This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofVirginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
I was brought to this page from a WP:BLPN post here. Seems there is some dispute over whether or not Mills' email to US diplomats in Haiti should be included in the article. The content is accurately sourced to the NYTimes but the release of emails is from Wikileaks. There was discussion in the past over the reliability of Wikileaks at WP:RSNhere. Before the content is restored back to the page, let's discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for responding to my call for you to come to the talk page to discuss this. Meatsgains. I had a look at the 2009 discussion of Wikileaks you linked to and to the anonymous IP who calls for locking down the article. The reason that Wikipedia has a BLP policy is to protect itself legally, not to spare politicians from reliably sourced material. What do others think? This is the text you object to:
Shortly afterwards, in March 2011, the evening of the run-off election, Mills wrote to top US diplomats in Haiti, saying "You do great elections!", and promising to buy dinner the next time she was in Haiti, saying "We can discuss how the counting is going! Just kidding. Kinda. :)". The release of this email led Haitians to question the US role in Michel Martelly's election.[1]
I'm ambivalent as to whether the content should or should not remain on the page. The reason I removed it is because of it originally came from Wikileaks. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so no policy objections, I take it. Maybe we can put these items back in, I'll look into it when I have some time. I do understand your reticence. If I were Cheryl Mills I wouldn't like either of these things on my wikipedia page. I suppose my salary would be commensurate with my risk of being involved in/talking about/joking about scandalous stuff in my email, though...SashiRolls (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are certainly policies that apply, mainly WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Give it a few more days to see if other users reply here and if we don't get outside input, I suggest opening up an RfC. Meatsgains (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That it was originally on wikileaks is irrelevant. The reason why we use third party sources like the NYT is that we expect them to have fact checked sufficiently before publishing their article. So an argument it was in location 'x' before it was covered by a third party source falls down. What *is* a problem is that news coverage of current events makes the NYT a *primary* source for those current events. You are better off taking this to RSN because there are related issues that the NYT is covering a current release (the leak) of material about a historical (the emails) event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I have always appreciated Zero Hedge , I imagine that Meatsgains & Snooganssnoogans & VM/Schweik would prefer the following deleted content (spliced into a weird place in the article by an anonymous IP then deleted by another) be sourced to CNN, WSJ or the Federalist rather than to the "Smoking Gun" article?
On October 25th, 2016, Mills implicated President Obama in an email to John Podesta. The e-mail stated "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov." in reference to President Obama's communications on Clinton's illegal server.
I have just modified 2 external links on Cheryl Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills went unpunished after lying to FBI agent with anti-Trump bias regarding Hillary email server[edit]
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills went unpunished after lying to FBI agent with anti-Trump bias, Peter Strzok, regarding Hillary email server investigation Emails on Feb. 27, 2010, Jan. 9, 2011, Aug. 30, 2011, all show Mills discussing the HRC server. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[1][reply]
