Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 49

Reopening of the Email investigation

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language on "reopening" of FBI investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, strike that! The changes on this story are drastic. I'm less inclined to want to add this to Clinton's main article if this just revolves around checking the classification of 3 e-mails found in related to Weiner's sexting scandal[1]. I think we should at the very least wait for a couple of hours of reporting before we add anything to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here's Newsweek [2]. This is starting to look more like a political stunt by a couple Republican representatives desperately trying to save Trump's campaign. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, she used the term "closed" in her address.[3] But I do not see why we should use her phrasing when the FBI says it was never closed. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

According to Newsweek, "technically it was never closed.”[4] And Comey writes about the investigation in the present tense. Certainly Comey, who is director of the FBI and one of the nation's leading prosecutors is in a better position to describe the nuances of FBI procedure than Loretta Lynch. This isn't Prussia where we assume that the higher rank one has, the more one knows. TFD (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics is about association. He and his associates decided jointly to be one of Clinton's largest donors and he has contributed individually as well.[5] Previously he was a federal prosecutor, which is a political appointment. Clearly he prefers Clinton over Trump. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it excludes one from being "apolitical," which is the claim Muboshgu made. TFD (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed wording

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adding religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoration of removed content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pantsuits

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

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

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

4 paragraph rule in lead?

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

Thank you. Exactly what I mean. I think we're getting on the right track here.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article from Politico which we know is left-leaning. The title says it all; "Trump pulls off biggest upset in U.S. history" and there are plenty more where that came from.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college. However, she won the popular votes. Reference: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/ 67.68.24.93 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college. However, she won the majority of the popular vote in 2016 presidential election. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/

67.68.24.93 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The inclusion of the popular vote is currently being discussed in sections above. See Talk:Hillary Clinton#Remove popular vote speculation and Talk:Hillary Clinton#victory in popular vote, among others. clpo13_(talk) 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Retirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE.... Conservapedia is that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh...please go back to Breitbart. Take the gravedancing elsewhere. Acalamari 11:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove popular vote speculation

Why does this page assert that Clinton has won the popular vote? As far as I can see, they are still counting. CNN [6] are projecting Trump will win the popular vote. It is bad enough to have it in the article, let alone the lead. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they aren't. The site you linked has a larger number next to Clinton's name than Trump's. When and if a reliable source has a larger number next to Trump's name, we'll make the change after that point. Unless and until we have a more recent, reliable source with numbers that support a change, we won't make a change. --Jayron32 19:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, she has popular votes right now, but might not end up with more. If you click on the 'popular vote' tab, it contains the same numbers (with Clinton's high score), but highlights Trump, calling him the 'projected winner' above. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that I am not trying to say Trump will win the popular vote: I don't have a clue. What I am saying is it is completely wrong to be asserting as a fact in an important article about an important event that Clinton will end up the popular vote winner. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Then we can turn to what reliable sources are reporting: "Hillary Clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote". bd2412 T 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Despite the CNN page I linked to above that is projecting Trump to be the popular vote winner? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The headline of the article you have linked to does not even say she has won the popular vote. It says she is winning (present tense). That could change as the votes are counted. Am I missing something? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The CNN page you linked to above is projecting: "Trump 47.5% votes 59,827,920" and "Clinton 47.7% votes 60,136,735". That would put Clinton over 300,000 votes ahead in the popular vote. bd2412 T 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you clicked the tab called 'popular vote'? It says Clinton is 300,000 votes ahead, but only with 93% counted and projects Trump as the overall winner.2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be a projection of Trump as the overall winner of the election. However, there is no deadline. I would be fine waiting until an official final vote count comes out to include the information. bd2412 T 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

user:bd2412, he raises a valid point here. With all of the votes not having been counted, even the link you posted stating that she is winning, as opposed to has won, we are wrong in having this information included in this article as though it is a fact that she won. It should be removed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's 99% counted and she's won it. The only question is by how much. She might have won it by more than Gore, Nixon or Kennedy [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We may have reached the point where it is mathematically impossible for Trump to receive more total votes than Clinton based on the possible number of votes left. The latest reported result says that Clinton "currently leads the popular vote 60,467,245 to Trump’s 60,071,650 for a difference of 395,595", with over 99% of the votes counted. bd2412 T 16:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And it does not matter whether or not Clinton got more votes, but that reliable sources say she did. As the respected essay, "Verifiability, not truth", says, "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source."

And note, no one is claiming that the fact Clinton won more votes means Trump's election is illegitimate. Had the election been determined by total votes, both campaigns would have approached the race differently, and people who did not vote because Clinton or Trump were certain to win their states would have come out.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a different election if all votes were counted as in other countries. But we can not speculate about results. Perhaps she would win a lot more? What we can and must do is to include what RS tell about it [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with holding off on this information unit it is completely done and official, after all, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we do not have a deadline to meet.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not speculation to report the facts that appear in reliable sources. But it is speculation to second guess reliable sources. Lots of things that reliable sources report as true turn out to be false. Do you have any policy or guideline reasons not to accept facts as reported in reliable sources? TFD (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a policy that states which source to pick over another, when they are all reliable yet have conflicting information? Again, there is no harm to this article to wait a short amount of time to include information that will be accurate, well sourced, and verifiable. There is harm however, when we had something stated as fact, and sourced by articles that did not substantiate this claim of fact. That was not encyclopedic. And that is exactly why this information was temporarily removed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source at this point which disputes that Clinton will win the popular vote? The latest count has her up by over half a million votes. bd2412 T 02:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

MordeKyle, no reliable sources conflict about Clinton having a higher number of votes. Do you have any policy or guideline reasons not to accept facts as reported in reliable sources? TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Not that I'm aware of. @The Four Deuces: I'm not disputing facts. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't include facts. When she wins the popular vote, by all means, include it in the article. When this information was removed, the article stated that Hillary had won the popular vote, and then cited a source that said she was currently winning the popular vote. It was wrong for this information to be included in this article at that time. If it is statistically impossible for Trump to win the popular vote, and you have a source that says that, then include the information. I am not contesting this, so stop acting like I am. I do feel however, keeping WP:BALL and WP:NOTNEWS in mind, especially considering the evolving nature of this data, we are best to wait to include the data once it is stable and/or official. That is all.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Most current vote count

We currently cite the NYT page http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

As of my reading it now, saying updated 3:04PM it says 60,071,781 Clinton 59,791,135 Trump.

It appears Huffington Post may have a more current count: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/results/president

As of my reading now it says 60,122,876 Clinton 59,821,874 Trump. Should we go with that? Guessing percentage is roughly the same. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is very subjective to the source being used, live information like this probably should not be on Wikipedia. I'm not sure about the policy on this by any means, but every news outlet seems to have a different count. Maybe we should just remove this information until it is all finalized.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Either that or make a noncommittal statement such as "As of November 10, final votes were still being counted. Preliminary results showed a very close totals for the popular vote." Or say that they are within approximately 300,000 out of 120 million votes cast. The key is, don't worry too much about it, as there is no deadline and we will have an official figure eventually. it'll never bee accurate to the last vote, because every recount would generate a different result, and nobody has any reason to do a recount. . - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I think the only real difficulty with this is that there are so many different numbers being reported as "current" right now. Which one would we use? Then we run the risk of using a source considered bias by some. I'm not well versed in this subject, nor am I well versed in how to handle these discrepancies, but I feel temporary exclusion is the safest option.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested being noncommittal. All of the credible sources say the popular vote was close based on votes counted to date so we're safe saying that. If they all fall within a band of 300,000 then it would be safe to use that number (or 500,000 if that's the outer range of the sources we've found). - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I see what you are saying, I misread that before. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So the situation is that all reliable sources show that that the difference is within 300,000 with Clinton ahead, but it is proposed in this talk section to not include the information that Clinton is ahead. Am I understanding correctly? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right. These contributors suggested do not place reliably sourced and highly significant information on the page. Yes, that goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you aren't understanding that correctly. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper we are in no rush to include information that is not complete or may not be accurate. The suggestion was, to WAIT to include this information until the counts were final, as many reliable sources had conflicting numbers. Again, as I stated above and before, we have no deadline, we don't have to be first to break the story, we just have to be accurate and properly sourced.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By that rationale, an argument can be made that the article shouldn't show Trump as winning the Electoral College either, since they haven't voted. Perhaps it is enough for now to say Trump defeated Clinton in the election, but leave all the details out until everything is done and dusted. Also, bear in mind this is the main biography, so such details aren't really important anyway. There are campaign articles and election articles for all that stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That argument could be made, but before you do, you may want to read the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to see why the apparent winner of the election is considered the President Elect. That being said, it isn't exactly an accurate comparison you are making. As far as I know, all of the major news sources have identical electorate numbers. The issue here really is that major sources have conflicting popular vote numbers. This is why I have been explaining over and over that we should wait to include this information so that we may be encyclopedic. We are not breaking news here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

With the numbers changing constantly it seems prudent to either be vague or wait until the numbers are finalized. It will not be long before the totals are in, and at this point two states have not even officially said who won. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We should just post the latest results posted and note they are incomplete. The latest results will have the highest number of votes. As a reader it is more important for me to know roughly how many votes each candidate received than to wait weeks until every result is finalized. TFD (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using a range for each candidate since different reliable sources have different numbers.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason they have different numbers is that as more results come in they get updated and some sources are quicker to add the new numbers. TFD (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

99% of the vote has been counted and the remaining votes are in California, Washington and New York - Clinton strongholds - so there's basically no chance in hell that her winning the popular vote will be reversed, assuming in the first place that there is actually enough votes left to flip it [9]. I'm going to restore the text then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I support that at this point. The count may be further refined; the fact of the popular vote win is settled. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton blames loss on Comey

Clinton has blamed loss on Comey's letter as well as his later announcement that there was nothing to change his view that she should not be charged [10]. She has also explained why she thinks these actions made her lose. Is it notable enough for being included? 59.89.46.161 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Clinton's entire life, so election-related specifics like this are probably best left for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016‎. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

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

Article Predicts the Future

The summary section indicates that Hillary Clinton failed to obtain a majority in the electoral college. At the present time (11/15/2016), the electoral college has not yet even voted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.143.51 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. Strictly speaking, we should rephrase it to something along the lines of "failed to win enough support to win the electoral college," or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

The final paragraph of the intro reads: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain the necessary 270 votes in the electoral college, despite winning the national popular vote.

I would suggest you replace that with: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain the necessary 270 votes in the electoral college, despite receiving a plurality of the national popular vote.

I believe this is more precise - she did not receive a majority of the popular vote, which might be implied by "won". Furthermore, I believe that it is a bit of a misnomer to even discuss 'winning" the popular vote, as that is not what the two candidates compete over.

RaphaelvonT (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you- MrX 12:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

KilroyWasHere42 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Information is not true needs fixed

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)