Talk:Cheryl Mills

Mills email
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:RSN here. Before the content is restored back to the page, let's discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

SashiRolls (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I appreciate your input. This story is from March 15.  I'm wondering if the appropriate place for it might not be Haiti-US relations?  SashiRolls (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"We need to clean this up"
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."

Meatsgains, what are your thoughts on this? I don't want to edit war... I wonder if the deleting IP is the same one who accused me of "subtle vandalism" for citing the NYT. sigh. here SashiRolls (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:
 * Added tag to http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/1999/fax19990128.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.nyunews.com/2.6167/pro-adjuncts-club-sprouts-1.645058
 * Added tag to http://www.nyunews.com/2.6167/work-with-not-against-unions-1.642556
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120805221739/http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=10988 to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=10988
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914042523/http://blogs.thedailybeast.com/women-in-the-world/connect/2011/3/11/women-in-the-world-live-blog-why-women-cant-make-i to http://blogs.thedailybeast.com/women-in-the-world/connect/2011/3/11/women-in-the-world-live-blog-why-women-cant-make-i
 * Added tag to http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Cheryl_Mills?loadTab=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills went unpunished after lying to FBI agent with anti-Trump bias regarding Hillary email server
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)

Primary sources, possible synthesis
This edit, which re-added reverted content, appears to inappropriately rely on primary sources and may contain synthesis. Rivertorch FIREWATER  21:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)