Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Dropping polling numbers and Joe Biden in the lead

Here is the basic point I want to get across: The server issue has caused polling numbers to drop, causing concern from her own supporters and Democrat Party members. Due to this concern this presented an opportunity for Joe Biden, who has considered entering the race.

I added something like this before, but someone else said it needed to be sourced. Since this is all tied to the server issue, I'd like to add the following to the lead:

The controversy has contributed to a sharp decline in her favorability[1] and trustworthy[2] polling numbers and caused concern among her supporters and some membership of the Democratic Party[3], whom are upset that her campaign has exacerbated the issue[4] to such an extent that Vice-President Joe Biden is considering challenging Clinton, once seen as the inevitable nominee for the nomination. [5]

References

  1. ^ http://www.gallup.com/poll/185324/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-one-worst.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/big-name-plan-bs-for-democrats-concerned-about-hillary-clinton.html
  4. ^ whom are upset that her campaign has exacerbated the issue
  5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/politics/joe-biden-campaign.html?_r=0

There are several points being made here.

  • Polling of those who have a favorable opinion of Clinton have dropped due to the email issue. This is sourced in my proposed change.
  • Her "honesty/trustworthy" ratings have also dropped due to the email issue. This is also sourced.
  • Democrats and even some of her supporters are concerned about how this issue is affecting the chances of the party winning the general elections. Also sourced.
  • Hillary's "woes" (the sources words, not mine -- and which I intentionally did not use!) are contributing to the fact that Joe Biden is considering running for the nomination.

I have made this as neutral as possible. Something certainly belongs in the lead because all of sources that report on this all tie this issue to the upcoming election. I spent a lot of time putting this together so I would appreciate your feedback.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The verb tense in the intro to this comment highlights the problem — "is causing". Per WP:NOT#NEWS it's not up to a Wikipedia article to chart the daily level of success of every partisan campaign to discredit a political candidate. We should be writing the article today for future readers, not people interested in following the sport of the contest. All of those sources are either speculations presented as analysis, or they are covering other people's speculations. Poll numbers fluctuate widely for lots of reasons and are only indirectly tied to people's actual opinions or political outcomes, much less the substance of political events. When you put today's poll numbers in the lede it gives a false sense of permanence, finality, and significance to them. The fallout of this controversy, if there is one, will play out in political actions, not polling numbers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, we can certainly change the tense to "caused". Regardless of what happens in the future, this HAPPENED. The sources directly tie her drop in numbers due to this issue. More importantly is the fact that as a cause of this issue is that is the whole Biden issue. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Your concern is good, but clearly this is not a general practice. See Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image and George_W._Bush#Job_approval where changes in poll numbers in response to news events and political activities are covered. I'm sure it would be trivial to come up with dozens of similar examples. The bigger issue is do the sources make the linkage of the server issue to the poll results. Its a reasonable assumption, but one we cannot make ourselves, we have to have the RS do that for us. I have not read the sources, so I don't know the answer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the sources explicitly make this claim. I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise. I didn't read this article but have been reading the news for quite a while and was somewhat surprised that this wasn't mentioned here. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Throughout the encyclopedia there's a tendency to overuse polling numbers. It's a known problem in bio articles and on politics-related subjects. Editors often have to clean that up as they become stale or where they don't belong. The fact that lots of sources do so doesn't make the material encyclopedic. Lots of sources report on the temperature and how much it rained yesterday, but NOT#NEWS is there for a reason. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
So what about the concern amongst her campaign supporters and Biden's exploration? Direct cause and effect.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
See Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Such an obstreperous response does not address the issue at hand.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The material you refer to is already in that article, where it belongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A "Response by Democrats" section to the body of the article seems appropriate then, which then can be referenced in the lead. Thank you for your assistance.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course, you can be WP:BOLD and make such edit. Just please follow WP:BRD once you do that. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And I will use appropriate remedies the first time someone says "it doesn't belong here" without any justification. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Make sure to read also WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP while you are at it. It will avoid disputed down the line. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You might consider a refresher with WP:ICANTHEARYOU Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Just get started doing the work. Your participation is most welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I updated the proposed text to use the past tense to get rid of any predictions of future polls. If the issue becomes a non-issue for her campaign, I would expect the sources to say something like "the server issue didn't hurt her" and we can add that later. But I think some of you are missing the point -- her opponents are using this issue to attack her (as the article states) and this issue is directly leading to the "draft Biden" movement which is also sourced to this issue. 20 years from now someone reading this article should realize that this issue had serious potential political ramifications. And the sources are stating this, not me.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Can someone fix the reference links below? I don't know how to do that. Thanks! Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the article to discuss polls. There is Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this article about? The email controversy? From the abundant amount of sources out there they feel this issue has caused something to happen. You are questioning the relevancy. I'm not proposing any detailed analysis of the polls, just a brief mention. We mention her campaign and that her opponents are using this issue against her. The sources also state that her supporters are concerned how this will affect her campaign. What if this issue eventually sinks her? Would we add that? What if she survives? I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just stating that what the sources have already happened as a direct cause of this issue. Gaijin24 asked if the sources make the linkage. They have. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Polls are something that campaigns can use to measure, test, and predict some things (and advocacy groups use to promote agendas, and newspapers use to sell copy, etc). Newspapers, in punditry / cheap copy mode about polls, are generally not very good sources. To the extent that the controversy affects how the campaign is run, or who comes out on top, then it is certainly relevant. Clinton's or the party's response, potentially, would go in the section describing their actions. By analogy, this story[1] suggests that residents of Moscow are eating more ice cream because of rising thermometers. But if the story has any truth to it, they're eating more ice cream because it's hot out, and they think ice cream is a good way to feel better about it. So it is with polls, they're a crude ephemeral yardstick that analysts combine with other measurements to predict votes, donations, news coverage, whatever motivations politicians. . - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We need to tread lightly here. At a minimum this article is a close cousin to a BLP. RS’s are not always reliable. There’s a big difference between presenting facts and presenting speculation. We certainly don’t need to slant the article towards a bunch of political talking heads. IMHO “drafting Biden” would definitely be out and “poll declines” is pure conjecture. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Homophobic content of the e-mails

Shall we add referenced info about the homophobic content of the e-mails to this article? Or should this be added to Political positions of Hillary Clinton instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi, I have requested this change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy&diff=683631100&oldid=683605757

I believe that it is more clear than the current version. It is supported by sources in this article and it summarizes important points in this controversy without obfuscation. --68.2.68.203 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not accurate though. The non-specificity of the current version works better because it doesn't need to take into account the fact that most (if not all) of the sensitive material was retroactively classified, after the emails were sent. Your version fails to take this into account, so it makes the "controversy" look worse than it actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not supported by the sources in this article or the text in the article itself that the material was "retroactively classified after the emails were sent." The non-specificity of the lead actually just makes this controversy look less than what it actually is. Note that I left Clinton's POV untouched in my version.--68.2.68.203 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. No evidence has yet shown material was marked classified at the time the emails were sent, but your version of the text would imply otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
And how exactly does my version imply that there is evidence that shows the emails were marked classified at the time they were sent?--68.2.68.203 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with @Scjessey: this lead change has POV concerns, in wording, and use of quotation marks with regards to "aboveboard". Current lead mentions "some of the emails were deemed classified", versus the change: "some of her emails contained classified information, including the highest level of compartmentalized top secret information"; the latter, clearly, doesn't appear to fairly summarise the content of the article, in a neutral manner. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the summary

A pair (first, second) of recent edits to the article summary have attempted to remove references to Clinton's private server.

They have been reverted to restore the prior consensus language per WP:BRD. If the summary is lacking, please discuss and reach consensus before making this edit again. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSEEALSO, no redundant article links

WP:NOTSEEALSO states

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

All four current links in the "See also" section exists elsewhere in the article. Therefore they have been removed, again, per WP:NOTSEEALSO. Please do not add without discussing the reason to break "a general rule." UW Dawgs (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Bush White House email controversy

Per WP:SEEALSO: "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles". A controversy about government emails on non-government servers.... how is that not "related", exactly? Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, October 2, 2015‎

It is not relevant to this article other than the words "controversy" and "email". It is only a subterfuge to divert attention elsewhere. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't speculate about the purpose, but it's a common mistake when covering a controversy surrounding a politician to try to link to or describe a similar controversy involving a rival politician for balance or completeness. It's not just controversies, it could be that somebody has a dog, and people might be tempted to add a "see also" link to the opposition party candidate's dog. That's just not a good way to organize information. If we're going to cover another politician's email foibles because one is a past President and the other a presidential candidate, why not include vice-president email issues? Cabinet email issues? Email of governors, military leaders, company executives, foreign heads of state? That kind of linking is not suitable for adding a few links to the bottom of an article, but it might be useful as a category or in a separate list article (list of email controversies) or project page. "Related to" is too weak of a filter for see also links. Otherwise, by definition every word in this article is related to the article so we should have see also links for each, if they're not already wikilinked. It's not intended to mean "if you're interested in this, you might also be interested in that". It's more like "this other article contains information pertinent to the contents of this article, but we haven't [yet] added sourced content linking the two". - Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SEEALSO also says:

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

Underline emphasis is mine. Seems like a classic WP:OSE. I read WP:SEEALSO more narrowly than the (unsigned) OP. Ford doesn't "Ford Motor Company#See also" link to Chevy, despite vast similarities, but both do coexist such as in Category:Car manufacturers of the United States. Because the players are entirely different, I see this pair as unrelated in terms of "See also:," even though some of the general themes may be shared. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
These controversies both have to do with the use of emails by government officials. Hence, they're related, and the Bush White House controversy article merits a link in the "See also" section. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that I forgot my signature. I've fixed that. Yes, controversies that surround the use of non-government email accounts and servers by government officials are related and valid. WP:OSE is more like, "well they do it this way on that page, so we have to do it the same way here". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a common misconception on Wikipedia. Two things having something in common does not make them related. There would have to be some kind of relationship between them: one was part of the other, they both involved the same people or chain of events, etc. "See also" is not used to create categories and lists of things. That would be an article ("history of email controversies"), a category (category: email controversies), or in some cases even a template. But unless the Bush events are of a nature that they would be included in a fully-complete version of this article, they aren't something to see in order to understand this particular subject.. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the Bush email article would be linked in the body and a "see also" would be redundant. "Two things having something in common" is one of the main reasons to use a "See also", as WP:SEEALSO says that "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." These two are more than tangentially related. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Muboshgu here. There are several common themes between the two instances, and it would be (in my opinion) silly to ignore them. Multiple news outlets (examples include this and this) have compared this "controversy" to the Bush controversy of 2007, so if we are going to remove this "see also" link, it would have to be in lieu of coverage of these comparisons. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with both Muboshgu and Scjessey here, if it is relevant then it can be worked into the body, perhaps in a background discussion that the use of private email accounts by top officials including President Bush (unsecured servers too?) for government business has historical precedent, and controversies have arisen over this before. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of Scjessey’s examples are editorial blogs pieces and neither establishes a direct or indirect relationship. In fact the second example points out how they’re “not the same”. The two articles are not even remotely similar. In order to put this in the body you will need much stronger sources that directly compare them. Meanwhile, sadly, the edit war rages on - WP:BRD run amuck . Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

THIS IS AN EDIT WAR:

org Xb2u7Zjzc32

rvt1 Professor JR

rvt2 Muboshgu

rvt3 Wikidemon

rvt4 Cwobeel

rvt5 UW Dawgs

rvt6 SuperCarnivore591

rvt7 Professor JR

rvt8 Muboshgu

What happened to reaching a consensus on here first before reverting? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • So what. They’re about "controversies". Why would "emails" be the exclusive relationship? Using your own logic – controversies here controversies there. Cheers, Grahamboat (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment Bush White House email controversy#See also links to Watergate tapes. If we are to bend WP:SEEALSO's 'relevant' to mean 'similar,' we should expect the logical and obvious extension.
Ford doesn't link to Chevrolet. Blue doesn't link to Red and Yellow. Hexagon doesn't link to Heptagon. Lots of similarity, but little relevance. List articles and categories exist for these purposes.
Also, cheers to the WP:BRD fans. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Bush White House email page shouldn't have "Watergate" in the see also section, as that's stretching "relevant" past its extremes. I'm taking it out. The other Hillary "scandals" are only "relevant" in that the Republicans have been trying to tear her down for over 20 years. Bush White House emails and Obama White House emails are similar enough to merit the "See also". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Your statement “Republicans have been trying to tear her down for over 20 years” reveals that you are not capable of separating your personal views from Wikipedia editing and ignores the caution WP:NOTBLOG at the top of this page. Perhaps a timeout would be useful. Regarding "See also" Bush White House emails: Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with them just as the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the Hillary Clinton email controversy. On the other hand, the other Hillary Clinton controversies are connected in that they are tangentially related controversies to the same person. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. The Bush email controversy and the Clinton email controversy are both controversies that are about executive branch emails. So, we either have the "see also" link, or we use the available sources to note the similarities in the body of the article. Those are the two choices, because ignoring the fact they are related is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Grahamboat, my personal opinions on Hillary and these controversies, which don't make it into my article editing, have nothing to do with the fact that the Hillary and Bush email articles are related, and that the Travelgate/Filegate/whateverelsegate articles aren't, aside from Republicans trying to smear her. Scjessey is right, that this has to be included in either of the two ways. The "See also" is easier, but I'm fine with a section making the comparison if that's what consensus moves to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Third request: How is Bush White House email controversy relevant (not similar) to Hillary Clinton email controversy? UW Dawgs (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It is relevant because multiple mainstream media sources have brought up their similarities and discussed comparisons. They have done this both as editorial, and as the reporting of comments made by notable persons. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet to date, no one has added any of them with citations. Please do so. No thematic objection, here. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You’ve presented nothing new here – just a rehash of your prior points. You use, IMHO, rather weak source examples as I pointed out above, to show some sort of relationship. And yet, you insist that other Clinton controversies cannot be used because (?), well you really don’t say why other than only email controversies can be compared to other email controversies – but multiple mainstream media sources have brought up the other controversies similarities and discussed comparisons here and here and here and here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's all moot until there's a proposal, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There are more than enough sources out there drawing comparisons between the two controversies - certainly enough to justify a "see also" at the very least. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don’t understand your “drawing comparisons” examples. #1 “more” a Chicago Tribune piece mentions that Clinton, herself, criticized George W. Bush's Administration’s “secret White House email accounts”. It also makes a comparison to Whitewater. #2 “than” a Huffington Post Blog that asks a hypothetical question “what if Dick Chaney deleted 30,000 emails. #3 “enough” a MSNBC video where Bob Woodward says the Clinton email controversy reminds him of the Nixon Tapes. #4 “sources” a NBC News story that only talks about who did and did not send private emails. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
A group of editors wants to add Bush White House email controversy to the see also section. They maintain that this is both relevant and related for various reasons. Another group of editors does not see this relationship with some believing it tends to slant the article to POV. To keep the article neutral and balanced I have added other Clinton controversies using the same logic and rational. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I pretty much agree with what you've done here, although I'm not sure how "Travelgate" fits in with this list. Since this list comprises mostly of Republican-manufactured controversies, why not throw in Benghazi for good measure? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We've ignored WP:BRD and now breached WP:NOTSEEALSO. I've created a "Comparisons" section where relevant and verifiable comparisons can be added. Existing Watergate and stubbed Bush White House email controversy[citation needed] now exist therein. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You added a line with weasel word who and a citation needed. That doesn’t cut it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@SuperCarnivore591, Muboshgu, Scjessey, Wikidemon, and MrX: Your assistance with copyedit(s) and citation(s) within Hillary Clinton email controversy#Comparisons to support Bush White House email controversy would be much appreciated. I believe this solution best reflects both your opinions and desire for inclusion, and those who narrowly disagree with placement within See also. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The current version of this seems fine to me.- MrX 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the unordered list approach, so I've turned it into a regular paragraph and tweaked a few things. The essential content is unchanged. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Juan Williams comparison

@Grahamboat: removed a Template:Failed verification tag with an edit summary using WP:SYN. The tag has been restored. The current statement reads:

Political analyst Juan Williams drew comparisons to the Bush White House email controversy on Fox News.

with a citation in which the author references Juan Williams' comparison of the media coverage of the Clinton and Bush email usage, rather his comparison (if any) of the fact patterns of the two. Hence WP:SYN.

Please review that citation and quote the material which you feel supports the statement as written, if you believe that summary is inaccurate.

Alternatively, as implied by the verification tag, the statement can be rewritten to match the citation (Williams compared the media coverage between...), the current citation can be replaced with another which directly supports the statement as written, or both can be replaced by those advocating the Bush White House email controversy position. UW Dawgs (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your changes make sense to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Williams' claim about there being less coverage for the Bush controversy than the Clinton controversy is by itself a tangential point that is either marginal or too unimportant to include, and the Tampa Bay paper's fact check that his statement of the magnitude of the difference was "hyperbole" and "mostly false" is an especially pointless piece of journalistic navel-gazing. It certainly was less of a scandal for Bush than Clinton, even if not exponentially so. A bare assertion that Clinton was treated more harshly than Bush sounds like political score-keeping, not an encyclopedic treatment. If that's the depth of the comparison then I don't think the material belongs here at all, either as sourced content or a "see also link". Any comparison is meaningful only if there's some context as to why, and if it educates the reader somehow about this particular scandal. Is it because times were somewhat less polarized, the opposition wasn't in control of a congressional committee investigation, Bush wasn't running for office at the time, the public was less aware of email issues, email security is more of an issue, Bush's actions were not as egregious as Clinton's, something changed about the media coverage of scandals? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record I did not add the William’s statement or the source – that was SuperCarnivore591 here. My personal opinion is that neither the See also nor the Comparisons and media coverage sections are needed. I do not think we need to resort to citation tags – better to handle on TALK. Regarding the Bush comparison I do not support it but accept it as a way to reach a compromise. The versions by Wikidemon | here and | here are fine with me. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sending or receiving classified information

"She has also stated that she did not send or receive material that was marked classified at the time." Is there a reason the article mentions this, instead of mentioning that she has said she did not send or receive classified information? For example, see Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Proper_procedure_for_classifying_U.S._government_documents Born secret. The US government considers nuclear weapons-related material to be immediately classified secret (or rather, top secret), but other material is, according to US government rules, not automatically classified. As an example, with the United States diplomatic cables leak, "some 100,000 are labeled 'confidential', around 15,000 have the higher classification 'secret', and none are classified as 'top secret' on the classification scale." Cables classified secret are presumably still being sent, but Hillary Clinton's private email account did not contain any. The current article introduction could be seen as implying that Hillary Clinton was somehow admitting to sending or receiving classified information on her private server, when she has consistently maintained that she has not. If she appears to be blaming other people for not properly classifying information, this could be seen by voters as weak or somehow disqualifying her from higher political office. Are there any objections to changing this part of the introduction? 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04. You have not been clear about what you are proposing. The lede already states Clinton said she did not send or receive material (email) that was marked classified. Where did the “blaming other people” come from? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Read the "Classified information in emails" section of the article for more information, but basically Clinton herself switched from saying they were not classified to saying that they were not marked classified after the July 24 release from the State and IC IGs that said they found classified material on her server. Her own website currently says "No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them." Weaselfie (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
When she mentioned 'marked' classified, she also said "that's how you know it's classified, because it's marked that way." She was saying the system was working, and therefore she didn't send or receive classified information on that server. (The article's lede/lead has since been corrected to reflect her remarks.) 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in mainstream media

Recent NYTimes article says, "Since the existence of Mrs. Clinton’s account was revealed in March, she has provided a series of different explanations about whether she sent or received classified information from the account." It does not appear that this is correct. She has always said that she did not send or receive classified information on that account. Unless there is more specific evidence, this news report should not be used in the Wikipedia article. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Security of government servers

This is related to the other Talk page discussion about Edward Snowden's comments, but here is an article which mentions damage done by 'hacking' to official government servers: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/politics/malware-on-hillary-clinton-server-prompts-look-at-suspected-russian-hacking.html (Paragraph 2) I'm too lazy to edit the article and then watch for people reverting the changes for bad reasons, but someone else could maybe add it if it isn't already covered by the Wikipedia article. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what is illegal?

So, the whole article talk about Clinton's use of her private email. Exactly what is illegal about her use of private email? This email controversy just looks like a lot of accusations. If Clinton's use if a private email is not illegal, it should be mention at the top that her use of a private email is in compliant with the law. ChatSean (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy is that we can't know what the law is, we can only link to reliable sources that debate what the law is. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
More on this... one article says that "It is illegal to have classified information on an unsecure network." Another article says something about the 1917 Espionage Act, which definitely was not meant to apply just to civilians (I think it was famous for controversy about freedom of the press?). But an obvious example of people having "classified information on an unsecure network" is the US military 'war logs' leaks as well as the diplomatic cables leaks. All major news networks in the US reported on this classified information. In contrast, US government users were prevented from visiting sites that talked about these leaks, because it would have meant that there was classified information on those systems. Even browsing on the Internet frequently causes pages to be cached to disk, which causes those hard drives to become classified according to US government rules not only because of the information itself, but also because if someone else started leaking classified information, that contamination would hinder any investigation into the extent of the new leak. So according to the NYTimes, the NYTimes broke the law by having classified data on an unsecured network. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Recipients with government email addresses

I've seen articles that said that Hillary Clinton sometimes emailed people at their official addresses, or included people in CC, specifically so that those emails would be part of the public record. Have the government email accounts of people she corresponded with been examined for relevant emails regarding the investigation into the Benghazi attack? Is there any evidence that those received emails, or emails sent from those government accounts to Hillary Clinton's private email address, were not retained by the government? 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a point here? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If the government already had a copy of every email that had been sent or received (other than the metadata which is added during routing/delivery of the email), then it's basically impossible to say that Hillary Clinton tried to hide anything. It probably also means no possible violation of US federal laws regarding record-keeping, as long as the email in an inbox is seen as the same as an email in a 'sent' folder. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

FBI Seizes Four Servers From State Department

On October 7th, several media outlets including, Fox News, Accuracy in Media, and the New York Times stated that the FBI had seized four servers from the State Department Headquarters in relation to the ongoing probe of Hillary Clinton. I would think the moderator of this page would want to research that information and include it.72.181.59.82 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are keen to see this in the article, please do the research yourself and present your findings here. Don't bother with "Accuracy in Media" because it isn't a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi 72.181.59.82 I see you are new here so Welcome! Wikipedia does not have page moderators – anyone can edit, including you. If you are interested I suggest you sign up for a user name – it’s free and easy to do. Regarding the FBI seizing four severers the story is somewhat questionable. It did appear on Fox but not In the NYT. It is based on two people “familiar” with the probe who wish to remain anonymous. The source does appear in the Huma Abedin article but IMHO it is too speculative to use here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Incidental, but if Accuracy in Media is reporting the same thing as other sources that are deemed reliable, then Accuracy in Media is accurate on this particular topic, which influences the probability it's accurate on other topics. If only sources which were 100% reliable were included on Wikipedia, very few Wikipedia articles would have references. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No, there's no way in a million years "Accuracy in Media" would be acceptable as a reliable source, even if it was to verify something else. Something some guy scrawled on the wall of a bathroom cubicle would be more reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

First two months in office

I'm not sure if this is discussed in the article; I'm posting here in case it is, or someone decides to add it. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/politics/string-of-emails-raises-questions-about-when-hillary-clinton-began-using-personal-account.html The NYTimes article says, "She has said that on March 19, 2009, she began using the personal account — hdr22@clintonemail.com", but there were "copies of an email chain between Mrs. Clinton and David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States Central Command at the time, that shows that Mrs. Clinton was using the hdr22@clintonemail.com account by Jan. 28, 2009."

One possible explanation is that the earlier emails were hosted by another system. The NYTimes might be misstating what Hillary Clinton actually said. This article is from three weeks ago so there might already be other articles explaining this, but an email address is different from an email account on a particular email server. The address just specifies a domain and an account on that domain; the software that handles email sent to that domain can be changed, which is why you can use personalized domains with providers like Gmail.

Also, if her previous account was used while she was a US Senator from New York, wasn't the government required to also keep those emails? It should, at the very least, be possible to find out what her previous email address was. Hard to see how this is related to the Benghazi investigation though, so it wouldn't be surprising if it's not reported in the news. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

At least make some sort of an effort to read the article before engaging in talk page discourse. The Petraeus stuff can be found in the section "Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

This article should not become the place for each back and forth in the 24hr news circle. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL agreed, but that ship has sailed. It's already ridiculously overlong and full of minutiae nobody cares about. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So, we should make efforts to trim it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes it takes time to pick out the true WP:RECENTISM bits that don't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: This material is unnecessary [2]. If we are to quote from "experts" there is so much shit out there we can have an additional 5,000 words. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Experts, giving congressional testimony who are quoted by liberal leaning but nominally neutral fact checkers are a much smaller group. I agree that some of the chronology can be compressed but this is not mere chronology, this is notable analysis of the entire situation, not just the latest revelation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Scandal"

Editors may wish to weigh in on the creation of a redirect to this article. See "Hillary Clinton email scandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton server

That entire section can be summarized in a couple of sentences. Tagged as UNDUE. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the thousands of reliable sources specifically talking about the server as their primary topic, I strongly disagree that this is WP:UNDUE. How many sources dismiss the email server as compared to those that treat it as a legitimate (though perhaps not fatal) issue? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" 00:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
To the extent I agree, I see opportunity for more narrow focus on usage and security. This necessarily pulls some of the content currently in the Background section. But in a vacuum, a "Server/Usage" section is an inherent core from which the rest radiate. And of course, WP:SOFIXIT. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged this article as not having a neutral point of view, namely the opening paragraph which is possibly one of the most biased, opinionated introductions to an article I have ever read. It infers that there is some sort of conservative media driven campaign without basis - which may or may not be true - but this should not be the opening line to the article. A unbiased summary of the 'controversy' would be a better alternative to fit NPOV. I would advise anyone wishing to question my own proclivities here to look up where my IP address is based; I am outside the USA. If people wish me to expand on this further, kindly let me know. 86.128.120.69 (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted a re-write of the 1st paragraph now to remove unnecessary clutter and weasel words. Someone else may wish to continue. 86.128.120.69 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
not merged. WP:SNOW--Aervanath (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant material from this article needs to be merged to United States House Select Committee on Benghazi and this article redirected there, per WP:NOTNEWS. A made up controversy does not deserve its own article.- Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with the merge. Republicans are awfully keen to conflate these two separate issues, but I don't think Wikipedia should. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. They are related and have some overlap, but are not one and the same. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This article has a clear and distinct scope. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This certainly has notability, and differs sufficiently from the Benghazi committee article. The two article should be related via mentions of each other where appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Hardly a "made up controversy" (?!) with an ongoing FBI investigation, resulting from two Inspectors General investigations. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. There are some similarities, but also many differences as listed above. Grahamboat (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Observe opposition (which I agree with). This is likely a WP:SNOW issue because the controversy has notability independent of the Benghazi panel that spawned it. However, at some point, it would be appropriate to place this subject in that context because it is a creature of the politics of that panel. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you take this article and reduced it to something that is WP:NOTNEWS then it can be easily merged. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You have garnered no support for this: please remove the merge tag from the article. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I hear you, but the current status quo is unacceptable. This "controversy" is directly related to the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi, but as it stands, neither this article or that article make the connection between them, resulting in a nor NPOV presentation of both subjects. So, for now and until the issues are resolved the tag would remain to attract other editors to the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
As your fellow editors have pointed out, they see a connection but not one that is directly related to Benghazi. The Benghazi investigation, at least so far, is not a controversy. Clinton’s emails became a controversy when she admitted she kept them on a private personal server and then said that she already deleted them, leading to questions of the appearance of impropriety. At this point the story took on its own character unrelated to the Benghazi investigation or any RNP influence. It became widely reported by all media. The articles have proper links to each other. Hence I removed the merge tags from both articles. Please do not revert without getting a consensus here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Recentivism and trivia

Any reason why this material[3] is worth including? his particular content is about two Republican legislators saying what they intend to do if something else happens in the future — no indication whether it will actually happen or whether they will do it, or if they do it whether anything worth including in the encyclopedia will come of it. The article is already considerably too detailed and long on these kind of factoids. There's enough content about what is actually happening to make posturing statements like this besides the point. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for it either. I recommend it be removed until it actually happens, if indeed it ever does. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Public hearing

The public hearing deserves its own section per the abundant sources available. I will get started, hope other would join in. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. I definitely think it needs to be in the article; however, we certainly don't need to know about start/finish times and breaks, "ornate buildings" and the political back and forth between committee members. Only the facts as pertaining to the email issue are needed, and everything else should be in the Benghazi! article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed some trivia but left the material that is directly related to the subject of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton UN image usage in summary

A series of edits has removed, re-added, and now re-removed a still image of Clinton giving a speech at the United Nations, which is also present in video form lower in the article. Please discuss. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, so we have two near-identical images in the article. I suggest you self-revert to avoid looking like an idiot. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Why to have a screenshot of a video at the top of the page when we already have the video in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


What an idiotic think to keep reverting that image back. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Has been fixed. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it has not. You just changed the video thumbnail to a frame that has nothing to do with this article. That is moronic, and WP:POINTY - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a silly thing to be edit warring over. That being said, I don't think the image of her from the U.N. should be used when the video is on the page. Why not use a different recent photo to lead the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thant makes sense. There are literally hundreds of images in Commons. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There are many to choose from taken her tenure as Secretary of State, the timeframe this article covers (in terms of when she was using her own email server). Why not diversify images? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You need to engage Professor JR who is the one playing silly games. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In commons:

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

or we can wait till Thursday and upload one of photos or screenshots from the CSPAN coverage of her testimony... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: A great solution which also addresses your stated desired to more closely associate this article to United States House Select Committee on Benghazi. In the interim, your first, second, and now third removal of the existing image during active WP:BRD has been reverted. What image do you suggest? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing removal aside, the current addition appears to be a winner and addresses all concerns. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

New section on Bryan Pagliano?

For Discussion: Should this article include a new, expanded section on Bryan Pagliano?
A number of issues are being discussed in the press with a significant amount of coverage:

  • Pagliano's invoking of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination;
  • his lack of appropriate security clearance(s) for managing Clinton's server;
  • his dual employment situation while on both the State Dept. payroll, and on salary with Clinton privately;
  • the impending prospect that Congressional committees and/or the FBI may grant Pagliano immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony about Clinton's secret personal email server.
--- Professor JR (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's worth it. It's hard to understand why a tech guy who was just doing the job he was paid to do (set up and run servers) should really get more than passing coverage here. I've been looking at Google News hits and most of what I'm finding seems to be coming more or less exclusively from right-wing websites and publications. As far as "serious" media is concerned, his role is considered to be more or less insignificant. To answer your points specifically:
  • Invoking the Fifth doesn't mean he has anything to hide. He's presumably doing what his lawyer advised him to do.
  • Since Clinton's personal server wasn't intended to handle anything marked classified, it's not clear he needed any special security clearance.
  • The only question mark I can find about his dual employment is that he may have failed to file a financial disclosure.
  • Speculation about what may or may not happen is not for Wikipedia.
With all that said, if you think it is worthwhile delving into this a bit I suggest proposing a paragraph here (rather than in the article itself) and then letting fellow editors give it due consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: May I ask what the point of this thread was if you were going to just ignore any replies? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:UNDUE material. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of undue newly added details

This reversion [4] was made without any valid explanation, just an accusation of bad faith. I suggest that we remove the excess detail again regarding Pagliano and others, and discuss these things as they arise. Per earlier discussion sections this article has yet again become bloated with day-by-day press accounts, speculation and posturing (now outdated) about what people claim they intend to do in the future, etc., and needs a thorough trimming so that we can present a narrative about the subject matter rather than a collection of disjoint factoids. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have some issues on this article.[5] I'm reverting that, and also the edit discussed above as there has been no legitimate reason given or discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And reverted again without discussion.[6] - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit[7]

  • Security expert Matt Blaze of the University of Pennsylvania has said that assessing the relative security of the Clinton server versus the State Department servers would require more information — So what? This is a non-statement.
  • although he believes that the State.gov domain "is probably harder to hijack than clintonemail.com." — this is speculation by someone with no connection or special knowledge, on something that did not occur and bears no relation to the subject
  • Various experts have noted that the State Department has an imperfect email security record even relative to Clinton's approach; the State Department has been successfully hacked several times in the past ten years. — also not related to this issue
  • Jonathan Mayer of Stanford University notes that both clintonemail.com and the State Department domain currently use an invalid TLS certificate, which makes them vulnerable to interception and spoofing, - further speculation by uninvolved people things that are not at issue
  • and the State Department also uses a self-signed certificate, which is seen as a poor security practice. also not at issue here
  • Because of this, Meyer told Wired magazine that "against man-in-the-middle attacks, both [the Clinton domain and the State Department domains] are currently insecure." — also not at issue

Here, the fact that the State Department server is apparently not secure is not directly related. That's not why Clinton did it, it doesn't change the fact that her server was not secure, and with respect to the larger question of this being an election year controversy this is at best a minor defense of her by people whose only connection to the events is that they are described as experts in computer security, a class that includes thousands of people in the US, all of whom probably have some opinions about this. In an effort to streamline the article by removing tangential material, this is exactly the kind of fluff that ought to go. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Most of this stuff is at best only loosely related to the actual "controversy". This article must not be a blow-by-blow accounting of each and every single detail concerning everything that has ever had anything to do with Hillary Clinton's emails. It should concisely reflect what a preponderance of mainstream media sources are reporting on the matter only. One or two editors are almost out of control carried away with trying to shoehorn enormous quantities of insignificant crap, particularly if it might portray Clinton in a negative light. So I agree with Wikidemon's approach to this, particularly with respect to trying to keep the article as concise as possible. And in that spirit, I've restored the TOC limit I added yesterday. It is hard to understand the benefit of listing all those subheadings. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

FBI investigation

That aspect is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. Read the entire article.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure this is merely a tactic. Changes to the lede here will be echoed at Hillary Clinton. Hard to assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that the FBI is not conducting an formal investigation. It is a probe focused on learning how possible classified material was handled. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Case in point [8] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


New Benghazi Committee usage atop the lede

It appears this edit, piggybacking on this pre-existing citation introduced the following change to the first sentence of the lede:

A controversy arose in March 2015, when it was revealed publicly as a result of the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi findings that Hillary Rodham Clinton had exclusively used personal email accounts on a non-government, privately maintained server—in lieu of email accounts maintained on Federal government servers—when conducting official business during her tenure as United States Secretary of State. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress, contended that her use of private messaging system software and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. An FBI probe was initiated regarding how classified information was handled.

Based on that citation or any other:

  1. Is the use of "findings" accurate?
  2. Is there nuance between discovery (private) vs disclosure ("revealed publicly")?
  3. and if so, is this best attributed to USHSCoB, State, a leak from either, and/or the NYT?
  4. Is the importance of the origination of the controversy overstated by the current location, as it preceeds all of the description and particulars?

Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa - "Findings" may not be the most accurate way to put it, I agree. But the email controversy came about during the committee endeavors. Feel free to improve. But yes, the provenance is necessary for context. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Cause and effect, findings, etc., are all murky in politics and governance. Clinton's use of the server, disclosure policy, and the presence of any classified material, all just happened, and are related to politics indirectly if at all. They were discovered in the same way that Columbus or whoever it was discovered America. The people who were there knew it all along. There were insiders at the State Department and perhaps elsewhere who knew at the time or somewhat later. The Benghazi committee came across this in the course of its operations, and decided to make an issue of it. The information was revealed to the New York Times, or the New York Times dug it up, and was the first major media to report it. It became a controversy in the course of the public reveal, probably orchestrated by some operatives, but also earnestly reported by some media people. Describing any of this as a finding, discovery, etc., would be an oversimplification. I think we should go back to neutral if somewhat passive verb use here, and say when it was first publicly reported, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the lede, removing the "revealed" nonsense (which is non-neutral) and diminishing the importance of the Benghazi Committee (which didn't "reveal" anything, because it was done by a newspaper). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

New proposed content

Politico report on FBI probe

An editor appears to want to add this material, having done so 3 times in the last 24 hours.[9][10][11] I've tried to condense it (and also left a note on their talk page about editing process), but now that we're apparently at BRDRDR, I don't want to join an edit war on this so let's see what consensus there may be for inclusion.

  1. As of November 2015, the FBI expanded its inquiry --> but, according to Politico as of November 2015, the FBI expanded its inquiry, "ramping up inquiries into the security" of Clinton's server, and "moving away from a preliminary fact-finding mission and into a full-fledged investigation"
  2. to examine whether Clinton --> and began "conducting a greater number of probes and interviews to determine whether Hillary Clinton"
  3. jeopardized national security secrets, and if so, who should be held responsible. -->jeopardized national security secrets with their unsecured email use, and if so, who should be held responsible for exposing classified data."

I have a few issues with this.

  • Wordiness. Why use nearly 100 words to describe something that could be succinctly stated "In October the FBI expanded its probe" — particularly in a bloated article that struggles to avoid trivial detail?
  • Encyclopedic tone. Attributing sources i used only where there is some question over verifiability or particular reason why the source that made the statement is important. Here, Politico is a trustworthy sources and there is no need to say that this fact is "according to Politico"
  • Encyclopedic tone. Quotes are used only when there is something noteworthy or striking about the quote, or importance attached to the quote itself. Otherwise we can summarize in Wikipedia's voice. No reason here to quote Politico saying the probe was "ramped up" rather than simply saying in Wikipedia's voice it was expanded.
  • POV. The quotes themselves, "a full-fledged examination" and " Clinton or her aides jeopardized national security secrets" inserts text in there that explains nothing but implies a conclusion. We should not shoehorn stuff like that.
  • BLP-ish. In any other article, we would not claim potential criminal violations by a living human who was not charged, suspected, or convicted. Attributing them to a source does not solve the problem. Imagine saying about anyone else, something like "As of October, 2015, police are ramping up their investigation of Bob Greene over whether his child's death was criminally negligent, and if so, who should be held responsible for the homicide". We would be a lot more careful.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor is simply tit-for-tat edit warring now without any good faith attempt to discuss, explain, etc.[12] I've left a second caution on their talk page. Is anyone following this who could weigh in? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This new paragraph (actually a superlong sentence) is just awful:

According to Politico,[90][91] Fox News, and other media reports[92][93][94] as of November 2015, the FBI expanded its inquiry, "ramping up inquiries into the security" of Clinton's server, and "moving away from a preliminary fact-finding mission and into a full-fledged investigation"[90][91][94] and began "conducting a greater number of probes and interviews to determine whether Hillary Clinton or her aides jeopardized national security secrets with their unsecured email use, and if so, who should be held responsible for exposing classified data",[90][91] and to include questions of whether national security secrets were jeopardized and whether materially false statements were made to agents during the case.[90][91][93][94]

It needs to be rewritten, and the scattershot of references need to be fixed so that they aren't constantly repeating. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tried, and tried discussing that here, but the editor who added it in the first place keeps reverting to their preferred version without discussion — five times now.[13] - Wikidemon (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I've just given it a go, but the whole section needs reviewing and rewriting, in my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
With no objections, I'm going to attempt again to fix it within the next several hours. However, if the editor in question attempts to add the disputed (low quality, badly worded, POV, etc.) non-consensus content again without discussion, for the sixth time or so, this becomes a behavioral issue and we're at AN/I. The only way to work on an article like this is through collaboration among the editors. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Done[14]. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked it a bit, mostly to eliminate the mid-sentence refs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy/Archive_4&oldid=1083938453"