Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

New email issue - reversion explanation

I've reverted additions to the article that concern today's letter to Congress from James Comey about emails from Huma Abedin using Weiner's laptop. There's no indication that the matter has become a "campaign issue", and so little information is actually known about the matter it is a textbook example of recentism. Let's monitor the story, and let it develop at Hillary Clinton email controversy. If it becomes a campaign issue, we can revisit the matter with some proposed text on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose the reversion. The whole campaign is recentist; RS suggest it is a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised you would have this opinion. While the facts of the matter are backed up by reliable sources, their relevance to the campaign is not. Sources are all now saying the emails are inconsequential, so I was absolutely right to be concerned about recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources tend to disagree with your assessment, for example:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into newly discovered emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s just 11 days before the presidential election, reigniting a massive controversy that has haunted the Clinton campaign for months.".

Revesz, Rachael (October 28, 2016). "FBI in new Hillary Clinton email investigation 11 days before presidential election". The Independent. Retrieved October 29, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose reversion this is clearly a big issue, it is blatant chicanery to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• 74tyhegf, your restoration of the text violates WP:BRD. Please self revert and discuss sensibly, preferably without accusing editors of "blatant chicanery" and focusing on the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly a campaign issue, so the wholesale removal of the topic is inappropriate. However, much of the detailed information in the news coverage comes from FBI leaks. This, is, in effect, use of anonymous primary sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You have not answered my point about recentism, which was the basis for the reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Emails Found in Weiner Inquiry Jolt Race" is The New York Times headline. "Recentism" is not a valid reason to revert well-sourced information, ..."up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think the material should be restored. It is well sourced, it is neutral, it is brief, and the information certainly has become a campaign issue. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey has not explained how recentism applies. The story is dominating the 24 hour news cycle in the last days of the campaign. Put it back. TFD (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Er... that's a pretty dumb statement. Did you actually read recentism? "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view..." et al. What we have here is an event that just happened and that we know very little about. It is irresponsible to put it into the article, particularly with all sources now suggesting it is a Nothing Burger. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, calling the statements of other people dumb 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) 20:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Recentism does not apply here. Comey’s letter has been characterized as historical by most sources and because of the unprecedented release it will surely be noteworthy for many years. Leaving the Email section ending with “The probe was concluded on July 5, 2016, with a recommendation of no charges” is wrong in light of the reopening of the investigation. Calling it a “Nothing Burger” is just wishful thinking among Clinton supporters. I restored the material with reliable source and tagged the section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is a WP:BRD issue, and just saying "recentism doesn't apply here" doesn't make it so. Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton, unless you count a "six degrees of separation" situation, and Wikipedia does not do guilt by association. This is a matter for the Comey article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton???

Read the Headlines

NYT

Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

CNBC

FBI probing new emails related to Clinton case

Washington Post

Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry

New emails disprove Clinton’s story

USATODAY

New emails under review in Clinton case emerged from Weiner probe

WSJ

FBI Reviewing Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Server Probe

CNET

FBI uncovers new Clinton emails relating to server case

PBS

10 things we learned about Clinton’s emails from the new FBI documents

Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Those are dated sources, largely. The new information that has come to light (which is one of the reasons why WP:RECENT is a thing) indicates it has nothing to do with Clinton or her campaign. Please stop cherry picking. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have consensus apart from the clinton whipping boy so im going to go ahead and add relevant information. saying "sources" or "reliable sources" back up your point is ridiculous when you dont even provide the sources you are supposedly referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And I've given you the appropriate warning for edit warring. I'll ignore that disgusting personal attack just this once. And I don't have to provide sources to prove a negative. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be consensus about adding it. This is edit warring. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

dude, you just said "Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton". so put up or shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

'“This is like an eighteen-wheeler smacking into us, and it just becomes a huge distraction at the worst possible time,” said Donna Brazile, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a close Clinton ally.' NYT User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that it will probably be relevant to the campaign. Even if it dies out and goes away tomorrow, say, because the FBI were to say that it has nothing to do with Clinton and no new privileged emails were found, the fact that it happened might still be of enough relevance to mention. However, we do not yet know what to say about it, that picture has changed every few hours. Which is kind of the point of WP:NOT#NEWS. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is clearly, at best, a "wait and see" situation. This article is meant to represent an overview of the entire campaign, and it would seem that this is of extraordinarily low significance in the grand scheme of things. And the sudden flood of editors who have not been active here for a long time is an indication that the good of the project may not be their first concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey - so using mainstream media is cheery picking; and you have [secrete] sources that show it has nothing to do with Clinton; and the flood of editors shows their intent is not good. Wow! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good analysis of this matter by The NYT. Probably more detail than we want in the article now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Leading off on Washington Journal on C-SPAN today. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Vox puts everything into perspective. It is a Comey story, not a Clinton story. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign 2016 issue. That's what it is. Even the BBC agrees.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree to "wait and see". Unrelated case resulted in FBI’s discovery (on hardware shared by Clinton aide and aide’s sleazy spouse) of emails that may or may not be emails sent from or to Clinton’s private email server and - if so - may or may not have not been vetted by the FBI in earlier investigation and - if not - should or should not have been classified as "confidential/restricted/classified etc." and - if they should have been - possible violation of law or not. Vaguely worded FBI announcement resulted in 24-hour breathless Breaking News headlines reporting on "unrelated case resulting in FBI’s discovery etc. pp.". May or may not be connected to email controversy. May or may not transform into information at some point in the future. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR. Instead, reliable third-party sources suggest this is absolutely relevant to her campaign. Even HRC talked about it in a speech.--Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this information should be added with emphasis on the campaign's response. ^Falling_Gravity 16:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No OR involved, just content from reliable sources boiled down to the facts known so far (the Vox piece cited above, also Kurt Eichenwald's Newsweek piece on 10/29/16, among others). I just don't see how this is even a Clinton email story, much less a Clinton campaign story at the moment, or how it could be worded to make it encyclopedic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would support adding information about this issue (obviously), but I'd oppose referring to where the texts came from (the whole Weiner thing). Sourcing a rather serious claim (that Weiner may have been involved in this scandal) can't be sourced to "anonymous sources" as per WP:BLP. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Correct. as above, sourced in FBI leaks. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

All the Sunday morning news talk shows were devoted to this topic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Morning Joe this morning. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Add it. Add it now. Currently our paragraph on the email controversy ends with "The probe was concluded on July 5, 2016, with a recommendation of no charges, a decision that was followed by the Justice Department." That is misleading - virtually false - given the recent development. If we don't update this with a sentence, we are guilty of misleading readers. And nobody has come up with a valid reason for suppressing it, just a vague wave toward WP:Recentism which obviously does not apply here (and which BTW is an essay, not policy). --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. At this point there is clear consensus to add something - nine people in favor, three or possibly four against. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I propose the following sentence be added to the end of the email controversy section: But 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".

References

I think this is the minimal information that should be added; more could be said, particularly about the reaction of the campaigns or the effect on the campaign (since this is the campaign article), but let's keep it to a sentence for now. The word "But" is optional; we can leave it out if people think it is somehow non-neutral. Please comment - should we add this, or tweak this wording, or not add anything? --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded Add that the case was reopened, and debate further wording and details. The question of inclusion itself seems fairly self evidently open-and-shut give the sheer weight of coverage the matter has received. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Looks good For a start. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is the wrong article for such speculative recentism. Hillary Clinton email controversy is the only place this matter deserves coverage for the time being, unless it can be shown at a later date that this has had a significant impact on the presidential campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Per MN, the new information makes the prior/current wording simply wrong. Also, per WP:DUE, the relevant metric is the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, not the relative impact on the campaign. TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Huh? My opposition has nothing to do with prior/current wording. It has to do with the fact that to date, it has little relevancy to the campaign, so this is the wrong article to cover it. No evidence has emerged that it has changed voter opinions, or changed the way the campaign has functioned. This is a story about Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin and James Comey, and it is not yet a story about the Clinton campaign, and may never be. This is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that an overwhelming majority of the coverage appears to think it is indeed an issue about the Clinton campaign. So your opinion about the true nature of the story is duly noted, but does not however appear to be particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The case was not "re-opened" as the FBI does not "close" cases, in case new evidence comes up later. This seems to be more about Huma so far than Hillary, at least until the emails have been reviewed. Agree with Scjessey above. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is true. The proposed wording does not say "re-opened". --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood states above "Add that the case was reopened". 331dot (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of another. My point is that given the coverage, the material is due, and should be added to correct the current wording which is incorrect as a summary of the conclusion of email related issues. However, we should add what is minimally required to correct this, and gain consensus on further details. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So, 331dot, given that the proposed wording does not say "reopened", which I agree it should not say - are you now OK with adding it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you could say that I oppose adding it at this time, at least until the emails have been reviewed and we know what is going on. The article on this whole scandal, I believe, is the better place to mention all of this until then. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a moving target. Every few hours the issue changes. As of the moment, a mention would have to frame Comey's statement as something unprecedented and controversial, that the Clinton campaign jumped on. Also that it did not bear on the substance of the email issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, it is that aspect of this issue that is probably the only thing that is relevant to this campaign article. There's some back and forth from the mainstream media about the reaction of the campaign to Comey's faux pas. The reaction of the campaign may end up being the notable aspect of Comey's gaffe that might get it into the article. It's still early days though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - It's brief, relevant, WP:DUE, and it doesn't speculate about possible outcomes.- MrX 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The brevity and ambiguity of the FBI's letter is what makes it a campaign issue, and is why it has dominated news coverage over the weekend. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of reverting everyone who tries to mention this bombshell, allow something to be added to the article, then discuss better wording here. It's been almost three days since this major news hit Clinton's campaign like a ton of bricks, and it's a little silly that every mention of it being added to the article is being removed. TweedVest (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a proposal under discussion. Please don't circumvent that discussion by inserting your own preferred version into the article. - MrX 17:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't "subvert" the discussion. Once a consensus is reached you just replace it. You don't think it's silly that three days after one of the biggest bombshells of this election campaign, it's not even mentioned in the article yet? Wikipedia doesn't work. TweedVest (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Generally, changes to an article are tabled while a discussion is ongoing regarding consensus for those changes. This is the case with very few exceptions, such as apparent WP:BLP or WP:CV violations, which this is not. TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• If that's the case, you just confirmed for me that Wikipedia fundamentally does not work. TweedVest (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Okay? TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above there were nine people in favor of adding something and three (possibly four) against mentioning it. In the discussion about this particular wording, we have five in favor and two (possibly three) opposed. Are we at consensus to add it yet? --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a decent consensus to me.- MrX 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Put me in the include column. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to represent current status of this affair, MelanieN. — JFG ^talk 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall, I find the argument that it should be included in the main article unconvincing, since it already is, and the section is intended to be a summary thereof. There has been little or no substantive argument that I can tell to the effect that a single sentence to summarize three paragraphs in the main is somehow undue, which is the core issue. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added it. We now have information in the article that the FBI is looking into newly discovered emails which may or may not be significant. I would propose we leave it at that until the effect on the campaign, if any, becomes clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support Certainly we must mention that the investigation has been resumed. TFD (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support It is obvious that there is overwhelming consensus to add the Comly letter to this article. Minority objections of “Recentism” and it has “nothing to do with the campaign” have been considered and rejected. I agree with most editors that references to Weiner/Abedin should not be included because they are attributed to anonymous sources. I agree that we should refrain from using terms like “reopen” etc. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I can't say that there has been consensus here, not after 72 hours of a few editors debating a rapidly changing narrative. It's pretty obvious that this is relevant in some way or another to the campaign, although we cannot be sure now what that is or whether the current wording is fair. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't think that we have a consensus. For now, I have removed the introductory "but" which IMO is definitely non-neutral, i.e., editor stating personal opinion. I've also added how and where the emails were discovered, per the source. Adding the sentence without this info that the source reviews at length IMO is also non-neutral, i.e., the sentence seemingly suggesting that someone was hiding the emails somewhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a well written addition. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We still don't have a consensus, and MelanieN has jumped the gun (as usual) and put it into the article; however, in the interests of article stability I am not going to remove it unless it is agreed here that we should. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

At the time I added it, the discussion about this particular wording had seven in favor, two (possibly three) opposed. Based on discussion since I added it, it is now nine in favor, four opposed. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Two-to-one should suffice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work that way. Consensus is an evolving agreement among editors about things. We don't take spot polls to lock in the wording of articles. That's like saying that Hillary Clinton has consensus to win the electoral college nine-to-four because the first 72 hours of write-in ballots gave her that advantage. As long as this issue and the reliable sources describe it continue to unfold, we can and should accept that editors may differ as to how to describe it. The outcome of the election, only seven days away now, will make a significant difference in how this is treated, as would the FBI's eventual decision to investigate, not investigate, make recommendations, or simply go dark as they usually do, as well as whether the FBI director stays on or is drummed out over it, whether it creates a new precedent for federal investigators making announcements, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the wording discussed should stay forever and always regardless of how events unfold. TimothyJosephWood 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But plenty of people are arguing we shouldn't have anything until it becomes clear how significant is. As usual, there are editors who simply can't wait to shove stuff into the article that will reflect poorly on its subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe there were three. Despite what you might believe, most experienced editors make decisions based on criteria other than whether it makes someone look good or bad. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec x2) Reply to Wikedemon: Many of the commenters in the first part of this discussion felt that we should add something NOW - not dither around to wait for events to finish "unfolding", or to wait until after the election for heavens sake before we can even mention it. That do-something-now feeling is why I proposed a wording which deals only with the Friday letter. The fallout from it will continue to unfold, possibly for months, and we can hold further discussions about what to add and when. But the Friday letter is a historic fact and needed to be documented here. As also noted above, it was misleading to have our article state that the FBI finished its investigation in July, end of story, giving added urgency to the need to add an update. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Scjessey: the "plenty of people" who are saying we shouldn't have anything until, well, whenever they feel it finally "becomes clear", which could be never - those "plenty of people" are a small minority (roughly a third) of the people discussing here. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this was not a vote, but it was a discussion - and the minority does not get to muzzle the majority and keep things out of the article indefinitely when there is a clear consensus to add them. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording not supported by sources

The current wording in the article is: 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"

This is not precisely supported by the citation, as Comey didn't use the term "the case," and its use here is ambiguous, and may imply a negative connotation unsupported by reliable sources (The term "case" can refer to an investigation, to a legal proceeding, or to a set of facts supporting a particular conclusion.)

I would propose the following change in wording, based on Comey's actual letter: On October 28, 2016 FBI Director James Comey wrote to the Chairmen of several congressional committees, to notify them that, in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI had learned of the existence of emails that appeared to be pertinent to it's earlier investigation of Clinton's personal email server. Comey wrote that the FBI could not, at that time, assess whether or not the material might be significant.

References

Cinteotl (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I like it, but would change it a bit and add the updated CNN source I added to the article earlier: On October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey wrote to the Chairmen of several congressional committees that, in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI had learned of the existence of emails appearing to be pertinent to its earlier investigation of Clinton's personal email server and that the FBI could not, at that time, assess whether or not the material might be significant. Might be better than the current two sentences, but maybe running afoul of OR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to strain too much over the language. What you've proposed seems to be as acceptable as what I proposed. In both cases, they're both near quotations of Comey's own words, with no added POV Cinteotl (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections. TimothyJosephWood 12:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I like that and will put it in, in place of what I wrote. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I don't know if you meant this to replace both sentences I had added, or just the first. I used it to replace both sentences. If someone thinks the second sentence (about Abedin and Weiner) should have been kept, please add it back. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The above suggestions do not include some form of the essential phase “the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails”.CNBC So I suggest adding and I agreed to allow investigators to review these new emails to see if they contain classified information and determine their importance to the investigation. Grahamboat (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What the FBI should do is likely not as relevant as what the FBI will, is or has done. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. What the FBI is doing is investigating. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted to current agreed version. Please discuss first before making changes. I think you're paraphrasing the content of the letter incorrectly, and the reference is really dated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this addition is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed by whom? I did discuss. Paraphrasing is subjective, so perhaps we should use a quote from the letter: In his letter Comly said:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Regarding the source being dated – first you claim Recentism now the source is too old! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TMI. It took us days to agree on the addition of a single sentence, with some people arguing that even that much was UNDUE. Putting in the entire quote is giving it way more space/importance than it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this: Comey advisor saying that press had "failed, utterly" to place the letter in the proper context. "“I read the letter. It was in English. It said, ‘I don’t know what’s in here,’” Richman said, paraphrasing Comey." I think that supports our current version? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it is time to close this thread, because (as predicted) it turned out to be nothing. I've removed the text concerning this matter from the article, because clearly it represents undue weight. Basically, it was the equivalent of someone running into an office and saying "there's a fire across the other side of town, so I'm going to check if there is a fire in this building... nope, there's no fire." -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your removal was in violation of the consensus here at this discussion, which was that the material should be in the article. I will restore it, and you will need to obtain consensus here before it can be removed. Per DS you may not act unilaterally to overturn consensus in this manner. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This material needs to remain in the article. Saying that the material represents undue weight is absurd to the extreme.- MrX 04:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous. Comey's second letter changes everything, because it essentially cancels out everything that came before it. And MelanieN's assertion that Discretionary Sanctions means I "may not act unilaterally" is a gross misunderstanding of what DS means. Comey's people looked at the emails of a tangentially-related individual and concluded they were of no importance. There's no there there. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Events don't cancel each other out. There was a huge amount of news coverage when the first letter was sent to Congress, and similar coverage that began yesterday. Given that these letters were unprecedented during the final days of a presidential election, and the documented impact to the campaign, I'm frankly astonished that anyone would want to suppress this content. It's almost Orwellian.- MrX 14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not about "suppressing content" because there essentially isn't any content. If we do have any of this in the article, it should be more about how Comey's unprecedented and unwarranted action may have suppressed the Democratic vote (and yes, there are plenty of sources to support the assertion). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

New events definitely change interpretation of earlier events. That's why it's pointless to argue that there can be consensus for a WP:NOT#NEWS item. Nevertheless, this particular article is about a political campaign, not the substance of world events. The attention the press and political operatives gave to what is essentially a false alarm is in fact a significant event for the campaign. I do second MrX's comment that what stands out is the unprecedented nature of the letters, not any substance about Clinton.- Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, I will abide by it; however, the proposed wording above is inappropriate. I prefer the language you introduced with this edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have made minor changes in that edit (the dates are absolutely needed for clarity). And I would like to return to the wording "in an unrelated case," rather than dragging in Anthony Weiner, if that's all right with you. I think there should also be a sentence about the controversial nature of Comey's letter, and the effect of his announcement on the campaigns, but that should probably wait until after the election when we have access to independent analysis of the results.. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced Weiner with "an unrelated case". --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I do think we should link to that case even if we don't name it, for purposes of context and organizing information for reader convenience. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yay! We can finally be done with this crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Impact of Investigation on campaign

I see that any mention of the Comey announcement has been removed, after the incident proved to be nothing. However, the big news over the past week was all about how the "bombshell" hurt Clinton in the polls and may influence the outcome of the election (whether it will actually happen or not, that is up for debate). Since the re-opening was such a major news event, I feel that it could be included, so be it that someone can provide sources to prove that the announcement has detrimentally affected Clinton's campaign. The proof and sources may be out there, or the negative impact could be all talk by news pundits. (Sk5893 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

I heard or read somebody mention somewhere — how's that for sourcing? — that we won't really know until the pollsters and journalists get out of the way and the statisticians and academics analyze the election results, likely months after the fact. It seems likely that the news did affect the poll results, and that effect is probably worth including in the article whether or not she wins the election, but whether that translates to voting decisions is not as clear. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Comey announcement still is in the article. We discussed whether to mention its effect on polls, but the general feeling was that late polls are too ephemeral and too variable to try to follow in this article. After the election there will be independent commentary on the factors influencing the result, and if the Comey letter figures prominently in that commentary, we should add something then. If there is a consensus in independent commentary, I think we can add that immediately without waiting for the academics. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

HRC's SuperPAC linked to mass incarceration

In this edit, some referenced content we had reached consensus to include months ago was removed on election day:

• "The super PAC "received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to" the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America. (Hamilton, Keegan (October 6, 2015). "How Private Prisons Are Profiting From Locking Up US Immigrants". Vice News. Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA.)"

Could someone please add it back? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please link to discussion in which consensus was reached?- MrX 14:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus for inclusion was archived from the talkpage months ago. Only redacted from the article on election day!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with its deletion and I'm sorry to hear we left it in for so long. To single out a single donor to one SuperPac, among the thousands of donors contributing to multiple SuperPacs, seems POV and POINTy. As for "from lobbying firms linked to...": lobbying firms typically serve multiple clients. We are not playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon here, we are writing an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on this. Reywas92 originally removed it, so I think the consensus now is to exclude it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is POV at all. It's just factual.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure you don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it's factual but without any context it's not meaningful. Thousands of people from every industry have donated so it's undue to point out only this one. And it's the lobbying group, not the companies themselves! The company probably has numerous clients from different sectors, so to make a direct connection is inappropriate, nor is there context of donations they've made to other candidates. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on the evasiveness in response to my simple request for a link to the claimed consensus, I have to assume that there is none so I endorse the removal of the content. Also, vice.com is not reliable source as far as I can tell.- MrX 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen remarkable stuff on Vice, but we can't possibly use it as a reliable source, until its underlying tone changes. Need to keep an eye on it though. Even Breitbart or the National Enquirer sometimes have important breaking news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Falling poll numbers

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.

---

No consensus to close. The source shows a weakening of Clinton's lead according to polls. But nearly all show a slight Clinton lead on November 7. But totally wrong in terms of the actual vote. This is big deal. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ According to this neutral election tracker, Clinton has fallen by 11 points in just over a week in the ABC/Washington Post poll. This is the poll that had given her the biggest lead of all the polls- 12 points. Now she's only 1 point up, within the margin of error. Mention in the article? TweedVest (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No one else had 12 points, that was probably an outlier. I don't think this is the page to mention blow-by-blow accounts of changes in polling data. I think there's a page for that already. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And this says she is holding steady. All depends on who you talk to. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This really is Recentism. Polls during this last week are going to be all over the place, and have no place in this article now. Unless somehow they become relevant, completely wrong or prescient in some unexpected way. As noted after the election in reputable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me. After Clinton mostly leading the polls, sometimes by high numbers, the race has tightened. Recentism is not a problem because the polls in the closing days of a campaign are always relevant. Already we are seeing the Clinton campaign going back to states they had left and taking risks by ratcheting up the attacks on Trump. TFD (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Use the polling averages from RCP, HuffPo and 538. Never use individual polls. RCP has C +1.7, 538 has C +3.2 and HuffPo has C +5.9. All polls see a *narrowing* of the race, and I think it's fine to describe it as such but to note that she still maintains a healthy lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are rolling averages and anyway within the margin of error, so "healthy" is an unsupported opinion. Nate Silver now puts her odds of winning at 70 to 71%, as opposed to 80+ a week ago. TFD (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We can find a better word than "healthy". Perhaps it's enough to say that she is in still in the lead after noting that there's been a 'narrowing' and then provide the different polling averages. As for Nate's model: among the other five forecasters who put a numerical value on the candidates' chances, her chances between 84%-99%. The Upshot shows the other forecasters here[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Polling numbers are changing daily and varying widely from one poll to another during this final week. I don't see any way that an encyclopedia can report this kind of thing in any meaningful way. IMO we shouldn't try. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggest closing before this wastes any more time. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to close it. Election will be over in a few days and we can add material about how good or bad they were. I think there is a general consensus on the news outlets that there has been a tightening of the race. We can put that in later, or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree to closing. (I misunderstood Fred Bauder's Nov 2 post. When the election is over, hopefully the only numbers that matter will be the final vote tally (barring lawsuits, knock on wood). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest language, using the source http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ and one incorporating election returns to the effect that Clinton's lead weakened immediately prior to the election, as shown on November 7 but failed to accurately predict the strong support of rural white voters for Trump which resulted in the loss of the election by Clinton. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polls were widening in favor of Clinton up until the actual election, and the results of the election itself have nothing to do with this thread. There was a consensus to close. Please do not reopen it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 10 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.

Primary results

According to The Green Papers, Clinton led all candidates in the primary with 16,914,722 votes; however, not every state keeps track of the popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.38.14 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That level of detail is really only suitable for Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember Bernie won the popular vote in several states but those states were given to Clinton by the superdelegates? See:

• Barabak, Mark Z. (May 18, 2016). "Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's winning?". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 7, 2016.
• Timm, Trevor (February 11, 2016). "Even if Sanders wins the popular vote, Clinton could still get the nomination". The Guardian. Retrieved November 7, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Wrong article for such detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-mortem analysis of Clinton's defeat

I suspect the media will engage in some analysis of why Clinton was defeated, perhaps for years. We should probably keep this page updated as they occur. By the way, I'm surprised to see that it mentions in the article that she lost the election last night. Shouldn't we keep reverting people who try to add it while we argue over the "appropriate wording" on this page? I mean, we need to follow the Wikipedia way, don't we? TweedVest (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: On Nov 12, 2016, this user was "indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and Wikipedia pages) related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed." Time to collapse this section again? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well she lost. Theres no second prize. SaintAviator lets talk 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The remedy applied to this article of allowing biased editors to revert then argue us all to death on the talk page worked very poorly. I don't think reverting the result of the election will work, however. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. She lost. Get over it.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Lets. And also see how many of you go on to productively edit articles that are not related to this election. I'm betting few but hoping all. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? Discuss improvements to the article only, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the point is trolling for which the OP has been warned repeatedly. They will be blocked eventually.- MrX 13:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the article is extremely poor, nearly to the point it could be nominated for deletion. It needs to be extensively revised to include the information which was excluded and incorporate appropriate post-election analysis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

'Revised'. Teehee. That won't be happening for quite some time, not with this climate, unfortunately. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to use "Timeline" articles for ongoing news stories because while we can know what is significant in today's newspapers, we cannot know what will be important when the event is over. There are also many things that happened behind the scenes that were not published at the time. TFD (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I note by the way we had a lengthy discussion about a one-sentence addition to mention that Comey had resumed the investigation. Lots of editors argued that it was irrelevant to the topic, but now Clinton is blaming it for her loss. TFD (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy

• I left the factual part of user Fred Bauder's sentence, but removed the non-neutral POV which doesn’t reflect the source. The source saying "letters about her email arrangement" is a pretty far cry from "Director of the FBI repeatedly calling the attention of the public to the email scandal".

IMO it’s too early to add an analysis of the election outcome. Comey’s letters days before the election will probably feature prominently, but so will the interference by the FBI/Giuliani connection and the months of unrelenting media coverage of email practices that were not illegal and did not reveal any scandals. Here’s an early analysis from the day after; you don’t see the word bullpucky (I'm substituting the euphemism) in headlines every day. And the parties involved in the election on either side may not the best sources for an unbiased evaluation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

"was the second time Hillary Clinton failed to become President" There's no such sentence in Mitt Romney's Campaign article. Can we reword this to Hillary Clinton's second attempt to become President? As it's the first line it's embarrassing for Wikipedia's neutrality for this to appear on the Google listing for this page.86.160.8.207 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I removed that clause. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

She failed again, it should be in. What does Marek think? SaintAviator lets talk 00:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix is better. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"failed to become President" is terrible wording. It's not like she was a caterpillar trying to turn into a butterfly.- MrX 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yugge failure, let WP neutrally say this. SaintAviator lets talk 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Yuge failure" - oh, I don't know. I just updated the popular vote numbers to the current NY Times total (numbers may change again because of Michigan and New Hampshire). Winning the popular vote by more than half a million votes does not sound like a failure to me. Sounds more like changes to the electoral college system are needed - the other candidate would be shouting "rigged" right about now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The electoral college system is an historical relic and probably makes no sense today. However, it is mere speculation whether Clinton would have won the popular vote had there been no electoral college. Both Trump and Clinton would have devoted resources to both deep red and deep blue states, rather than New Hampshire and Maine's second district. TFD (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Yugge. She didnt win any states in South and lost the Midwest, Yugge. SaintAviator lets talk 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

For your consideration, I give you Never Hillary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)