Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

POV

The article does not include any of comments and releases made by Clinton on his campaign, and related press coverage about this supposed controversy and therefore it violated WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton in her campaign and included in this article, made comments about the emails to be turned over to the State Department and about the emails since deleted. The State Department also "classified" some of the emails prior to public release. If you have any ideas to expand and improve this article please be BOLD and add them. Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Vague handwaves at "there's stuff in this article that I dis/agree with" are rarely helpful. Suggest specific additions or subtractions, or the tag will come off shortly. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some issues that once addressed can make the article compliant with WP:NPOV:

• On the release section, there is none of the declarations from Clinton made to the press
• There only a short mention of the State Department release schedule, and there are many reports including comments from Clinton.
• On the issue of the private emails, there is only but a short mention of its contents as declared by Clinton and her aides.
• There is no mention whatsoever on the first batch of emails released, which most of the reports say that there was nothing in these emails to be deemed "controversial".
• The "pundit commentary" section, includes a singe arbitrary commentator Chuck Todd, when there are many others viewpoints.

- Cwobeel (talk)

If you want to make the sections relating to your POV on what the Clinton campaign says please do.

If you want to expand on the State Department's court ordered release schedule please do.

If you believe there are better citations to include mentions by Hillary Clinton or her aides please do.

If you believe there is nothing "controversial" about the "first batch" of emails as sourced, please explain why so.

If you believe the Chuck Todd section is UNDUE. I agree. Even terminology of "pundits" is a mistake. Edit semi-protected (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will with your help and the help of others. Until resolved, the POV tag will remain. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The POV tagging is fine if true. Can you enunciate what you find as being POV? We can fix it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no evdence of the dispute being discussed here. You should have discussed the matter here before asking for a third opinion.

One comment that I would make now is that the lead should be a summary of the body article not a place to make points or edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop the Edit Warring

@Tarc:@Professor JR: Seriously guys, "take it to the talk page" is not a valid reason to edit war. Especially when neither of you have actually used the talk page to discuss this in the first place! Tarc I recommend you pick specific sections of JR's edits that you find objectionable and explain your reasoning as JR's edit includes many different changes to the article. I do not personally have an opinion on the edit, but please don't edit war over it. Thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42:@Tarc: Thanks for your constructive advice and suggestions Winner 42 -- greatly appreciated. Will try pursuing matter on a Talk Page with Tarc. Again, many thanks. Professor JR (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: Maybe we start by you doing what Winner 42 recommends, then I'll respond.Professor JR (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale changes that slant an article into a hit piece will be removed on sight. The proposer can make his/her case on the talk page for INclusion, not the other way around. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I doubt there are many/any here who wish to engage single-purpose accounts; I'm sure several here will no doubt recognize whats' going on now is what surrounded the Obama articles from 2008-2010 or so. If there are legitimate editors around who wish to explain how this slanted text can possibly conform with WP:NPOV, we're all ears. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: w/courtesy copy to:@Winner 42: ..My validly-sourced, and well-intentioned edits to this Article -- if you actually take time to read them -- can hardly be characterized as either "wholesale changes", nor as "slanting an article into a hit piece"! One might be inclined to conclude it is you who are attempting to slant an Article here, perhaps based on personal biases -- without even being willing to make the effort to provide objective, credible, specific reasons for your challenges to my edits, nor to tie them to specific sections of the Article in question, as User:Winner 42 has very constructively recommended. Some might contend that, anything less than you doing that, when doing the type of total undo's that you have done here (with rather misleading Edit Summaries, I might add) is almost tantamount to vandalism. Are you willing to provide any specifics -- to which I can then, and will respond -- so that we are able to proceed in a constructive fashion here?? Professor JR (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of you clearly have very strong opinions on the topic. I'd like to remind you both that WP:TALKDONTREVERT is policy and so is WP:CIVIL. Characterizations that JR is trying to turn this into a hit piece are unfounded as are the allegations that Tarc's reverts constitute vandalism. Tarc, reverting Anythingyouwant's contributions was uncalled for as well as completely reverting JR's productive and uncontroversial changes. Can you please explain how "On the same day as" is less neutral than "On the day of" and slants the article into a hit piece? I've reverted your edit into a more neutral version because you removed many productive changes. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I incorporated Anythingyouwant's edits into my last edit, but missed a few. Had intended to fix that, but was called away for IRL matters. Now I see you have re-added the SPA's nonsense, so congrats on making this into even more of a mess than it was before. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I went so far as to removed what I believed was the contentious material from the edit while restoring the productive sections. Unfortunately, I wouldn't know what you believe those sections are because you won't tell me. I'm trying to mediate and create a compromise here, but the name calling and assumptions of bad faith are not appreciated. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

"Emailgate?" Really? Unencyclopedic. I propose "Hillary Clinton Email Controversy." Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That... doesn't make sense. There are plenty of controversies titled with the "-gate" suffix. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And most of those do not use the "-gate" suffix as the article title. They redirect, sure, but usually are not the title, except for Watergate, because, well, it happened at a place called Watergate. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding "gate" to any controversy is considered very trite, somewhat ridiculous, and is discouraged by news sources widely except for partisans of any type, and encyclopedia style is less loosey-goosey than even that. I am unsure how many Wikipedia articles use this as a title; few, I hope! I will change it soon; I had hoped for more comment but so far it's 2:1 in favor. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I can find very few sources referring to this matter as "Emailgate". I submit the article should only be called this if proper sourcing supports it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Email Controversy is the name used by most news outlets refer to it. Not every controversy needs the -gate suffix. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A google search of 'emailgate' yields 236,000 results and scrolling through shows plenty of reliable sources. The title seems proper. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In contrast to the 11,600,000 results for Hillary Clinton Email Controversy. Sources referring to it as an email controversy include CNN, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. Sources that refer to it as Emailgate include the Daily Mail, Breitbart News, and Bustle with most results being about a separate controversy about the T&T Integrity Commission. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For me it's 68,600. https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+Email+Controversy#q=%22Hillary+Clinton+Email+Controversy%22 Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

'Emailgate' is used by www.bbc.com, www.theguardian.com, www.newsweek.com, www.aljazeera.com, www.washingtonexaminer.com, www.huffingtonpost.com, www.dailymail.co.uk, www.slate.com, theweek.com, www.forbes.com, www.foxnews.com and those were the first 2 pages. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is used by some outlets, but rarely in mainstream news. Most instances I have found surround it in scare quotes or make fun of it. I think Hillary Clinton email controversy makes much more sense as a title, and it definitely has more support in mainstream media (by at least one order of magnitude). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article that calls in "emailgate" actually says that the author is "still amazed I haven't read one piece that dubs it 'emailgate'" Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That was 11 weeks ago, but I see here clear consensus for the move and went ahead and executed it as a show of support. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit semi-protected (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent decision. Let's hope this can remain stable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Just wait until someone wants to move it to "Hillary Rodham Clinton email controversy" Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Ha! :D Edit semi-protected (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus my foot. There is no such consensus emerging. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was my declaration as being the only holdout on two possible names for this article. Hillary Clinton email controversy is more encyclopedic and more neutral. Avoiding the "scandal" terminology was also important. What is wrong with our usage? Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

How about we go with: "Clinton's Secretive, Private email Server"? Professor JR (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

The current title is Hillary Clinton email system. That is meaningless. Why not add the word "controversy" or "scandal" or some such? This is not an article about her email system proper. It's about the controversy swirling around her use of it. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is only a "scandal" or "controversy" in fringe publications, most likely. Legitimate sources have been critical of certain aspects of Clinton's e-mail releases, but not every criticism is a full-blown -gate scandal. Tarc (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am quite sure that many reliable sources have called this "controversial". I am not talking about any "-gate" scandals. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And the controversy is not simply about her "release" of selected emails. It's about the fact that a Secretary of State went against federal protocol and used a private email server for her official federal job. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC news are hardly "fringe". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC cover the subject in a fair and balanced manner, without the screaming "CONTROVERSY" AND "SHAME" type headlines from the likes of Breitbart and Fox. he current title is neutral and accurate. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current title is neutral and accurate. So much so, as to be devoid of any meaning whatsoever. It is clearly POV. This is not an article about her email "system". It is about the controversy surrounding it. I will be changing the title soon. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN and ABC News (and others) have certainly referred to this as a scandal and/or a controversy. They are clearly RS's. They don't need to "scream" anything. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Criticism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. If there is no controversy, scandal, disagreement, etc., why do we even have an article about Clinton's email "system"? Then, if there is no controversey, scandal, disagreement, etc., this article should be deleted? No? LOL. I assume you want to have it both ways? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want the title to be more descriptive, try and think of a title that does not imply negative criticism. Maybe "Clinton email disclosure issues".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the word controversy implies negative criticism. It states that there is a disagreement (i.e., a controversy). A disagreement or a controversy always, by definition, has two sides. What's the problem? Perhaps "scandal" is overly negative. The word "controversy" is neither positive nor negative. It is as neutral as a word can be. It indicates a "disagreement". If we really need to wear "kid gloves", then what about Hillary Clinton email disagreement or dispute? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to conform with this? It's just an essay, but seems widely accepted. If we end up including all the relevant info, what's the big deal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The "big deal" is that the article is entitled "Hillary Clinton email system". And this is not an article about her email system. It's about the issues, questions, controversies, etc., surrounding said email system. There are a gazillion RS's that have called this a scandal or a controversy. However, it's clear that you want the title to be as "white washed", generic, cleaned, non-descriptive, POV, politically correct, leaning in favor of Clinton, etc., as possible. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just trying to comply with a Wikipedia essay that reflects usual procedure across Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't ring true. Doesn't pass the smell test. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think WP:Criticism reflects usual practice across Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote what I said (below): It is literally laughable that anyone can claim this is not a "controversy". Multiple RS's have called this a "controversy". To not include the word in the title is an attempted "whitewash" and in itself violates NPOV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also about the State Department. Is omission of the State Department from your preferred title a whitewash? I think not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Add the term "State Department". I have no problem with that. An adamant insistence that this is not a controversy is clearly an attempted whitewash. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Her server was in Montauk. Is it whitewashing to exclude Montauk from the article title? I don't mind telling you, Joseph, that I regard the possible election of Hillary Clinton as a horrible thought, and I would first vote for any of the GOP contenders. But the fact remains that WP:Criticism is a norm at Wikipedia, not a whitewash.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being so, um, silly? Bringing up infantile arguments? Such as State Department and Montauck. If I say "yes" to Montauck, you will bring up another silly and infantile argument. (Example: Oh, the guy who runs the server was wearing purple pants. If we don't add that, is that also a whitewash?") Those are your arguments? Really? The fact remains. This is a controversy. Everyone knows it is a controversy. Every RS under the sun calls it a controversy. But, we have to be "PC" and wear "kid gloves" so that some Democrat Clinton lover does not get "offended". Holy shit. The inmates are running the asylum, for sure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

I cannot seem to get you to say whether your proposal violates WP:Criticism or not. Does it? Yes, or no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how that answers my question. So, thanks for ignoring my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this. I will answer two of your questions, and then you can answer one of mine. You asked: "Why are you being so, um, silly? Bringing up infantile arguments?" And my answer is, I do not think trying to conform with a Wikipedia norm is infantile or silly, in this case the norm being WP:Criticism. Okay, now here's a question for you: "Does your proposal violate WP:Criticism or not?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't in any way whatsoever answered my question. Which was: Why are you bringing up silly examples like (A) "The server is in Montauk and if we don't include that, isn't that a whitewash?" and (B) "The server involves the State Department and if we don't include that, isn't that a whitewash?" and so forth. Whatever I would answer to (A) and (B), you would just come up with a silly Example "C". (Which I gave, as a hypothetical example, "Oh, the guy who runs the server was wearing purple pants. If we don't add that, is that also a whitewash?"). Are are you saying that the title needs to encompass every single facet and detail of the incident? Such as "Hilary Clinton email scandal involving the State Department with a Montauck-based server"? I assumed you were not suggesting something so silly. And to equate the very broad and general word ("controversy", to be added into the title) with the silliness of Montauk, the State Department, the purple pants, etc., is - again - just silly. And does not help your argument. And your point gets lost in all that silliness. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Side point, wouldn't Hillary Clinton's email system have more precision than the current title? Just want to gather some opinions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a little better. I would prefer "Secretary of State Clinton's email system" because it indicates time frame.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How about we go with: "Clinton's Secretive, Private email Server"? Professor JR (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

The very first sentence of the article doesn't even make any sense. The Hillary Clinton private email server relates to the use of a personal email account by Hillary Rodham Clinton for official business during her tenure as US Secretary of State. What? The email server relates to the private use of an email account. Huh? This shows how badly the article needs a new – and appropriate – title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If a problem is identified, then expend energy on fixing it rather than coming here to complain. The principle is WP:SOFIXIT, i.e. get off your lazy tookus and do it yourself. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why don't you expend energy to fix it, instead of complaining about me complaining? Well? Obviously, the title of this article is a fiasco. I have no idea what that first senetence is even supposed to mean. Or supposed to say. If I went in and added the word "controversy" to the first sentence, which is the only way that the sentence will make sense, you would be the very first to complain about that. Correct? So I took the mature and responsible course of action, to bring it to the Talk Page. So, again, what exactly is it that you are complaining about? And why are you yourself not expending your time to fix it, rather than complaining about my complaining? In other words, you are engaging in the exact conduct that you are chastising me for. Correct? Explain. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It didn't seem that bad to begun with, so, um, I ain't gonna fix something that's fine already. Your recent sentence addition to the lead is clunky and unnecessary btw, and has been removed. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are saying that the following sentence is fine? (The Hillary Clinton private email server relates to the use of a personal email account by Hillary Rodham Clinton for official business during her tenure as US Secretary of State.) How so? To me, it doesn't even make sense. I don't even know what it is saying, or trying to say. If it's so "fine", shall I put it back in as the very first sentence of the article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Change one word, server to system, and it would have sufficed. It appears that whoever made the most recent article name change did not update the lead sentence to reflect the change, so it was a minor issue. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. But, that sentence still makes no sense. The email system relates to the private use of an email account. The system relates to the use. What does that even mean? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term "Controversy" in this article

This incident has been labeled as a "controversy" by a gazillion RS's. I have added it to the article, well sourced by both The New York Times and The Washington Post. Some editor, through POV and an agenda, keeps deleting it. Please advise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Even the Obamacare and Patriot Act articles don't say "people describe think this as a controversy" in the lead, and those are two of the most controversial pieces of legislation this generation. Your addition comes across as unprofessional, petty, and seems to be made more to shore up your disagreements on the talk page here rather than a a genuine effort at article improvement. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone on God's green earth would (and did) call this a "controversy". Why are you so adamant that that word not enter the title? Nor the article proper? Give me one valid reason. And pushing your POV agenda is not a valid reason. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight, Joseph. "Some editor" was actually two editors: myself and Tarc. I was not engaging in POV or agenda-pushing; I don't have much of an opinion on Clinton's politics anyway. I cannot speak for Tarc but I'm sure they were not engaging in POV either. As stated above, your addition seemed pointy especially in light of the above RM. We don't need to highlight any "controversy" labels when the media reaction can speak for itself. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversy. But, we can't call it a "controversy" in the title? LOL. We have a million reliable RS calling it a controversy. But, we can't add that into the article. LOL. Why is that? Hmmmmm. I wonder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so I am clear. The following RS's (The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, and so forth, ad nauseum) can – and do – label this a "controversy". But some liberal leaning, white-washing editor (translation: Democrat and Clinton supporter) is "offended" by the word "controversy", so that one Wikipedia editor trumps all of those RS's. LOL. Yeah, no agenda there, huh? No POV there, huh? LOL. Don't insult the intelligence of Wikipedia readers. Do you work for Clinton's campaign? I heard that they hire people to "scrub" Wikipedia articles. I'll find the source, so I don't have to listen to any whining. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source, from The New York Times: [1]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I think we've arrived at the heart of the matter; you appear to be present on the Wikipedia to right great wrongs, coupled with the insults, accusations of paid editing. Lovely. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Great diversion tactic. Great red herring! And I see that you didn't answer my valid question. Just changed the topic, so that no one would notice that you avoided the valid question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I assume now that you have accused Tarc of undisclosed paid editing, that you will file an appropriate report at the noticeboard along with appropriate evidence, because to make an unsupported accusation in such a manner would be a personal attack. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Show me exactly where I made that accusation. Exactly where, please? I will be waiting for your response. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you work for Clinton's campaign? I heard that they hire people to "scrub" Wikipedia articles. That question, which reads far more like an accusatory statement, was unnecessary and completely ridiculous. Suspicion of paid editing because of a disagreement? Get real. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How about, you "get real"? A question is a question. Simply a request for information. It is you who added into my benign question whatever "accusatory tone" that you wanted to inject. As to your second point, was my New York Times piece not a reliable source? I did not know that certain people hired editors to scrub their Wikipedia articles, until I read that New York Times piece. Is that not a reliable piece? And that is exactly the sort of shenanigans that a politician would do. (Hire someone in their campaign to attend to this detail.) And, Clinton, for sure. So, what's your problem? And what's your point? You are simply reading what you want to read. And itching for a fight. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, you're the only one "itching for a fight" with your "gtfo" edit summaries, overly aggressive tone, and repeated bad faith assumptions. This isn't a matter of whether or not the sources you provided are reliable, it's a matter of the editorial decision to not include meaningless "this was called a controversy" when the controversy can speak for itself. This discussion is clearly angering you too much. Perhaps you need to step away from this article, go outside, and get a breath of fresh air or something. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your position is simply ridiculous. You are suggesting that if something is a "controversy" (or a scandal) that we don't have to call it as such (even if there are a million RS's that do). Your contention is: "the controversy can speak for itself". And, as such, we should not label it a controversy. And, in fact, we cannot label it a controversy. LOL. If that is the case, why, pray tell, does Wikipedia have very specific categories for "controversies" and "scandals"? Please answer that question. Don't deflect or avoid it. All of those other incidents are controversies and scandals. Why would they be placed in a very specific category of Wikipedia called "controversy" or "scandal"? (Actually, multiple Wikipedia categories.) Those scandals and controversies don't "speak for themselves"? How is this one different? I will post some links so I don't have to listen to any whining. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link: Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. Just one link, mind you. I am quite certain there are many others. At the bottom of that page (Anthony Weiner sexting scandals), there are all sorts of Wikipedia categories that specifically are entitled "scandal" and/or "controversy". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen me deny that there was controversy surrounding the incident or remove controversy categories that the article is currently placed in? I am objecting to your addition of that unnecessary "This was called a controversy by so-and-so source 1 and so-and-so source 2" sentence, which was clearly added in response to the above RM. I would not object to you including something such as "Clinton's email use was subject to considerable controversy" with the sources you cited in a section about the media's reaction. I am objecting to the specific instance of how you used those sources. (Furthermore, the lead typically should not include information that is not present in the article body.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, I am totally confused. Or you and I are not talking about the same thing. I added that info in. (The information being: "This incident has been referred to as a controversy and/or a scandal by The New York Times and The Washington Post, etc.") It was not moved to a different section. It was deleted (i.e., excised altogether). I don't know if it was by you or which specific editor. And I am not inclined to go look through the maze of edits in the history. But, if the material is suitable for the article, is the better solution to: (A) delete the material altogether? or (B) move it to a more suitable section? As far as I can tell, option "A" is what happened, not "B". Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Which question did you wish an answer to, Joseph? There were a lot of question marks in that...energetic message, and it is difficult to parse the queries from the hyperbolic assertions. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the question to which I was referring: Why are you so adamant that that word (the word "controversy") not enter the title? Nor the article proper? Give me one valid reason. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered that, as have several others. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Very illuminating response. Which speaks volumes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you must see it reproduced here, Tarc's earlier statement is that Clinton's email server is only called a scandal or controversy in politicized publications, as a way of shaming her; also that the proper subject of the article is in fact Clinton's e-mail system, her personal usage of it, and the release of the emails, not the controversy over them which reflects one particular slant to it. I think I have that right, although my view differs. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I am not sure if you are telling me your own thoughts? Or if you are trying to interpret and tell me the thoughts of User Tarc, as you interpret them to be? Regardless. Are you saying (or are you saying that Tarc is saying) ... that these nine sources (The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, CNN, AP (Associated Press), Reuters, MSNBC, NBC News, and CBS News, etc.) are all in a vast conspiracy to shame Clinton? All nine of these sources are politicized publications, presenting the "news" in a slanted light? Is that the argument here? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to summarize Tarc, since Tarc didn't seem to want to do it. My opinion is that this article is about a controversy and should be titled as such. I don't see where shame enters into it, we're writing about the controversy, not endorsing it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We're writing about the controversy, not endorsing it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG I just had a brainstorm; Hillary Clinton e-mail system conspiracy theories! What do you think? Along the same line as the bithers article. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a soapbox. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Republicans are using an unusual (and legal) email use as a way to attack Hillary Clinton, who will likely stand in the way of a Republican presidency. In an atrocious abuse of power, they are using taxpayer money to finance endless (and pointless) hearings on Benghazi, and now they have a new chew toy to play with. If there is anything controversial, it is that abuse of taxpayer money. Democrats don't do this sort of thing, because they generally have a conscience. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Wow. I guess you drank the Kool-Aid, huh? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Wait for the above RM to conclude. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Hillary Clinton email system → Private email usage by Hillary Clinton – There seems to be some support for variants of this name in the above move request. I think that this title more accurately describes what the controversy is about, without passing judgement on the subject. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• You yourself (above) just specifically called it a controversy. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support in theory, but a new RM probably shouldn't be started while one involving the same article is currently ongoing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment that isn't what the brouhaha or article is about, it is only about that period while she was Secretary of State, and only concerns official message usage, not her private emails. Email usage protocol of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be better -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that we should have two separate articles? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that the only notable thing about her emails is the the political circus surounding emails from the period while she was Secretary of State that were used for official purposes. Her non-official emails are not pertainent nor notable, emails from outside of this period are neither relevant nor notable. It is only the use protocol she used for email during her official tenure, and the storage protocol used for those emails thereafter, that is relevant and notable. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That, plus the fact that she deleted about half of them, even though under subpoena. (If you want to discuss this on a Talk Page, you really should create a Wikipedia account. (Or, if you already have one, log in. Registering, or logging in, would also hide your IP address.) Professor JR (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your quibble with the IP editor is, do not do this again. It is petty and demeaning to play Grammar Police on another user, thus I have removed the "corrections".Tarc (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, interesting point. How do we know which emails are "private" and which are "official State business"? We simply go by – and believe – what Hillary Clinton herself adjudges them to be? That's the fox guarding the hen house. Thus, the blurred lines become part of the controversy, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the point though, since the renaming proposal states it is for 'private email' Why rename the article to indicate it is about 'private email' if it isn't just about private email? -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And I think it should be "controversy", not "email system" or "private email", etc. It is the "controversy" that is important. So, I guess that I was extending the above discussion (the previous "rename" proposal) into this discussion. Which causes confusion. Which is probably why a user above said that we probably should not have two "renames" going on at the same time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as clunky & imprecise. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: But, how about Hillary Rodham Clinton email system? I mean, the word "system" is not that great, as if she had some ponzi scheme she used to phish intelligence about Benghazi, but its better than "controversy".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the current title (minus the "Rodham" part). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Wait for the above RM to conclude. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Proposed move of "Hillary Clinton email system" → "Hillary Clinton's use of private email accounts as Secretary of State": as a completely neutral, and non-POV alternative, which fully comports with Wikipedia Article Titles Policy, to help put an end to the endless re-naming of this article discussion, which has gone on way too long. Professor JR (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - moving to a new title, as no valid reasons have been given by anyone for not making a title change, and there have been numerous sources cited by a number of different users here supporting the fact that her use of private email accounts did, indeed, stir up a controversy. If it would go down more palatably, however, with the none-too-subtle Hillary Clinton advocates who have been weighing in on this one (who seem to shun the very notion of any possible controversies surrounding their candidate -- "This is not what it looks like" they contend), how about the totally neutral, and non-POV: "Hillary Clinton's use of private email accounts as Secretary of State", as suggested hereby, which fully comports with Wikipedia Article Titles Policy? Professor JR (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you say. However, if it is called a "controversy" by nearly all of the reliable sources, why can we not call it a controversy? Just because the Clinton advocates are making a big fuss over this? Which, by the way, is very NPOV. I think that the myriad of reliable sources should trump the biased editors. No? That is exactly why we use reliable sources. And not editors who are biased. What am I missing here? That anyone can claim this is not a controversy is simply baffling. It is extremely apparent that that "decision" is fraught with bias and NPOV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are there really three RMs open at the same time? Can't alternate proposals be made in the original request that is still open? FFS. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right -- and get this good faith, compromise proposal totaly lost in those other sections, which have seen on-going warring for some time now -- much of it over just one word, "controversy", which we should probably just leave out to shut everyone up, and in some deference to the shortness of human life. Rather than consolidate RM's, maybe it's time to close-out, at least, the ungodly long, meandering and full-of-rants "Rename this? (June 2015)" section, not to mention the other section entirely devoted to the single, quite apparently controversial, aforesaid word. Professor JR (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Server location

I've edited out some improbable claims that suggest that Clinton owned an email server that was located in her home. Although technically feasible, for the last 10-15 years almost nobody has placed an actual server in their home.

Reviewing the sources in the article, and searching on the web, I have (so far) found none to say that the server was physically located in her house. None of the citations I reviewed next to the claims in the article said that the computers were physically in her house, though some were obviously confused or contradictory about what that means, or what a server is, or what it means to register a domain name. For example, a claim that a server or domain is "registered to" her address does not at all imply that there is something physically present at her address, it is just a contact address listed on account registration. There does seem to be support that she / her staff were running a "home brew" email email server,[2] meaning that they were at least running a private instance of the email server software. However, it is not really clear whether they were also running the server itself, and where that server was located — in a leased server farm, a virtual cloud server, or indeed a computer sitting in a rack somewhere in her house.

(from the Server (computing) article, a rack-mountable server. Did she really have one of these in her basement?

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Clinton told the House Committee (who apparently believes the server is in her house in New York, as they have threatened to subpoena it) that it was secure and safe vis-a-vis any sensitive or classified material, as her husband's Secret Service detail was guarding it -- a rather naive claim showing little understanding of cyberspace, but indeed suggesting that it is, in fact, sitting there in her house. Professor JR (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did she really say that? That "all is well", because the Secret Service is, umm, "guarding" it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have sources on that? Sorry if I'm missing something, but we shouldn't make a strong claim about what was in her house without credible sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know if you consider Clinton herself a strong source -- but check the transcripts of her Committee appearance, and of her press conference at United Nations Headquarters.[3] Professor JR (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the transcript or is it somewhere on that file page? Her testimony is not a secondary source, but it would help confirm whether those secondary sources are in fact reporting it correctly (it's using primary sources to falsify other sources as a matter of editorial discretion, which is reasonable, not for WP:V purposes). The confusion people are having with what it means for a server to be somewhere is exactly why it would help find a credible source, in this case not just a reliable one but one that seems to know what it's talking about. Given all the fuss about how insecure the emails were, the implications of her keeping a physical server in her house would indeed be something that a credible tech / IT security publication would be most interested in. A subpoena for a person to produce files does not necessarily imply that the files are in one particular place, only that somebody is able to produce them. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Even in 2015 there's a general ignorance in the media of how "cyberspace" (shudder) actually functions. I'd be jaw-on-the-floor surprised if the server turned out to be physically located n the Clintons' home, what some in the media went off on was the registration of an IP address to "Eric Hoteham", with the registrant address listed as the home address. At present, the location has not been made pubic, so if there is any prose in the article saying otherwise, it should be stripped. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This has some info: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/clintons-email-hosted-on-exchange-2010-server-now-not-in-chappaqua/ 70.215.73.103 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary's "explainer" put out last night says the server really actually was on her property. 70.199.104.81 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)