Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924220619/http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619 to https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/idUSnMKWv47gXa+1c2+MKW20150619
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311140652/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ to https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-opened investigation

News announced today. Fox ran some commentary. I think they said the case was re-opened in December, but it has just now been confirmed. New investigation will examine people who exchanged emails with Clinton's server. Also examining immunity granted. Deserves a new section, if anybody is willing to work on it. Phmoreno (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see. If only Fox has reported on it then they may have only heard of it from a "source", and therefore it might not be true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The story was carried by several news outlets and is a headline this morning. In the Fox News segment I was referring to I believe it was one of the committee members saying the investigation was reopened in December. The Fox story is useful for additional confirmation and the date.Phmoreno (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The first source just links back to the second, so it is in reality just one source. I do however think that it could be worth another section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We will have to return to this and document it. In fact, several articles related to the Russia interference and investigation will end up needing "Pushback" sections to deal with the enlarging attempts to obstruct justice by impeding the investigation. As Rachel Maddow said last night (the whole show was labeled "Pushback"), we should not be surprised by the pushback, but by the success it is getting. That's truly scary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC) (Removed some off-topic content. BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC))

@BullRangifer: Are you at the right place? What do Maddow or Obama have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Not really appropriate here. I had just copied the whole thing from somewhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Crooked Hillary

Hi, Emir of Wikipedia. I understand why you have removed the nickname. I added it as the nickname was used in relation to the email controversy. I believe that this therefore may be more appropriate on the Hillary Clinton article itself, and on this page with some more context e.g something along the lines of US president Donald Trump used the 'Crooked Hillary' nickname in relation to the email controversy as it is a prominent nickname used by a very prominent (even if not well respected) person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.20 (talk) 10:10, January 5, 2018‎

It belongs at List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, not here, as it is a vile personal attack and this page is covered by BLP. We also have List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, and I imagine even the ones that aren't personal attacks aren't used on most of the subjects' biographies. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Muboshgu. Firstly thank you for all your contributions and congratulations on becoming an admin - well deserved. I made the edit as this is a widely used nickname which appears to accurately cover the very suspect nature of Clinton's actions. Whilst I appreciate it is not suitable without context, I feel this is appropriate somewhere else on this article and the Hillary Clinton article in context such as what I proposed above due to the common usage and high prominence. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You cited this source, which is an opinion piece and which doesn't support the claim that "Crooked Hillary" is specifically a reference to the email controversy. It probably refers to multiple scandals or to the Clinton Foundation, as The Week columnist suggests. If you can find multiple reliable sources which support your claim that this relevant to the email scandal, the content should go to the body of the article. Then, and only then, the content may or may not be summarised in the lead section.

I would suggest that, before making any further edits about this material in the article, you make a proposal on this talk page to seek consensus. Politrukki (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Saying "sometimes referred to as Crooked Hillary" is weasel wording because it does not tell us who refers to her as Crooked Hillary. And you would also have to explain its relevance to this topic, which appears to be nothing. It's the type of phrasing more fitting to an editorial than a neutral article. TFD (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nobody uses this nickname but Trump; it is not "widely used". It could go in the article List of nicknames used by Donald Trump abut nowhere else. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not suitable here. It is also not specifically related to the email controversy. While each one of the nicknames he creates to attack others has a "first instance" use, often that instance and later uses are not specific, but are literally INSTANTLY created as a gut reaction attack, without much thought, only as a means to undermine an opposer. It's a cheap trick. I will note that there are some nicknames which have been carefully chosen with some forethought. We only know this because others have been there in the planning stages. There is a long history to this. It's part of his training by Roy Cohn, to always counter attack much stronger, to accuse your opponent of that which you are doing, and to never admit a defeat, and in fact to always call a defeat a win. Cohn was a master of dirty fighting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This nickname was used by Clinton's presidential rival repeatedly, primarily in relation to the emails. This is mentioned in the source which has just been added. This complies with BLP as it is not defamatory, it is well sourced and it is more than prominent and relevant enough to appear in this article. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way I have put the content back for now as I am confident that this meets all the relevant policies and guidelines, in particular BLP as I have found a good, detailed source. However, if you disagree we can discuss further on this talk page. I would like to note I was accused of 'disruptive editing and vandalism' on my talk page, which is complete nonsense. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. He first used the term in reference to her close connections with special interests.[1] Republicans have been accusing her of being crooked since Whitewater. TFD (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

True, he has used the nickname in part for that reason. Hillary has been called 'crooked' as you say for decades. I believe trump more specifically used (and still uses from time to time) his nickname in relation to the emails. At the very least, it is a large part of why Trump repeatedly used the nickname, as stated in the source. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous user 141.241.26.20 added this edit back in again even though consensus is against including it because of WP:REL, so I removed it. And for the record I also agree with the users above that it's irrelevant and out of line with other articles. I count 4 different warnings on 141.241.26.20's user talk page over the past 6 weeks or so, including 2 DS. Weaselfie (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Far too many quotations

We are supposed to use them very sparingly, especially on political articles. There are too many sentences consisting solely of quotations. This is an encyclopedia, not the news. To be included an attempt must be made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. We need to summarise content into first voice. The FBI investigation section is filled with sentences that just repeat what was said about things. No, no, very bad. All over the article is sentence after sentence saying this person said something. This is wrong and against our policies for a number of reasons. We are also not supposed to include propaganda of any kind. Copying and pasting what was said about things is being lazy. According to our policy, routine news reporting on things like announcements do not qualify for inclusion. Please summarise into Wikipedia voice. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

How were emails marked as classified in the headers communicated?

The article notes that none of the emails on the private server were marked as classified in the headers. Was there some form of secure communication (text, voice, video, ...) that didn't involve the private server, that could have included any emails marked as classified in the header (perhaps handled by staff with top secret clearance), or other top secret communication, such as the raid on the Osama bin Laden compound? If a separate method (other than the private server) was used for secure communication, should that be mentioned in this article, even if only the existence of such communications can be acknowledged, without explaining how such communications are/were implemented (since they are classified)? Rcgldr (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename page to Hillary Clinton email scandal

This really needs to be rename to a scandal. Controversy implies a disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I also strongly suspect that this is an issue that was resolved in the ancient times of 2015. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we are going to agree to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to "Endless partisan hearings at massive taxpayer expense by Republicans for no fucking reason scandal" -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here you go britannica , it is SCANDAL https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton#ref326152
• TWICE as many scholarly articles referencing it as a SCANDAL vs controversy https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C26&as_ylo=2017&as_vis=1&q=clinton++%22email+scandal%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C26&as_ylo=2017&as_vis=1&q=clinton++%22email+controversy%22&btnG=

• All of the papers referred to it as SCANDAL before end of March 2015/early April 2015 (after Clintons press conference on the email SCANDAL). It was re-branded by campaign.

Please comment , don't revert this is crazy.