Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article cleanup

Duplicate material

An editor is edit warring my attempt to clean up the article here, deleting a newly-added, redundant mention in the FBI investigation section that the judge in the Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State case ordered the State Department to ask the FBI if any emails sought in that case were in the hands of the FBI - with the bad faith accusation that I'm whitewashing the article by doing so.[1] Quoting the Fox News source, which quotes the judge, the material contains a non-precedential comment by the judge saying that in his opinion Clinton violated her agency's policy. The issues I've got with this are that this has almost nothing to do with the FBI investigation and is not sourced as such, that the exact same event is already covered where it belongs, in the section on the case the judge is presiding over, and that quoting Judges' oral statements in open court (obviously, in the opinion of Fox, disparaging of Clinton) is delving into irrelevant minutiae. It also contains a duplicate wikilink to the judge's article, to boot. The judge is not in any position to make this sort of finding, it only reflects his reasoning in making the order. If we were to make a practice of quoting things judges say in courtrooms, not even dictum but off the cuff comments, it would certainly degrade the reliability of information in the encyclopedia articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The HRC Booster Club insists on whitewashing this article to remove anything they perceive as detrimental to Clinton. But the facts are the facts and as long as RS exists calling them “irrelevant factoids” or suggesting “already covered in appropriate section… nothing in source to suggest relationship” doesn’t cut it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Added NYT source which says “opened the door for the F.B.I. …to expand its inquiry to pursue emails that she may have deleted” to show that it is part of the investigation. Removed from Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the new source and avoiding duplication (as I think your new edits do) definitely helps. I would have kept it in the section about the lawsuit the judge is presiding on, but either way, saying the same thing once is best. The Judge's comments in open court and other similar things are irrelevant factoids, and there was nothing in the cited source to suggest that the judge's order had anything to do with the investigation. Please stop using "whitewash" and "booster club" to describe other Wikipedia editors, that shuts down the discussion. If people head down that path this election cycle we're going to end up with discretionary sanctions, arbcom involvement, and lots of people getting blocked and topic banned, as has happened in prior election cycles. Regardless, I will be trying to smooth out this article in a way that does not fundamentally change the content or come out pro or anti anything, just anti soundbite and fluff. Given that this whole subject is an embarrassment for Clinton, even a neutral edit that makes the narrative more cogent and understandable rather than wonky and overdetailed is going to come out sounding worse for her. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Sorry if whitewash offended you. I agree it could go in either section. I disagree that the judge’s comments are irrelevant factoids. The very fact that they were picked up by most mainstream media bears that out and makes them newsworthy and therefore they should stay. There are plenty of other comments (Jennifer Palmieri, Nick Merrill, John Podesta, and Brian Fallon - to name a few) that balance the other view and I won’t quibble about them being there. Looking forward to working with you to keep the article fair and balanced. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that absolutely everything is "picked up by most mainstream media" because it is about Hillary Clinton. There's just too much stuff in relation to how big the story really is. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The judge's particular comments did get covered by a number of outlets, why I can't say. They might have been unusual for a judge, they might have seemed particularly relevant, or it could just be a journalistic echo chamber, because very few journalists actually engage in primary coverage and most of them just repeat what other sources say, with or without attribution. My issues are that: (a) reportage of litigation and legal issues is notoriously unreliable and misguided — quoting briefs and PR statements, for example, or quoting rote legal language as if it actually included some signal. For example, every discovery order comes with a requirement that the statement be made under oath. Used to describe an order made to a politician, it's like a scare quote, it suggests that the court is implying misdeeds; (b) excessive detail, which makes the whole thing really hard to understand and very hard for the reader to see why any of this matters, and (c) the tendency to describe political and legal matters from an in-world perspective, with journalists covering politics as a team sport rather than an issue of governance. It's like, in sports, the fact that many news outlets are overly fascinated with statistics trivia, or else endless talk about the the team's trading and salary negotiations. In different countries, it's different. Here's as snippet of British cricket chatter: "Confidence is coursing through the squad, although there is a realisation that beyond the core of 14 to 15 players they may struggle. Yet if they cannot succeed under Capello then it will never happen. Expect a semi-final at least." That might be what the news outlets think their avid readers want, but it is far from a scholarly, academic, historical, encyclopedic., etc, understanding of the sport. You would find that a more serious book written years later about a sports team would not include this material. Same thing here, a book (or encyclopedia article) written a few years after the event would not be so concerned with everybody's tactics or posturing. This article is going to stick around indefinitely, and if it's full of clutter on election day, I doubt that anyone's going to take the time to fix it properly later. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your POV, however I disagree with it. Presenting the judge’s comments is not WP:UNDUE especially considering WP:BALANCE as mentioned above. The viewpoint was easy to substantiate with numerous WP:RS. I consider your explanation nothing more than spin. I see you also removed “penalty of perjury” under the same guise (not encyclopedic / relevant) you used on August 6th. That term was reinserted by Neutrality, an uninvolved editor, who attempted to restore NPOV to the article on August 20. You have dashed my hopes of making this article fair and balanced. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All legal process is done under penalty of perjury. That is not encyclopedic no matter how many sources mindlessly repeat it. Balance is not about including positive and negative things in equal measure, it is about covering sources in due proportion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, that’s just your view. IMO I would say the staffer’s (Jennifer Palmieri) opinion would tend to be bias while the judge’s opinion would more likely be neutral. We cannot sanitize the issue with statements like “not encyclopedic”, “irrelevant factoids”, “anti soundbite and fluff”, “excessive detail”, “trivia”, “too much stuff” etc. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I also removed that "penalty of perjury" stuff when it was first introduced. You can find the discussion earlier on this talk page. It is boilerplate legalise, and unnecessarily including it just because it sounds really serious (when it is, in fact, not serious at all) betrays an intention to push a non-neutral POV. I had to make statements "under penalty of perjury" when I applied for a Green Card, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The wikilink you provided shows that the term is not so boilerplate as you contend “In recent years, however, to provide for even greater economy of time and money, courts have increasingly allowed persons to omit the step of swearing before a notary public or official. Instead, the affiant puts a separate paragraph at the end of the document, such as the following”. In this case, the judge took the extra step of explicitly requiring the “under penalty of perjury” clause. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you have misread it. "Under penalty of perjury" is always added when you give a sworn declaration, in every instance, regardless of whether or not it is before a notary public or similar official. It's standard boilerplate for "if you are found to be lying, you will be found guilty of perjury." Ask any lawyer. The judge didn't do anything special whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not misread anything; that’s why I included the text. Judges ask for information all the time without formalizing the request with a sworn oath. In this case, which had been closed due to the State Department assurances that all emails were already turned over, but reopened in light of Clinton’s private server story, the judge ordered formal certification. The order reminds Clinton that for the first time, she will be under oath. Clinton’s declaration begins with “I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:” To date, I believe, her two top aides have not fully complied. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

But that's entirely academic. Regardless of its use, it is still standard boilerplate and, therefore, not needed in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup done for now

Guys (meant to be gender-inclusive), I've just finished a first pass at tightening up all of the sections in the article. For the most part I haven't tried to rework the material or check the citations, more like organizing, pruning, and working with language and redundancy. Some of the issues to address:

• Trying not to say the same thing multiple times in the same or different sections
• Adding more subsections by theme (as opposed to chronology), and organizing things chronologically within the subsections
• Removing procedural details that are not really significant to the controversy, particularly WP:RECENT and WP:NOT#NEWS issues like saying "it is not yet known" or "so-and-so said that they have not decided whether to" or "the judge announced he will decide later". Either they will or they won't; when they do we can announce the results if important. Anything we put in about something that is scheduled to happen next week will become stale content by next week, so hard to maintain.
• Shortening quotes, favoring a description of what people say over the actual words if the words themselves are not memorable. Replacing quotes, or attributions of what different people and sources say, if the fact itself is sourceable and not controverted. So instead of "On August 19, 2015, the New York Times reported that the sky is blue" we can say "The sky is blue".
• Per the manual of style, moving citations out of the lede, and not including material in the lede that isn't in the body. So the lede is more summary in form now, with any unique content moved to the appropriate section.

Regarding balance and POV, as much as possible I tried to ignore any personal opinions about the controversy and just try to cut to the chase as far as what happened and what it's about. In the article's earlier state, I had a hard time following things when reading it. Now, I hope, a reader who does not yet know what it's all about can learn easily. This ended up removing some anti-Clinton rhetoric on the part of pundits, and also some self-serving defenses on the part of Clinton. If I had to say, I think I removed both in equal measure. People obviously thought all this stuff was important enough to include, but I ask for some understanding here. Too many trees and you can't see the forest. By sticking to the most important facts, the overall event becomes clearer. As I mentioned above, the net effect might be a little negative for Clinton, because a stronger narrative about a negative event would tend to create more of an impression. I think that's inevitable, and not a POV issue. Anyway, thanks for giving me the space to do this, please feel free to comment or correct my edits. I'm sure I made a few mistakes or created some messes while trying to clean up others. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your work here has been excellent. Many thanks for your efforts. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was deliberately trying, in cases I saw as questionable, to take the position of treating accusations as serious and worth mentioning. The one thing it doesn't really address is the accusation that the reluctance of disclosure, and deletion of emails deemed non-responsive are, themselves, issues separate from the keeping of government secrets on an unsecure private server (as opposed to unsecure government servers). In many, many legal contexts these accusations are rote. Party A demands disclosure. Party B discloses. Party A accuses Party B of obstructing, destroying evidence, committing perjury, being a Boston Celtics fan, etc. Rarely does this become politicized, it is usually the nuts and bolts of litigation. I see there are still a few serious redundancies, flow problems, etc., that the first pass laid bare. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Content of her e-mails (including anti-Israel content)

Hello. Where is the appropriate section to add in-line referenced info about her anti-Israel relationships revealed by the release of her e-mails, as recounted in this article please? I can't find a section about the content of her e-mails in this article, which is where it would make sense to add this info. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate section would be "nowhere", as an AJC-funded neoconservative magazine is not an accepted reliable source in this project. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Commentary is a highly respected magazine: "Historian Richard Pells says that "no other journal of the past half century has been so consistently influential, or so central to the major debates that have transformed the political and intellectual life of the United States." Is there a specific Wikipedia policy against Commentary? It seems like a perfectly reliable source to me, in the same way that The Guardian might be...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My question was about the content of the e-mails btw.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are more articles about it in other newspapers, e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is one of the leading British newspapers, with a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and editorial oversight. Commentary is a biased, right-wing funded collection of editorials; their opinion on the contents of Clinton's e-mails (that they are anti-Israel) represent a fringe point-of-view in American politics. It has no place here. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What Tarc says. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper (see their Wikipedia page). It has a reputation as fringe depending on your politics. Is there an official Wikipedia policy against Commentary, or are you expressing an opinion in the same way that I just did for the sake of emphasis? In any case, that is not the point. The point is about the (unclassified, obviously) content of her e-mails. I believe there should be a section about it. The New York Times article talks about the content of the e-mails, in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to practise "tough love" on Israel. The NYTimes article goes on to say he sent her articles written by his son. This could be the start of a section entitled "Content of the e-mails".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources attaching significant weight to this at all, much less that this is part of the commentary. There is some commentary that the emails reveal Blumenthal to be a close confidante, but that too isn't shown to be terribly relevant to the controversy. These are public records that in theory would have come out eventually one way or another in response to FOIA requests, so it seems unlikely that the existence of a controversy over classified content on an unsecured server would have much intersection with an analysis of Clinton based on the unclassified content of the emails. If it does as more sources emerge, we could have a summary section describing the various analysis of Clinton based on the emails, but it's just not there yet. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the "content" section to create (since there isn't one) should include this info about Blumenthal and other unclassified info revealed in the e-mails, don't you? I don't think it is insignificant. Would anyone object to that and if they do, could they please explain why?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The "why" has already been explained; the accusation that Clinton is anti-Israeli (a polite way of lobbing a charge of antisemitism) is based on a single unreliable source. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No. That is not my question. Even if you don't like Commentary, why should the revealed content of her e-mails not appear in a section of this page? That she received e-mails from Blumenthal urging her to take a "Tough Love" stance on Israel as The New York Times explains for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't backpedal on this now, you already let it be known what your angle is here with the opening ...about her anti-Israel relationships... line. Tarc (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My "angle" is irrelevant (I am nobody and this is not a forum. I don't care about your "angle" either.) For the second time, bearing in mind that you reject Commentary (even though you failed to show me an official Wikipedia policy specifically against Commentary), this New York Times article talks about the content of the e-mails, and in particular about Blumenthal's insistence that HRC should take a "Tough love" approach on Israel. I don't think that is insignificant. So, why should there not be a section about the content of the e-mails (which may include more info than simply Blumenthal's influence)?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's reasonable, and perhaps likely, but a little premature. The "tough love" thing is indeed very interesting and revealing. Perhaps part of any lasting significance of the event will be the window this provides into Clinton's professional life, and the discovery through FOIA disclosures. Or maybe it'll just be a "what interesting story can you write about this that nobody else is covering" issue of the day for a few news outlets. More likely the former than the latter, but it might take a few days and weeks to know. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait it out. Perhaps we could start a list about the revealed content. 1) Blumenthal's influence. 2) ... 3) ... Once there are a few stories, it could make for an interesting informed, neutral section on this page.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanting a "tough love" approach to Israel does not make Hillary Clinton antisemitic. That is why a single source making an extraordinary claim that no one else is is not appropriate for this project. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is where we're at here. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No one has ever said that. Your last comment is completely inappropriate. Please keep this talkpage professional.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Allegations that someone is "anti-Israel" is essentially the same thing. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Don't personalize this. Nobody cares about her personal feelings. This is about the textual content of e-mails regarding public policy.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of Hillary's emails re: Israel is that she's frustrated with Netanyahu. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "don't personalize this", no one is. A desire was expressed to add a fringe, outlandish claim sourced to a single partisan magazine to a WP:BLP. As this send ups a serious red flag, opposition was expressed. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times is not "fringe". You're the one who personalized this issue, making it about the person of HRC instead of the content of the e-mails. Unless someone can find a specific Wikipedia policy against Commentary, beyond the fact that it is a Jewish newspaper, there is nothing to add to this discussion and it should be closed. I can ignore it and we can simply use the NYTimes article and even the WSJ article to talk about Blumenthal's influence (see more productive section below). I have zero interest and no time to argue. I only care about public policy, not people. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You cannot run away from your own words, which if you need a reminder, were Where is the appropriate section to add in-line referenced info about her anti-Israel relationships revealed by the release of her e-mails. Only Commentary magazine draws the conclusion that showing Israel "tough love" means that Clinton is "anti-Israel". Please do not impugn the New York Times by claiming that their article on the matter supports the claims made by Commentary; it is dishonest and disrespectful. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I would see the material in question, and, for that matter, any commentary about the nature or contents of the e-mails beyond whether that material is or is not classified, as being probably basically irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant elsewhere, but the obvious subject of this article as it stands and as the lede section is constructed is that it is about the controversy regarding classified information. Intimations of ethnic or political bias of the parties involved in the e-mails, including Hillary, might be relevant and appropriate in some other article, but such non-classified content of any of the e-mails, or matters relating to intimations of such bias from the e-mails, seems more relevant to either the main biographical article of Hillary or whoever, or if it exists an article on their political leanings, not to an article about questionable transmission of classified information. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:John Carter: I disagree, because the popular press has clearly deemed some of the unclassified content like Blumenthal's influence as "controversial". It's not about our opinion of what's supposedly controversial: it's about what independent sources like journalists deem controversial. But would you rather add the info about North Korea (see section below). Apparently, they're not sure if that was classified or not. I tend to be morally opposed to adding content about classified (or even sensitive) info, but if it's made its way into the public domain via the press, I think it's become unclassified by definition. I think it would be more productive to continue this discussion in the section below.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you seem to be in disagreement with virtually everybody else who has commented here. If you believe that your position is one that would be supported by others who have not already commented, then you are free to open an RfC. Alternately, you are, I suppose, free to consider adding the material elsewhere. However, I believe that our policies, which are different from many of those of the popular press, including our significantly lesser amount of total information (not everything in the popular press is encyclopedic), and, I suppose, theoretically, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS and the recently implemented Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision ruling, I believe it might be in your own best interests to find and seek consensus for any changes to this article before implementing them, and certainly not act in any way to at least possibly face sanctions for doing so. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Please don't threaten me and remain civil. 2) Why do you think I am trying to discuss this here, if not to find consensus? This is what talkpages are for. I fail to grasp why you don't want to add referenced info about Blumenthal's influence, or possibly even info about North Korea, both of which surfaced as a result of this e-mail "controversy." The whole point of a talkpage is for other editors to explain why or why not they would agree to improve the article in such and such a way. Not just to reject it without a clear explanation. Otherwise there is no "talk," no discussion, and that's unproductive.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You aren't being threatened, you are being given a reminder as to what the rules and policies are that this project runs on. We have been discussing this since yesterday, yes, that is what talk pages are for. But it has been pointed out that what you proposed is a fringe claim, which would run afoul of WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading the same discussion? It has involved. Can you not see that I agreed to concede that Commentary is banned on Wikipedia (I don't know why, but never mind), but that even left-wing newspapers like The New York Times talk about Blumenthal's influence, and why should that not appear in this article (alongside possibly North Korea), since they were all revealed/uncovered by this controversy?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Characterizing the NY Times as "left-wing" pretty much a deal-killer on taking your proposals seriously going forward. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but it is. And that is beside the point. You like The New York Times better than Commentary. Fine. I have found an article about Blumenthal's influence in a newspaper that you like. Let's use it, as the information was revealed by this e-mail controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times has been embarrassing itself with its Clinton coverage lately, so to label the newspaper as "left-wing" is overly reductionist. NYT has tried to find a "smoking gun" on Hillary's person for over 20 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? This article is not about The New York Times. It's about the e-mail controversy. You don't like Commentary for reasons unknown; I found another reference we could use in The New York Times. Do you regard The New York Times as "unreliable" as well? It is widely used all over Wikipedia. The Wall Street Journal also mentioned Blumenthal's influence btw. The point is about relevant content revealed by the e-mail controversy, like Blumenthal's influence, or possibly the North Korean affair.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I regard NYT as questionable in its coverage of Hillary Clinton, as they've demonstrated a penchant for exaggeration and scandal-mongering for more than 20 years. Anything they say needs to be corroborated by other sources. But what's your point here with Blumenthal? That he advises Hillary Clinton? We've known this for some time. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please show me an official Wikipedia policy saying The New York Times is not a reliable source? Then we'll have to spend months removing all their references in countless articles all over Wikipedia. Simply saying you don't like it because they are not HRC superfans is not a good reason to censor The New York Times. Now, the NYTimes, WSJ, Commentary, etc., have shown that Blumenthal influenced Clinton's foreign policy when she was Secretary of State despite the fact that Rahm Emmanuel wouldn't let her hire him as an advisor. That is a revelation taken from the disclosure of those e-mails; it is part of the "e-mail controversy". It is not your job to do original research and suggest you already knew it. Independent sources all say this was revealed by the e-mails.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I said we need to be careful with their reporting because they've made sloppy mistakes, not that we shouldn't use them at all. As for this Blumenthal thing, I still don't see what you're getting at. Rahm didn't want to hire him? Okay. So what? You're implying there's something wrong with Blumenthal but not suggesting what it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything. Please assume good faith and don't make random accusations. I am relaying the new information revealed by this "e-mail controversy" that stipulates in several independent sources (at least three, but two if you don't like Commentary) that she was influenced by Blumenthal throughout her time as Secretary of State, including with regards to her stance on Israel. That's one relevation from the e-mail controversy. It's new knowledge, and relevant to the "e-mail controversy," according to independent sources. We could add a couple more relevations. The North Korea revelation may be another one.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not implying that you're implying anything, just that I don't understand the point of any of this. "Hillary Clinton took advice from an adviser" is really what all this boils down to. Politicians having advisers isn't anything relevatory. I don't see what's to add. As Israel is concerned, her emails suggest frustration with Netanyahu, which is nothing out of the ordinary. Then as far as classified information about North Korea in her emails, which is what I assume you're talking about, I don't see any reliable sources talking about any of those allegations, just right-wing sources like Town Hall and the Washington Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal influenced her hostile political stance towards the leadership of Israel when she was Secretary of State and that was just revealed by the "e-mail controversy"; thus it would appear to be perfectly relevant and germane to this article. Yes, The Washington Times is a conservative-leaning newspaper in the same way that The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. There is freedom of the press, but some animals more equal than others apparently...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal influenced her hostile political stance towards the leadership of Israel is the characterization of the matter by one partisan source, and as such, it will not be featured or mentioned in this article. I hope that this finally clarifies the matter for you. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Netanyahu endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, went to the U.N. with a cartoon bomb that looked like something Wile E. Coyote might use on the Roadrunner, and then spoke to the U.S. Congress to undermine diplomacy. As an American Jew, I'm furious with Netanyahu, and I'm not alone. There's nothing untoward in Blumenthal advising Clinton on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume this is a forum where your opinion should be expressed? I'm sorry, but this is not what a talkpage should be about. I have zero "opinion" about HRC, none. But for this article to remain balanced, I believe we should relay the relevant information. Please read the NYTimes and WSJ articles. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion reflects the policies of the Wikipedia, which does not violate the neutral point-of-view by giving undue weight to extraordinary claims. The WSJ link is behind a paywall, and cannot be commented upon, while the New York Times does not support your assertion of "anti-Israel relationships". What we have is simple correspondence between Clinton & Blumenthal, which is not a remarkable occurrence. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My point was to clarify how negative opinions about Netanyahu are not necessarily "anti-Israel", but you don't seem to be too intent on listening. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, he was directing the "your opinion" comment to you, not to me. I missed that. Well we're still at the same point either way. This has been a lot of discussion on a tangent that is really pretty trivial. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. I don't see how Blumenthal talking to Clinton about Netanyahu is anything revelatory. In trying to make a point, this user instead tried to turn it back on me by claiming some violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not under a paywall for me. I would recommend requesting it (or visiting a library). Either way, it sounds like you don't want to add a section about the information revealed by this "e-mail controversy" relevant to her role as a State Secretary. I disagree. I would want to add it if the information said she saved human rights activists in Africa too btw--as long as it's new information relevant to her role as State Secretary and revealed by this "e-mail controversy."Zigzig20s (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is pretty bloated already and we have another year and two months of this ahead of us for this "email controversy" (assuming she's the nominee) to continue to develop, so we shouldn't be falling victim to WP:RECENTISM and adding news details that are contraindicated by WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this informed her public policy and basically world events (look at Iran...), I believe it is not recentist. Same goes for North Korea, if there are more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

New section about the unclassified content of her e-mails.

There seems to be a consensus to add a section about the unclassified content of her e-mails. If you disagree, tell us why. The section should include a couple of revelations from the disclosure of those e-mails. 1) Blumenthal's influence. 2)... 3)... Please keep this discussion professional. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep the discussion professional, I suggest you refrain from using words like "revelations" when you are describing the contents of the emails. Also, this article is about the controversy, so I don't agree we should include non-controversial stuff from Clinton's emails. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Revelation" seems appropriate because the content remained unknown until those e-mails were released to the public; thus the content was revealed/uncovered as a result of the publication of those e-mails. If you want to make this section more controversial to match the title of the main article, we could add referenced info about the North Korea-related content.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any such addition. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to it? The press deems much of that content controversial.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The biggest takeaway from these emails that I've seen is that Hillary is a fan of "Parks and Rec", which of course she is. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That is content irrelevant to public policy. Nobody cares whether she wastes her time watching television or not.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet that's about the biggest finding so far. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Blumenthal's influence. Possibly the North Korea revelation. All relevant to her job as Secretary. Please try to keep up. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just addressed that in the above section. Clinton having an adviser is nothing out of the ordinary, and the NK allegation is only being reported in right-wing sources which suggests to me that they're stretching the truth, though I am not fully up to speed on that one yet, because no reliable sources, even NYT, seem to think its worth mentioning. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal's influence was revealed by this e-mail controversy, according to independent sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Is his "influence" (he's just one advisor of many) really controversial at all? No. All these media reports are doing is peeling back the curtain on some of the more secretive aspects of Clinton's life, but none of them appear to be controversial. We are talking about exposés, not revelations. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares whether you find it controversial or not. It is new information which was revealed by the e-mail controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding that she gets advice from Blumenthal is like citing that the WP:SKYISBLUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. Zigzig20s, you need to let this go because it isn't going to happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not the sky is blue... This is new information that influenced her policies during her public service, and it was revealed by this e-mail controversy... You may choose to censor the information, but I have at least explained why I believe it is perfectly sensible to add it to the article. You did not.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That Blumenthal is an aid of Hillary is well known and not censored anywhere. That he advises her is not something that needs to be explicitly stated. You don't seem to have taken in the logic in arguments to not add what you seem to want to add. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the NYTimes, WSJ, etc., Blumenthal's influence during her time as State Secretary is NEW information revealed specifically by this "e-mail controversy". Voila.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not new information. Blumenthal has been a Clinton advisor forever. And it isn't controversial, or part of the email controversy. The emails were "revealed" (along with ALL THE OTHER EMAILS), but the association was not. Just stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scjessey and others above. This seems to me to be getting unfortunately close to being disruptive, and somewhat of maybe beating a dead horse, and there are, unfortunately, possible consequences if it continues too long. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Clinton jokes about email controversy

How about a new section in the article entitled "Clinton's jokes about the email matter", with a view to improving the article in answer to Scjessey, above, and to provide a place for any jokes she has made, or makes in the future concerning her email controversy? It could include the "With a cloth" facetious remark she made in Las Vegas (referenced above, and about which I agree with Fred Bauder's comments) as well as her earlier joke at the Iowa State Fair on how she has now opened "a snap-chat account", "where the messages disappear all by themselves". Gee, if her day job continues to go sour, maybe she can try a new career in stand up comedy. . . . --- Professor JR (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it is in any conceivable way notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Duh, I don't know, maybe because the jokes are responses being given by THE CURRENT FRONT-RUNNER IN THE 2016 ELECTION FOR THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENCY in response to serious questions from members of the media about HER ACTIONS that happen to be THE SUBJECT OF THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? --- Professor JR (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it was not a joke. When the reporter asked her if she had wiped the server, she did not understand the question. "With a cloth" was not a joke; she honestly did not understand the question. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably don't remember the incident where George H.W. Bush first encountered a grocery scanner. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I do, in fact, remember when Bush 41 first encountered a grocery check-out scanner. And, I remember when Richard Milhous Nixon (or poor, hapless Rose Mary Woods) "accidentally" erased some 18½ minutes of tape they didn't want anyone to listen to. At least the Clinton people admit that it was they that erased the server, intentionally, even if Clinton when asked didn't really get the "wiped it clean" bit. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you know she "honestly did not understand the question?" And how the hell does that have anything to do with this "controversy" anyway? It just isn't relevant, and this is bordering on the ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It may be open to debate WHO is bordering on the ridiculous here. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Henry: Answer the question. Did you try to wipe the whole server? You didn’t answer the question.

Mrs. Clinton: I don’t. I have no idea, that’s why I turned it over.

Mr. Henry: You were the official in charge of it. Did you wipe the server?

Mrs. Clinton: What? With a cloth or something?

Mr. Henry: I don’t know. You know how it works digitally.

Mrs. Clinton: I don’t know how it works digitally at all.

Mr. Henry: So you didn’t try? You did not try?

Mrs. Clinton: Ed, I know you want to make a point and I can just repeat what I said.

Mr. Henry: It’s a simple question.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's more -

Mrs. Clinton: (throwing her hands in the air, and walking away) Nobody talks to me about e-mails, besides you. (video)

Professor JR (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the video; Clinton laughs after the remark about the cloth. I guess it was a joke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Either way, joke or not, it was pretty lame. Can you even imagine what Saturday Night Live is going to do with this when their next season starts in September? --- Professor JR (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, guys. If you think Clinton didn't understand what was meant by "wipe the server", you must be complete morons. She used the joke to deflect the endless barrage of stupid questions (in this case, from a Fox News reporter). She doesn't know how to wipe a server ("I don't know how it works digitally at all") but she knows what "wipe" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

She IS a grandmother. It is hard to successfully remove everything from a server; it is quite possible either this server, or a backup, still has all the emails. I think the second answer, "I don't know how it works digitally at all" probably is on the level (although even that may a disingenuous attempt to establish lack of scienter). She is a wonk, not a geek. However, the little laugh after the facetious remark about the cloth, gives IT away as a joke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume for the moment that she genuinely and sincerely does not know what the word "wipe" means in this context (which I highly doubt). With all of this controversy swirling about this exact issue, you mean to tell me that none of her inner circle of advisers, PR people, technical geeks, lawyers, etc., has ever brought her "up to speed" on this matter? Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I come to Wikipedia to see some famous quotes so we should have them in several articles. Hillary made several, like "wipe with a cloth" and "snapchat....those messages just disappear." I want them in Wikipedia. To be fair, I also want to see Donald Trump's quote like "they're sending drugs, they're rapist, some, I assume, are good people." Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sandra opposed to terrorism: Please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia – not Wikiquote. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ed Snowden comments

Possible addition. I thought Snowden was a Democrat?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server_55e87a21e4b0b7a9633c278b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

jeopardized national security secrets (ha, ha, didn't Snowden do the same????), and calls Clinton’s claims to the contrary “completely ridiculous.” “When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff, regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado is more secure is completely ridiculous,” the National Security Agency whistleblower told Mehdi Hasan in an interview that will air Friday on the debut episode of UpFront, Hasan’s new weekly talk show on Al Jazeera English. 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk • contribs)

Snowden is non-partisan. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How would you know?! I'm told he supports Bernie Sanders. --- Professor JR (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

By who? I've never seen that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Can't tell you, because it was told to me in confidence, but by someone who should know. But, you failed to answer my question -- what makes you think Snowden is non-partisan? Have any basis for claiming that? --- Professor JR (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Because he's never endorsed any party or candidate, and has bashed Republicans and Democrats alike. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What's your source for claiming that? --- Professor JR (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

He voted third party in 2008, and donated money to Ron Paul. Your source for him liking Bernie Sanders with someone "in the know" is a conversation that may or may not have happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Ron Paul was a Republican, and even a "third party" candidacy (note: "party" / "partisan" parti-san and The dictionary definition of partisan at Wiktionary) is, by definition, "partisan". I am so done here. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I just found it interesting that you asked me for a source when you freely admitted your source was a guy you talked "in confidence". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but he says he is a federal official in Washington, too, and those in Washington tend to say that about, it seems to me anyway, pretty much everything. However, I would also grant saying that he supports an individual candidate in an individual election is not necessarily sufficient grounds for saying that he has distinct partisan ties, although it could, possibly, influence what he says at times when elections are being discussed, which is pretty much every damn day in the US here. Or, at least, it feels like that. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting link, thanks, but what one uninvolved or very tangentially involved individual like Snowden thinks of Hillary Clinton isn't really germane to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Private sources are not a standard by which information is included in Wikipedia articles. If it matters which political candidates Edward Snowden supports or supported, this determination must be based on publicly available information. There might be exceptions for topics that don't have widely available sources like the assembly of nuclear weapons, but many biased sources are already quoted in the article and Edward Snowden certainly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements regardless of which political candidates he supports.

Also, since it's not obvious to people, Snowden was pointing out that the Air_gap_(networking)#Use_in_classified_settings exists for a reason, while making stupid people think that he was criticizing Hillary Clinton. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: "DoD [Department of Defense] cannot undo 20+ years of tacitly utilizing worst IT security practices in a reasonable amount of time, especially when many of these practices are embedded in enterprise wide processes." http://www.wired.com/2010/02/hackers-troops-rejoice-pentagon-lifts-thumb-drive-ban/ 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My unit had recently arrived in that region before the removable media ban, and apparently had problems with malware at the previous base in the US. Someone in my unit openly speculated that my unit had infected other computers with malware, though I noticed the 'last modified' dates on a large number of malicious programs in the root folder of a network drive predated my unit's arrival in the region. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

AP story

[Was: AP story confirms no scandal, but edited to keep discussion on track - Wikidemon (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)]

Reporting by Ken Dilanian, Steven Braun, Bradley Klapper, Deb Riechmann and Jack Gillum of The Associated Press has basically confirmed there is no "scandal" with Hillary Clinton's emails. Presumably, we will need to make significant changes to the article (which now documents dated and often incorrect information) to reflect this new reality. The article notes the only unusual fact about the emails was that they were on Clinton's personal server. The reporting says the following key points:

• Diplomats routinely sent secret material on unsecured email during the past two administrations.
• In a December 2006 email (during Condi Rice's tenure) sent using the unsecured system, diplomat John J. Hillmeyer pasted the text of a confidential cable from Beijing about China's dealings with Iran and other sensitive matters.
• Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer specializing in disputes over security clearances and classified information, said "such slippage of classified information into regular email is 'very common, actually.'"
• Neither Clinton's email system, nor the State Department's own unclassified system (which would have been used if Clinton had not used her own) "would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say."
• Ironically, the State Department's email system is believed to have been hacked by Russian intelligence, when Clinton's email was not.
• And the biggest nail in the coffin: "There is no indication that any information in Clinton emails was marked classified at the time it was sent."

There are lots of other useful tidbits to be mined from this article, but from these key points alone it would seem clear the article now suffers from a quite dramatic neutrality problem. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others on this before I think about doing anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assuming it all bears out, it only confirms that this is primarily a political controversy (and indeed, one promoted as political theater), not a real-world event about any events that are themselves notable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Long silly season ahead of us. No matter what is said or reported, this issue will remain throughout the campaign. What needs to be done to this article, I am not sure... - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty well sourced and formatted, and moderately well organized. It's just a very shaggy dog that needs a major haircut. There's a dog inside there somewhere. What I mean is that I think through some very heavy copyediting and pruning, you could get an article half as long that conveys just as much information, in a clearer way. The climax and deneument, whether that's the whole thing being dropped and forgotten or Hillary quitting the campaign and who-knows-who taking her place, hasn't happened yet. So it's premature to call the ending on this. Patience, people! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, that article seems problematic. First, the author provides no evidence to support his claim that the emails were on "unsecured email systems" other than that they were made available via a FOIA request. For example, (getting into original research territory), you can view all the documents returned from the FOIA request that included the Dec. 2006 email where Hillmeyer "pasted the text of a confidential cable". You'll see that Hillmeyer's email is fully and properly marked as classified when it was originally sent. In addition, several other redacted classified cables were also returned as part of the FOIA request. Second, the author appears to really be stretching to claim 6 emails over more than a decade plus emails during the emergency at Benghazi shows that this was "routine." I would also loudly decry your assertion that the article "notes the only unusual fact about the emails was that they were on Clinton's personal server." In short, feel free to cite the AP story in any additions you make to this entry, but I feel excising large portions of the entry based on a single AP story vs. the body of work already cited would be a mistake. Also re: "the biggest nail in the coffin: "There is no indication that any information in Clinton emails was marked classified at the time it was sent."" -- I feel whether or not the emails were marked is discussed adequately in the entry. Weaselfie (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: @Wikidemon: @Cwobeel: Here's a couple "useful tidbits" from the AP article you guys seemed to have missed (inadvertently, I'm sure):

• "'it would not save a rank-and-file official with a security clearance who was caught sending classified information over email, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who frequently represents intelligence officers. That person could lose his job, his clearance, or both. In real life, the 'everybody does it defense' doesn't fly,' Moss said."
• "Clinton and her aides should have known not to discuss anything remotely secret over unsecured email. The emails show they were cognizant of security, routinely communicating over secure phone and fax lines."
  

Also, it beggars rational belief, User:Wikidemon, to suggest that a matter now the subject of an FBI investigation is only something that "is primarily a political controversy (and indeed, one promoted as political theater), not a real-world event".

--- Professor JR (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But if the FBI finds no wrongdoing whatsoever, which is almost certainly the case, this will have been reduced to the political witch hunt we all know it is. Either way, it is clear this article is out of touch with reality, thanks in large part to certain editors who have been hoodwinked by the conservative politicians and media into thinking there is something to find. It's instructive to note much of this is being driven by Gowdy, who has utterly failed (as others before him) to find fault with the Benghazi matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: If you contend that, as you wrote above, "it is clear this article is out of touch with reality, thanks in large part to certain editors who have been hoodwinked by the conservative politicians and media into thinking there is something to find", then how using any common sense can you also say that the article "has basically confirmed there is no 'scandal' with Hillary Clinton's emails"? I don't see how we can have it both ways --- if we consider the article as a useful and valid source, then it should be used, but we should take great care to avoid just cherry-picking it in such a manner that runs afoul of Wikipedia:POV; if we consider it an invalid source, then we should drop this section altogether, and certainly not use said article as a basis, as you proposed,
"to make significant changes to the article (which now documents dated and often incorrect information) to reflect this new reality".
Also, are you suggesting that Chm. Gowdy is somehow driving the FBI investigation within the Obama Administration's Justice Department??!! --- and that it
"is almost certainly the case" that "the FBI finds no wrongdoing whatsoever"? How in the world, and on what credible basis, can you possibly postulate that?
Bear in mind, too, that the article calls this matter a "controversy", NOT a "scandal" for a reason --- so, in the final analysis, this whole discussion is really essentially moot, non-constructive, and a waste of time in my opinion. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see how other credible, neutral sources outside of the political echo chamber begin to report this. If it is just a creature of silly season it should be described as such for the sake of neutrality, not from the POV of political punditry. I haven't looked at the Benghazi article but it may well have the same POV problem, as many did during the last couple election cycles. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is that much of the article is sourced to earlier reports which have now proven to be inaccurate. As Kevin Drum puts it, the AP story shows "there is no there, there." It clearly states, in unequivocal terms, that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton. I actually made this point weeks ago, when I said the "controversy" relates to the circus surrounding Clinton's unusual use of a personal email system, rather than the use itself. As for the FBI, there probably wouldn't have been an investigation if Republicans hadn't howled so loudly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the article is very slanted towards early reporting from a size point of view. But that should not stop us from improving the lede so that it reflects the chronology and the latest information.... - Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is a mere diversion, not the blockbuster, game changing piece you may have been hoping for. It is so obscure it is hard to find with a Google search. Others routinely used private emails? So what? Did they maintain private servers? Did they commingle government and private emails? Did they try to keep it secret until the court orders started to come? Did they attempt to erase them? It is starting to sound like a second grade playground discussion – Johnny did it first! The reason that it is still a controversy is that it reflects on the integrity and common sense of the candidate. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but we will probably have to wait for months for this to play out in the political and legal arena, and years after that for political historians rather than participants to tell the story, by which time nobody will care other than the historians. The article does in fact look pretty ridiculous, with breathless attention to trivial details of investigations and lawsuits, it kinda makes the OJ Simpson case look thrilling by comparison. The effect, I think, is a disservice to the reader. Instead getting to the gist of anything, readers are bombarded with counts of exact numbers of emails, dates, what went into one motion or another to release some information or other information. The article is like a piece of old dough that's been fussed over so much that it's not dough anymore. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Grahamboat --- and statements such as, "As for the FBI, there probably wouldn't have been an investigation if Republicans hadn't howled so loudly", not only really miss the mark, but, I'm afraid, demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and total naiveté with respect to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. --- Professor JR (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just ludicrous. There is no way the FBI would've begun any sort of investigation had this not become a media frenzy, fueled by Republicans. And for the record, it is you specifically who is chiefly responsible for the awful state the article is in, with every single piece of unimportant minutiae lovingly documented in the hope it will reflect badly on Clinton. Transparent lack of neutrality, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You just proved my point, Scjessey, with regard to the level of uninformed naiveté some users are demonstrating here with respect to the FBI and how it functions. And, in contrast apparently to some of the other editors at work here, I have no particular bias one way or the other towards Secr. Clinton, or her campaign. I'm inclined to agree with Grahamboat, that much of this is "starting to sound like a second grade playground discussion". I think we all need to show some level of maturity in our discussions and edits. (p.s. - you may want to take a peek at Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) --- Professor JR (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You point has been proved in the way Vox Day claimed his point was proved at the Hugo Awards ceremony. And by the way, is it really necessary for you to constantly ping everybody? You're making enough noise that you don't have to specifically bash the bell, believe me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The major header for this section is inappropriate

@Tarc: The section on this Talk Page entitled "AP story confirms no scandal" (above) badly needs a title change --- as the AP story it references in NO WAY confirms that there is no scandal, but in fact suggests quite otherwise. If you take the trouble to read said AP story (which can be accessed HERE) this is very clear. And, we're also seriously running afoul of Wikipedia:POV in some of the comments that have been made in that section.
--- Professor JR (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The title is the opinion of the OP. As long as said opinion is not defamatory, libelous, or personally attacking a living person, you will leave it as-is per WP:TPO. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tempest, meet teapot. Whereas it's verboten to edit other people's comments, that doesn't really apply to section headers, which should be titled to best organize and facilitate discussion. Pointless issue. With that in mind, I have edited both the major header, and the header accusing the major header of being inappropriate. The AP story doesn't "confirm" anything, it simply reports some facts. Those facts suggest that the scandal/controversy/whatever is overblown. But a single story in the middle of a controversy doesn't really change anything. If that becomes the dominant narrative among the reliable sources, either now or much later if this ever gets resolved, then of course we will follow the sources. Anyway, as Tarc says, as long as it's not an attack or provocation, or trolling, or — my issue — more than one line long, please don't sweat the titles.

Timeline?

Is it possible to establish a timeline for major events in this story? i.e. the date the server was installed, the date the first FOIA request was made, the date the State Department disclosed its existence? There seems to be some conflict about whether the server was "wiped" and who did it - Can that be separated to promote clarity?2602:306:CF09:9FB0:31:F2C6:C4F3:FB3C (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice for the article to clearly provide this. I don't think the current article does a good job of providing the information that the typical person visiting this page will be interested in. Most people can run private servers with no controversy. Even government employees can probably run private email servers that they use for private business. The accusations made by political opponents reveal what people think might be important about this controversy, and the article should show whether those accusations are reasonable or correct. For example, was the physical security of the email server significantly lower than if it had been administrated by employees being paid by the government to administer the server? The article only mentions in a footnote that the property was guarded by the Secret Service, and the text that uses the footnote/reference isn't even about physical security so someone who only read the article body might not even suspect that it was guarded. While the typical unclassified government email server is probably in a building with access control and locks on doors, most probably don't have the physical security of a Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I also note that despite not covering these issues, the page is rated as Mid-importance to two projects. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that as presented right now, it is fairly difficult to follow the bulk of the events chronologically. I'd be willing to take a crack at making a timeline, but it seems significant effort has been made in the past to try to reduce the bloat of the article and I don't want to undo that hard work by adding more bloat right back in. Anything in the timeline would be in the main article anyways, so everything in there would be redundant. Maybe make it it's own article with a single link on either page to the other page? Any other thoughts? Weaselfie (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Official statements

I'm not sure what this header is supposed to mean. US officials? Campaign officials? It's rather vague. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Something's missing

Part of this controversy is that Clinton's camp have had issues with providing statements and then having to amend those statements when new "evidence" (for the lack of a better term) have come to light. Also missing is her dropping poll numbers and a general unease amongst some of her supporters about how her team is handling this "crisis" (also for a lack of a better word). In fact, there doesn't seem to be much in the article about how this has been affecting her campaign. Maybe a new section is needed? I would also think that would be a good place for some political punditry op-eds from both her supporters/detractors.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"providing statements and then having to amend those statements" — that's law 101, applies to any party to any lawsuit or investigation. What's unique here is not that it happened but that that a commonplace legal event has been spun out into a supposed scandal. "dropping poll numbers" — we would have to find reliably sourced statements that this is in fact the case. I do like the suggestion of a section devoted to explaining the back-and-forth among pundits, supporters and detractors, over what all of this means. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still concerned this article is massively overlong, with a level of detail ridiculously out of proportion from its significance. I could only agree to adding stuff like this if the rest of the article was trimmed. It's almost reached the size of the Whitewater controversy article, which also turned out to be a whole lot of something about nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends on what we believe the significance of this controversy is (no pun intended). Much of this controversy belongs in the campaign article, but the "back and forth" responses is part of the controversy. As more emails "drip" out I suspect we will see more sources report on them, more attacks from opponents and more responses from the Clinton campaign. Btw, the dropping poll numbers are sourced in many major RS and have been attributed to this "controversy". I need to reread the article but we should have something mentioning Climtom and her supporters feel this is much ado about nothing.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a few edits, the first was some minor verbage. Please don't remove this as "unhelpful", as that is a vague explanation for a rather minor change.

Part of the controversy is based upon initial statements made by Clinton that were contradicted. The Washington Post link added to the lead sources this, as well as Clinton and the State Departments view that classification is complicated. I also removed the italics to "marked" as this emphasis is essentially Clinton's emphasis, and not Wikipedia's. However I did add a link to what "marked" means, as this may not be clear to the reader, and probably unnecessary to elaborate further in the lead. I do plan on addressing the poll numbers later today with proper sourcing and make sure that it is short as possible. Thanks.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Clinton/Petraeus emails

It is not clear why this is necessary. It does not appear to be controversial or noteworthy. Are we now just documenting everything, like a blog? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The importance is that they appear to be outside of the claim (sworn statement) that all emails were turned over.Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that isn't true. The email chain appears before Clinton switched to using a personal email server, so it doesn't form part of anything controversial. My point is, the paragraph doesn't belong in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The reporting on this topic has indicated that part of the chain was on her old Blackberry account and part of the chain was on her personal email server and that none of the chain was turned over. Therefore it follows that some emails from her server that were not turned over. Weaselfie (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't even form part of the batch of emails that were expected to be turned over, since the email conversation began long before she used her private server. Certainly there is no consensus for this to be included in the article, which is already about 5 times longer than it should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No consensus for inclusion??!! -- If any consensus can be drawn from the above, it is in favor of inclusion, with only one guy trying to make a case against it, which does not, in any event, hold up.

The incorrect and solipsistic rationale of the one user here arguing for excluding this material notwithstanding, inclusion is pertinent and noteworthy:

• a portion of the Clinton/Petraeous exchange WAS on the Clinton's private server.
• it WAS work related.
• Clinton WAS REQUIRED to turn over ALL work-related emails as the property of the government, whether or not on the FBI-confiscated server, and they certainly DID form part of the batch of emails that were expected to be turned over.
• she did NOT turn these emails over. (As pointed out by Grahamboat above, and as noted above by Weaselfie: "part of the [Clinton/Petraeous] chain was on her personal email server" and "none of the chain was turned over", so "it follows that some emails from her server that were not turned over".)

Do some users even bother to read stuff before challenging it, contradicting it, and reverting edits?
And, BTW, vis-à-vis notability -- the Clinton/Petraeous email exchange matter was a lead story on almost all Monday morning news shows on Sept. 28, notably on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", hardly a right-wing conspiracy-theory think tank. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and the source. Given that it's a single source and rather tangential, an entire paragraph to summarize a several paragraph news story is unduly detailed. It was also out of place in the section regarding the FBI investigation, as the source does not tie it to that particular subject. A single sentence may or may not be appropriate in some other section, but time will tell. If it is a pertinent fact, other sources will pick it up. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon - here's just a few of the 'other sources' that have, in fact, already 'picked it up' :

• CNN
• Fox News
• Daily Mail
• The Guardian
• MSNBC - Morning Joe --- Professor JR (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Wikidemon. This content should be omitted. It's pretty obvious that certain details have been cherry-picked, and the content worded in such a way as to give UNDUEWEIGHT to certain aspects of the controversy. For example, it omits "There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1." yet it adds "... the Petraeus emails "raised fresh questions about whether she truly provided to the government a full record of her work-related correspondence as secretary of state"" This content should remain out of the article until there are other reliable sources covering it, and then it should be worded in accord with WP:NPOV.- MrX 14:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the whole question of email disclosure is cherry picked, not by us on Wikipedia but by those promoting missing discovery items as a scandal. AFAIK, it's utterly routine in any legal proceeding or investigation to have some wrangling over what's in the scope of a disclosure demand, what got turned over, what else there is, how to find it, etc. So as silly as it sounds, if an email thread on this or that device with this or that person becomes a significant part of the wrangling here it may be worthy of inclusion. Based on the article's current organization I would probably work this in as a relatively brief mention in the section to which that particular disclosure obligation pertained. This was several pages missing as part of the 55,000 email pages that were included, right? It makes sense to put it there. At some point, given the opposition party's focus on disclosure irrespective of which particular lawsuit or inquiry was involved, it might be better to break that entire topic out as its own section. Most of the news stories are doing a poor job of putting things into context, explaining what emails were disclosed or missing for which purpose, but taken together the sources hopefully will give a context: somebody demanded that she turn over all work-related emails. She turned over a large number. In dribs and drabs various parties found others that were not part of the initial disclosure. Political opponents called her a liar. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's important that editors like Professor JR stop the edit warring and personal attacks on this. I removed the section per WP:BRD only after questioning its need on this talk page. It was then restored with the explanation that it was somehow necessary to right a great wrong perpetrated by an evil HRC sympathizer, or something. Professor JR needs to take a step back from this article, because the obsessive documentation of every email-related non thing, the edit warring and the attacks need to stop. If editors wish to document every single piece of email-related minutiae, I suggest they create a blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the general point but not on using this page to try to shame anybody in particular. People are trying to shoehorn in bad content edits citing incorrect editing procedure ("no consensus for removal"), etc. A few weeks ago I significantly pruned the extraneous details and put things in better order. It looks like we may need some regular pruning. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is so hypocritical that it has become humorous. Scjessey and Wikidemon do not want the Bloomberg piece included because, they claim, it is not newsworthy, does not belong in the FBI section, and is harmful to Hillary’s image. At the same time and location they delete Bloomberg they add the piece about Clinton’s defense on NBC's Meet the Press. So Bloomberg is bad but Meet the Press is OK? To me this action clearly shows their motives and it has nothing to do with improving this article. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was talking about — please give it a rest, as accusations about my motives, comments, or opinion are not going to achieve anything. The article is losing focus again through inclusion of trivial details in place of explaining the significant issues in an orderly way. This particular material was way to detailed, and added to the wrong section, but a more succinct presentation could make sense in the correct section that is devoted to the case or investigation from which it arose. Keeping "pro-Clinton" versus "anti-Clinton" score is not a good way to view edits or editors, but if you must, as I said a while back shorter is usually stronger. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point - I agree. I assume you feel the same way about Meet the Press. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is that one of the Clinton denials? Yes, that's too much detail also. There's a section or two reserved for Clinton's response. We don't have to turn every last paragraph into a point-counterpoint exercise. I- Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Petraeus server emails are clearly relevant for the reasons stated by Professor JR above, particularly as it points to Clinton's assertion that she turned over all email evidence; this seems to contradict that. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, getting back on topic hopefully. I think the CNN article was the most straightforward about the matter: "Most of the email chain was on an old email server Clinton says she no longer has access to, but the end of the email chain contained messages on the private server she used while in office, according to another official." It also quotes State confirming that they were not previously turned over to them. (And yes, less than 10 emails in the chain, etc. etc.) ABC News covers the fact the emails should have been included in what she was supposed to turn over: "The discovery appears to contradict Clinton's sworn statement that she had turned over all the email from her private server to the State Department." I'll add that I've only seen these facts disputed here but if you have a WP:RS saying otherwise go ahead and cite it on the talk page here and we can discuss the matter further. So that brings us to the stickier topic of notability. In my opinion there's two reasons it might be considered notable (various WP:RSs cover all this, I'm just trying to condense and focus):

1. The end of the chain is prima facie evidence that not all the work-related emails from her server were turned over. But there was certainly nothing scandalous in the contents of these 10 emails or I'm sure somebody would have reported about it. There were few enough in the chain that they very well could have merely been overlooked (although I'm not sure if overlooking them is acceptable in a case specifically about preserving the official record; regardless, no WP:RS has tried to wade into the waters of whether or not this was OK). Without evidence that she was culpable for omitting them, it does not seem that this by itself makes a very strong claim for notability.
2. The stronger case for notability, I believe, is that it contradicts Clinton's version of events and also opens a gap in the timeline she's presented of her private server usage. Previously she had claimed that Mar 18, 2009 was the first day she used her private server, which was her explanation for why there were no emails on her server between Jan 21, 2009 (when she started at State) and Mar 18, 2009. The chain establishes that she was in fact using her server on Jan 28, 2009, leaving a nearly two-month-long gap totally unaccounted for.

I'll note that State has found it significant enough that they have specifically referred this chain to the Inspector General for his wider review of records retention practices and that they have additionally informed Congress that they had discovered emails Clinton had not turned over (unrelated to the additional Benghazi and Libya emails they already had possession of and also delivered to the Benghazi Committee recently). I think it deserves at least a sentence addressing it, although a whole paragraph is probably a little much (and a whole separate section is certainly overkill). My 2 cents. Weaselfie (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start off another edit war, so I'll take a crack at something that hopefully avoids the previous WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV complaints as part of the next WP:BRD cycle and if people still disagree, we can discuss how to proceed? Weaselfie (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, edit made. I added several sentences to the end of the Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State section as it already discussed her sworn statement and the Blumenthal e-mails that also weren't included in her 55,000 pages. I read her response from Meet the Press 4 or 5 times but it still wasn't clear to me what she was saying was the reason they weren't included. If somebody else wants to add a sensible sentence about her response, here's NBC News or USA Today to get you started or whatever source you want. Weaselfie (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I sense beginning of a consensus. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, neither Wikidemon nor I was responsible for adding the "Meet The Press" stuff (it was Professor JR), so that whole hypocrisy narrative you blurted out above was bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this latest version satisfies the concerns I mentioned about level of detail, context, and putting it in the section that applies to this particular disclosure. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)