additional batch of not previously reviewed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't even know if that is true. Basically, what we know is that the FBI is looking at Anthony Weiner's emails, and, having no idea what is in them, speculating that there could be something connected to someone connected to the article subject. bd2412 T 18:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't get into the closed-or-not-closed debate. We just need to document what the FBI director said. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

So far, I've seen no citations that suggest discussion of Comey's letter to Congress is appropriate for this article. A BLP is not the appropriate venue for posting breaking news of uncertain significance. Ultimately, if, after the election, the majority opinion of reliable sources is that the letter was a material factor in HRC being elected or not, then it would pass muster as being biographically significant. Cinteotl (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. There's no evidence this matter is biographically significant whatsoever. I should also add that the current wording that says "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges," remains accurate. While it is true that the FBI is looking at some possibly related emails, it is not true that the Justice Department is. The DOJ's probe remains closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The FBI is under the Justice Department. If the FBI is investigating, by default so is the DOJ. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/justice-department-pledges-quick-work-on-renewed-clinton-email-probe-230552 The Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ even said they are working with the FBI to make it quick. So it does not appear that the case is closed. I would at least suggest correcting the wording to reflect that the investigation is still ongoing. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What we know is that an investigation of Anthony Weiner is ongoing. bd2412 T 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In Comey's letter to congress he said "the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails" soon after he said in a letter to FBI employees saying "This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them." Also noting that he felt obligated to tell congress, since he testified previously the investigation was complete. So while they were investigating Anthony Weiner, they found emails they think are related to the Clinton probe. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly not the same as this being an investigation of Hillary Clinton herself, since the email investigation encompassed people other than Clinton herself. bd2412 T 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The investigation mentioned in the Email controversy section of the article has restarted according the Comey and the DOJ. Also that section mentions Clinton or her colleagues. I am just saying that section of the article should reflect the fact the investigation no longer closed. I think the purposed wording above corrects the error. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly open to an RFC on the question. bd2412 T 02:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is no evidence this is biographically significant enough to feature in an article of Clinton's entire life, particularly as it centers around a third party and not Clinton herself. No amount of hand wringing over language will alter this salient detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What is being purposed is fixing an error in the existing section, not creating a new secton. There is a line in the article that is factually incorrect, why would we not fix a known error? The only question is the wording of the fix at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not true. What exists in the article is factually correct according to reliable sources. Remember, BLPs are written from the historical perspective. There is nothing to suggest recent developments may prove to be important enough to alter the outcome of the concluded investigation and rise to the level of biographical significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"FBI's Comey clears Clinton after round-the-clock review of new emails", as expected. Perhaps now we can close this thread and move on? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, but I just reverted an addition to the article regarding exactly that. Since the matter was closed quickly, and with an almost anti-climactic restatement of the earlier finding of innocence, it hardly seems like this blip belongs in the article. bd2412 T 23:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source. Police do not make make findings of innocence, they determine that there is insufficient evidence to indict. And yes the fact that additional emails came to light after Comey's original findings, causing him to resume his investigation, is part of the narrative of the investigation. TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the investigation, but not so relevant to her life. We don't give a play-by-play of the investigation in this article, that's why we have the spinoff article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was about to add something myself, but thought I would look here first. I'm astonished to find people still saying that these two letters should be omitted from our article. They were front page news for days, first raising questions and then settling them, and there is no question they affected the polls; we don't yet know if they will affect the election. IMO we are depriving our readers by pretending none of this ever happened. I propose to add, with appropriate references, On October 28, 2016, Comey informed Congress that the FBI had discovered emails in an unrelated case that might be relevant to their investigation of the Clinton email issue. In a second letter on November 6, Comey said they had completed their review of the new material, and it did not change their earlier conclusion that no charges should be filed. That's about as brief and neutral as you can possibly make it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"front page news for days": WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: If mentioned at all, I'd cut it to less than half that. "Additional emails discovered an unrelated case in October 2016 were reviewed, and announced on November 6, 2016 not to affect the earlier conclusion". At most. bd2412 T 00:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, probably not worth mentioning at all at this point. Kind of why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTIVISM in the first place, best to see how events play out rather than being in a rush to add everything to to an article. If anything comes of it, we'll know later. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There's clearly no biographical significance here, and even less so now that it is clear it was much ado about nothing. The only place this belongs is Hillary Clinton email controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham senior thesis

There have been calls to delete or merge this article before on its talk page. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Rodham senior thesis. Emily Goldstein (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

Hillary lied about benghazi and her emails. JoeKlein12 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Reopening of the Email investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why no mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See the section above titled Language on "reopening" of FBI investigation. Or, better yet, Hillary Clinton email controversy, where it's more relevant. clpo13_(talk) 18:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, concerning any controversies, both this article and Donald Trump should be left alone, until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It is unlikely, at this point, that any editing controversies arising between now in the election would be settled within a week anyway. bd2412 T 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There are currently 700 words in the article about the email controversy, concluding, "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges." Leaving the section that way is misleading, because the FBI found additional emails and resumed the investigation. Even most pro-Hillary news source would not have an article summarizing the controversy and fail to mention that the investigation has resumed. Instead of suppressing the facts, as we are doing, they spin it into a personal attack on the FBI director. I know that the Clinton campaign talking point is that the investigation has not been re-opened, and of course technically that is true. But they are still talking about it. TFD (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether "technically" true or not, I struggle to come up with text that concisely encompasses the amorphous nature of the information that is presently available. What we know is that Anthony Weiner has a device with emails on it. Are these emails pertinent to another investigation? No one knows, because they have not been looked at. Therefore, the question boils down to a) whether it is worth mentioning in the biography of the subject speculation with an as-yet unknown relationship to that biography; and b) how would we phrase such a mention to make it clear that there is nothing there from which to draw a conclusion? bd2412 T 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. And to echo what others have said there is no deadline. We can certainly afford to wait and see what relevance, if any, this new discovery has of lasting biographical importance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we not have two separate threads on this, please? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

adding religion

proposal to add in infobox: christianity(methodism) which is HRC's religion . for some reason certain users such as Scjessey are opposed to adding this. does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@74tyhegf: Apparently there was a consensus established that religious affiliation should not be in infoboxes for politicians(I don't have the link handy, but I'm sure someone will) as it is often too fluid and nonspecific. which is precisely the wrong type of information for infoboxes. To do what you want, you will have to change the established consensus on that matter. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps religon on obama, bill clinton, mitt romney, john mccain and many others pages should be deleted? it does seem like hillary is, in fact, one of the odd ones out..... 74tyhegf (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on this talk page about this matter is archived here. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I will delete religion from the two Bushes, Obama, and Bill Clinton. I will cite back to this page for authority.--maslowsneeds🌈 00:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

After I deleted religion from the GWB info box, my deletion was reverted due to no such policy that bans religion from the infoboxes for politicians. Therefore, religion does belong in infoboxes of politicians.--maslowsneeds🌈 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming consensus to exclude this parameter in these cases in this Village Pump RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That has not been consistently applied (many pages such as george bush, mitt romney etc. still have religion), so we should reach a consensus here before taking any unilateral action. 74tyhegf (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't trump wider community discussion (which the village pump certainly is). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in some local consensus is allowed for religion in infoboxes. The RfC result is to remove religion from politicians' infoboxes except where the religion is significant to the person's notability. That may not be the exact statement. But a local consensus could form, consistent with the RfC, that a politician is known for their religion. Anyway, that exception doesn't apply here. Clinton is not notable for being Methodist. Many of the articles that still retain the religious field are going against the RfC, not making a deliberate exception. So it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't entirely feel that the generic RfC is appropriate for politicians, especially those in a country like the US where religion is so highly politicized. Clinton's religion is both notable and relevant information in the public interest, and so there is a strong case for it being in the infobox (as it is for Bush, Trump, etc.) While I don't have a strong opinion on whether it belongs in an infobox (or just discussed in the article), I lean slightly to the view that this is summary information that will be important to some readers, and therefore should be in the infobox. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. In point of fact, the US Constitution should mean that the religious affiliation of a politician is irrelevant. In the few cases where it might have inflated importance, like all the squabbling over Barack Obama, it should be covered in the body of the article. We have learned from experience that religious affiliations in infoboxes are constantly altered, even edit warred. The global consensus should be followed here, since Hillary's religious affiliation is of little significance. And even if we do end up with an overriding local consensus, per the global consensus it should remain out of the infobox until such a local consensus is established. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:EGRS seems rather clear here. Her religion isn't a major component of her politics. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Claim of editorializing

Perhaps Ajax1995 can explain this reversion more fully? Since it is attributed to a respected journalist from a reliable source, how can the edit summary of "WP:EDITORIALIZING Multiple issues; Biased information, blatant violation NPOV, not encyclopaedic value. No article, No entry. UNACCEPTABLE: "Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs". Please save it to Univision/Telemundo" be justified? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lots of respected journalists like Hillary Clinton and some do not. What is the significance of this particular opinion piece? Btw, you also quote, ""Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her." You would need to specify what happens. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To add comments by some journalists is very useful (respected or not much), but this sentence, in specific, sounds too promotional, misplaced comments for an encyclopaedia, it seems like some Clinton´s presidential campaing ad; tomorrow is the presidential election, and Wikipedia must maintain the "Neutrality" and avoid biased content, besides the sentence is too vague/imprecise, "no clarity", Not encyclopaedic value at all. Salutes Ajax1995 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't my area of Wiki-expertise, but I agree with the above comments. I tend to be quite tentative when it comes to opinion essay-like and/or informally-toned news articles, because they don't give us much to work with in a Wikipedia article. On top of this, uncompromised neutrality is top-importance in an article about a current major presidential candidate; if we wish to include all significant viewpoints on Hillary, we have to use reliable sources (from e.g. reliable news services) that are formally written and reflect all viewpoints and are therefore neutral. The use of essay-like news articles, unless those articles are particularly notable, isn't helpful. As far as this particular news article and the use of it as a source goes, it falls under the essay-like and informally-toned categories, and therefore doesn't offer much to work with. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was seeking an explanation for the complete mischaracterization in the edit summary, first and foremost. The excuse given for the removal of this content was completely invalid, because it suggested the content was written in Wikipedia's voice, thus casting aspersions on whomever added it (not me, by the way). As to the content itself, it provided context for what preceded it:

Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again. By September 2015, with her 2016 presidential campaign underway and beset by continued reports regarding her private email usage at the State Department, her ratings had slumped to some of her lowest levels ever. During 2016 she acknowledged that: "I'm not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed." Journalist Indira A. R. Lakshmanan, who has covered Clinton extensively both as a presidential candidate and as secretary of state, believes that Clinton's persona is almost completely different in the two roles and that while Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs, "Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her.

With that context missing, the paragraph seems incomplete. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems UNDUE to me. A journalist's opinion should not appear in another person's biographical article. It doesn't matter if the journalist is prominent or not--an opinion is still an opinion. The only place where it could potentially appear would be in the journalist's own biographical article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing it - even though the rationale in the edit summary is invalid and POV. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does the email controversy section need a screen capture of HRC speaking at a press conference?

The image added to the email controversy section by Triggerhippie4 adds nothing informational to the article. It's not an illustration of an email controversy. I would like to see what other editors think.- MrX 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove - I don't see any value added by it. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove. Adds nothing unique to the article. Shearonink (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of removed content

I see, the speculative sentence about the first female thing has been restored, never before such sentence had been included in the lede until the last hours, just, right now in the election day, when the things must be neautral here in wikipedia. Potential winner or not, this is speculative information; I don´t see these kind of statements are included in the Donald Trump´s lead; or even in the past, in the past election day I don´t see things like that: Obama will become the first black president after hundred of years in the USA; please revisit in the future if she were to be elected. Ajax1995 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it breaches WP:NPOV or is speculative; it merely states a fact. It's not an "opinion" that Clinton will be the first female U.S. president if she wins the 2016 election, and it's not as if it implies she will or will not win the election. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, per WP:Crystal ball. In the same manner, there are many reliable third-party sources about her prospective impeachment if she becomes president (see this, this, etc...), but I think this would be equally premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh puh-lease, what does this have to do with WP:CRYSTALBALL??? IF she is elected THEN she will be the first female US president. There is absolutely nothing speculative about that statement nor does it make any predictions. Come on people! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never understood why people insist on leaving this obvious and important fact out of the lede - that if elected she would be the first female president of the U.S. - but it has been discussed here before and consensus seemed to be to leave it out. Go figure. To me it is obvious that it should be there, but by the time we could get a new consensus, the issue will be settled. So let it go for now. If she wins, presumably we can then add "first female president elect" or "will be the first female president" to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL to say Hillary would be the first female head of state/govt in the U.S. if she wins. It's not CRYSTAL to say Trump would be the oldest ever president if he wins. Those are both facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue of her prospective impeachment should she become president is backed up by a lot of RS, and it was mentioned by President Obama. Perhaps it is already due. But is it easier for you if we create a separate topic discussion about this? Both are speculative in my opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Impeached before she's even elected. Gotta love the Republican obstructionist Senate. That would belong in Presidency of Hillary Clinton, if it actually moves towards an impeachment. Otherwise it's just red meat for the base and we don't indulge in that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we create a separate topic discussion? The current heading is confusing. She will never be the first female head of state; I guess one could argue Cleopatra was? First US female president perhaps. With regards to her prospective impeachment, as I said, it seems due as per weight of RS; it was even mentioned by Obama.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject here. It is whether to include "would be the first female president of the U.S." in the lede. "Impeachment" is a total red herring. Even if "threats to impeach" were to be added to the article (which I would oppose) it would certainly not go in the lede. Anyhow this whole discussion is a waste of time. As I pointed out above, within 24 hours (God willing) we will know whether she is the first female president-elect, or not. We are not going to get consensus to include it before then so let's just drop it, can we? --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Both are WP:Crystal ball. Why don't you think her prospective impeachment, should she become president, is significant? The American people may be voting for President Kaine without knowing it. (Again, WP:Crystal ball though). But the weight of reliable third-party sources, and the fact that President Obama has talked about it, would appear to make it relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not gonna waste any more time on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The article already says that she was the first female major party nominee, which seems to make the added text redundant. bd2412 T 19:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

She lost

Can we please spell it out in the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead already says Clinton won the popular vote but was defeated in the Electoral College by her Republican rival Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. clpo13_(talk) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This sounds POV to me. It sounds like an attempt to make it sound like she didn't really lose. She did.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stating the facts is not POV. Anyone remotely familiar with American politics knows what that statement means. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First, it is inappropriate to have this statement when all of the votes have yet to be counted. Second, the source must be changed regardless. The sources states:

"The Democratic candidate looks almost certain to win the popular vote, with the final ballots left to be counted. The margin is small – with only 0.2 percentage points between the two candidates – but Ms Clinton is winning and looks set to continue to do so."

It follows that the article is not "[s]tating the facts," as you suggest. "[A]lmost certain to win" does not equate with 'has won.' And with a 0.2 percentage difference, this statement is very, very premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.208.111 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flip the electoral college and popular votes part. The electoral college is the more important part. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's backwards. That's not the way to put it. It should say something like "Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, although she narrowly won the popular vote." --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should just say she won. We can include the popular vote v. electoral vote in the final paragraph. Otherwise foreign readers are bound to be confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's wording. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec)On second thought I don't think the popular vote should be in the lede at all. Confusing to non-Americans. It should just say who won. Add the popular vote to the "general election" section after it is finalized. (In other words I agree with Zigzig.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, can someone please update the lede as per consensus then? I edited it once in the last 24 hours, so I can't.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning the popular vote is undue in the lead. It should be mentioned in the body however. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a highly notable historical fact, and has been mentioned in the lede of the comparable Al Gore article for as long as that article has existed - "Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College". bd2412 T 20:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I suggest a compromise of just saying she lost in the first paragraph, and mentioning the popular vote v. electoral college issue in the last paragraph of the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Gore and Clinton ledes on this point. Gore's is written in the active voice for the win and the loss. Clinton's is written in active voice for the win and passive voice for the loss. I'm not sure whether it's a substantive issue.Jthept (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the popular vote stuff only makes an already excessively long lede even longer, and adds undue weight to the statement. It is confusing to those who are not familiar with the American system, and, due to it being quite irrelevant, gives it the appearance of not being of a neutral point of view.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think our handling of the matter should be consistent with Al Gore and Samuel J. Tilden. bd2412 T 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please add "she lost" to the first paragraph of the lede? Most readers won't scroll down.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:OPENPARA, the first paragraph is meant to establish a person's notability. She's not notable for losing an election. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about not mentioning the vote or electorate count in the first paragraph. It was a close election but not extremely or notably so, and most other articles about Presidents, foreign heads of state, and other politicians do not describe the vote margins in the first sentence of the lede. I don't think any reader of Wikipedia for the next hundred years would get confused as to whether she won the election if the first sentence says that she was the Democratic nominee for President without mentioning that she became President. However, we could say something like "she ran unsuccessfully for president as the Democratic nominee". That's a little awkward, but something like that works too. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. She's notable for being FLOTUS, Senator, Sec State. Not for losing the nomination in 2008 and the general in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It is perfectly notable that she lost two presidential bids.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not listening to what we're saying. Of course we include that she lost two presidential elections, but we don't say she lost in the opening paragraph. McCain and Romney's bios mention in their opening paragraph that they were presidential nominees, but it says nothing about whether they won or lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That is true - look at Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and John McCain (each of whom, incidentally, also lost two presidential bids). They are good models to follow here. bd2412 T 22:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave it out as. It's not among the most noteworthy facts about the subject. Al Gore seems to be a good model for how this should be treated in the lead.- MrX 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that this is the most important aspect of her career: she tried to break the 'glass ceiling' (as she puts it), and lost. Also, why don't we say she was First Lady in the first paragraph?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We need to mention first that she lost and I do not think "won the popular vote" is accurate. She won more votes than Trump. But that should be mentioned because we want to know how close it was. Johnson, Stein, McMullin and many people I can't name were also losing candidates and it is relevant and we want to know how well she did. TFD (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she lost the election is mentioned in the lead. There's no reason to put it in the first paragraph. clpo13_(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the first time a First Lady tried to run for president and lost twice.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that makes much difference. Mitt Romney was the first Mormon to run for president and lose twice. John McCain was the first Vietnam POW to run for president and lose twice. bd2412 T 23:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. This thread might as well be called "What's the best way to spike the ball and dance in the endzone?" The fact that she lost isn't really worthy of the lede, and certainly not the beginning of the lede. The fact that she ran twice is of value. Personally, I think the specifics of how she lost (she'll win the popular vote by millions, but barely lose the Electoral College) is better explored in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Millions"? Still shilling? Even CNN ([47.7%-47.5%.]), which operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election, has her "winning" the popular vote at 47.7%-47.5%. Yeah, 0.2%. That's about a difference of 200,000 out of a total of 120,000,000. As for "barely" losing the election itself, it was 279 to 228. It wasn't even close. Get a hold of yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Look people. The only thing that matters is whether sources say "she won the popular vote but lost the election", all of your opinions are really irrelevant here. So... [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] ... and EVERY OTHER freakin' news organization.

Also, here is Al Gore's article: " Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush"

Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forget that nobody's opinion here matters but your own. That and Scjessey (talk · contribs)'s, right? Seriously, many of us have had to deal with your ideological, pro-Clinton and pro-DNC editing for months, and now you're trying to do this? Have some dignity. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

4 paragraph rule in lead?

Yes, she lost and all, but I want to bring our attention please, to the 6 paragraphs in the lead? We need to keep neutral here, we need to stick to the rules of ALL our articles, and we need to reduce this to the standard 4 paragraphs. Does anyone want to start collapsing some of this?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we could easily delete "She favored allowing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanding and protecting LGBT and women's rights, and instituting family support through paid parental leave and universal preschool". It sounds like campaign advertising.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we couldn't easily delete these, since they were absolutely central to her campaign and philosophy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No drama. Solved. Just collapsed a couple of paragraphs into each other instead.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Retirement

Shall we start a retirement section? Has she disclosed what she intends to do?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A post-election section should be added once something happens post-election. However thus far, her last public actions were campaign-related. She'll probably retire, but we haven't heard word yet.   Spartan7W §   22:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if she intends to give more private speeches, and if the Clinton Foundation will be dismantled.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why it would be. Based on Trump's post-election comments, he's not going to do anything about it. bd2412 T 23:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the FBI still investigating the CF?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Was it ever, really? bd2412 T 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"We already know the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation (some reports say the investigation is stalled, others say it is still active), so is this information being looked into? There are still so many unanswered questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not unless she says she's retiring. On "Between Two Ferns" (I know, I know), she said that if Trump won, she'd continue fighting. Vague as that is, I doubt she'll simply fade away. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sure she will be doing something hence retirement would be incorrect. She may run again. TFD (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we add the FBI investigation to the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Pantsuits

Really surprised not to see a mention of one of her primary symbols here (cf. Pantsuit Nation). A good source that goes in depth: http://www.racked.com/2015/4/13/8371145/hillary-clinton-pantsuits  czar 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her Chairman Mao unisex outfits are a major part of her appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.199.0 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I also see no mention of Trump's ill-fitting suits or his choices in neckwear (or even his trademark red hat) at Donald Trump. Can we not devolve into fashion commentary? General Ization ^Talk 03:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The line "In November, Clinton lost the general election to Republican Donald Trump." bothers me. You can say I'm a bit biased, but every credible media outlet has described it as a stunning and historical defeat considering Trump's odds. Again, food for thought since I speak in a partisan manner. Point is, I would like some opinions on how to expand that a bit considering it was probably the most consequential & significant race of her life.. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a "surprise upset" would be appropriate if sourced with relevant articles. The most conservative model, fivethirtyeight, gave her 70% by election morning, others 80,90% and above. I do think it is prudent, but measured.   Spartan7W §   04:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

victory in popular vote

It should be mentioned more explicitly with a dedicated headline that Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote. This is huge and historic and must not be forgotten. (Misrepresentations of popular majority and presidents only happened 5 times in USA history so far).David P Minde (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another thread on this? Yes, if after all the votes are counted that turns out to be true, then that is worth a 5-10 word mention in the section that analyzes the election. We are not there yet. And as I have said above, the notability of people who did not win presidential elections is not not really a matter of how and why they did not lose the election, but the fact that they lost. - Wikidemon (talk)

That's sort of like saying that we can't say she "lost" the election until the electoral college actually votes. And of course it matters HOW she lost! Winning the popular vote and losing the election is a big deal, come on, you're not gonna sit there and pretend otherwise! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough already. The candidate you've been supporting by way of ridiculously POV and ideological edits for months flatly lost the election. Knock it off with the absurd puffery. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's no reason to wait for the complete results, just as there is no reason to wait for the EC to formally push Trump over 270. I could go along with a compromise that says that she is "projected to win the popular vote" or "will very likely win the popular vote" to reflect the language that reliable sources are using. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her winning the popular vote is obviously going to be mentioned both in the lead and in the body, at least once the results are final/official (but I don't object to include it now per other editors' rationales above). She appears to be winning with a huge margin, much bigger than Al Gore won the popular vote with, which was also a huge issue back in 2000. In any other country the person winning the most votes would be considered to have legitimately won the election, and the debate about the bizarre US election system has already started. Her winning the popular vote is already a huge issue extensively covered in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Elections aren't decided in the United States by the popular vote. When this happened with Gore v. Bush, the same questions were asked then and absolutely nothing came of it. This sort of dialogue is pretty pointless until anyone makes a serious attempt at changing the system. This has yet to happen—even after eight years of Bush. And here we are with Trump. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. This just makes the Democrats sound like sore losers. She lost. End of story.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrase it as Clinton lost the 2016 election although she did win the popular vote. Putting it as "Despite winning the popular vote ..." is a fairly strong POV push. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be phrased neutrally, as in: she received the most votes, but fewer delegates to the electoral college than her opponent. --Tataral (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)