Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

server logs

NYT : "computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails." That is not the same thing as saying "the logs showed there was no evidence of hacking". The logs don't prove or disprove anything other than that the logs don't themselves contain signs of hacking directly against the server. There are numerous types of hacking that would not leave evidence in the logs or that would be indistinguishable from legitimate traffic. In particular, internet email is generally transmitted in the clear so could have been intercepted even prior to making it onto the email server. (Note, I am not arguing to include the following, merely showing that the text previously in the article was overselling it) [1] "However, unencrypted IT systems don’t need “hacking”—normal SIGINT interception will suffice. Ms. Clinton’s “private” email, which was wholly unencrypted for a time, was incredibly vulnerable to interception, since it was traveling unprotected on normal commercial networks, which is where SIGINT operators lurk, searching for nuggets of gold. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey I added a second sentence also using the NYT source based on the statement quoted here. My wording is a bit awkward. The two statements could probably be combined since its the same source there should not be a WP:SYNTH issue. However, if you want to keep them separate I can see that argument. In any case, my version could probably use some c/e. "They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers." Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. No. That sentence you added was about hacking in general, which is not the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

you are arguing that this sentence is in fact not talking about Clintons server? "Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred. Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers." Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing that. I'm arguing that it doesn't matter if it is. As I said before, the second sentence is a general statement about the use of logs to determine hacking. It is not specific to this case, so it doesn't belong in the article. It's a subtle thing, but adding the second sentence (which is not specifically about Clinton's server) has a nullifying effect on the significance of the first sentence (which is specifically about Clinton's server). One might call it fact-obscuring speculation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the whole sub-question is overblown, and its subsection overlong and speculative. We've got speculation from people who don't know the situation regarding whether the server might or might not have been hacked, a report of insiders saying there is no evidence of hacking, pundits, and none of this is particular to Clinton's server, just general airtime fillers about internet security. I haven't been looking at this for a while but the last time I checked I suggested that some expert opinions might be useful, but somebody who was a government operative 50 years ago is not really in any position. I get that we can and should include information that the server was vulnerable to hacking, but Is there a shred of actual information about whether or not there were directed hacking attacks (as opposed to the things that every server in the world deals with several times per day), or any successful hacking? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a point I've been making for a while. Lots of "it could have been hacked" but no "it was hacked" statements. It's all speculative, and all driven by political opponents of Clinton. The argument has always been that if notable people make statements, then those statements must also be notable regardless of what they are talking about. We both know that is bullshit, nevertheless the justification has been used for this section on hacking. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

When the entire intelligence/defense community, and the entire tech community says the same thing, in many different venues, yes, that is the very definition of notability and mainstream POV. To Wikidemon - who was the government operative 50 years ago? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They may all be saying the same thing, to wit, that Clinton's use of a poorly maintained personal server for sensitive communications was unwise and potentially harmful. There is no debate here about whether the article should say that or not, that's about 50% of what the article is about. What they are not saying the same thing about is the details, in this particular case whether there was foreign hacking and how likely it was to be successful. Even if they are all saying the same thing, we still have to be encyclopedic about sorting out opinions, analysis, speculation, commentary, and political posturing. To Gaijin42, I thought one of the people mentioned as commenting was decades out of office, but I can't find him. I'll let you know if I do. It looks like everybody offering commentary in this particular section was in place within the last 10 years. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They are all saying the same thing - that foreign government s "very likely" intercepted the emails.Every intelligence/defense voice is unified. Every tech voice is unified (I could easily source a 6-12 or so more IT/Tech sources saying the same thing). I challenge you to find a single one used that is not saying that. Indeed, I challenge you to find a single source anywhere other than Clinton's own PR that says it is unlikely foreign governments were able to do so. The alternate POV is so WP:FRINGE that nobody even says/prints it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But per WP:BLP, we must maintain a higher standard. It doesn't matter if a thousand people say it's "likely" if you cannot find a single source to say it actually happened. We're not using Wikipedia to repeat speculation. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:CON argues otherwise. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If Gaijin42 is right that experts are close to unanimous (setting aside partisans, journalists, and armchair commentators), then I would concur that it is not a BLP issue, partly because of WELLKNOWN but also because the question isn't exactly whether Clinton did anything wrong, but also the state of national security secrets. I'm sorry if I've missed much of this discussion, I'll look for something in here suggesting that this is their conclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Below are some additional sources/comments showing that this is the mainstream pov. I am not suggesting any of these for the article right now. I think the current names are the more notable ones, and are sufficient to show the POV, and also they state the POV in the most summarizable way - as you rightly point out above, other statements contain more nuance or differences that are difficult to combine together. In my searches, I have found no statements to the contrary except Clinton's PR team.

A list of supporting sources for the mainstream "likely hacked" pov

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:b54a250a40e9410baaaca5f9fb58ea94 WP:RS/AC Former intelligence officials say it's a certainty that her server was compromised by foreign intelligence services. Unless they were encrypted to U.S. government standards, "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," said former CIA case officer Jason Matthews, an expert in Russian intelligence. http://gizmodo.com/why-hillary-clintons-homebrew-email-is-a-security-night-1689470576 From a technical perspective, a cabinet member using a homemade solution means adding an array of technologies and middlemen through whom the United States government can effectively be severely compromised," Researcher Patrick Nielsen said Inevitably, each of these companies are potential targets that could give a hacker access to the Secretary of State's email system, again without directly attacking the US government. http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042 "It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker. Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military. Or, if someone were able to copy the security certificate Clinton used, they could execute what's called a "man in the middle" attack, invisible eavesdropping on data. "It's highly likely that another person could simply extract the certificate and man in the middle any user of the system without any warnings whatsoever," Hansen said. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467ff78858bf4dde8db21677deeff101/only-ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking "An attacker with a low skill-level would be able to exploit this vulnerability," said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/3/snowden-clinton-use-of-private-email-server-a-problem.html Anyone who has the clearances that the Secretary of State has or the director of any top level agency has knows how classified information should be handled,” Snowden told UpFront host Mehdi Hasan. “When the unclassified systems of the United States government — which has a full time information security staff — regularly get 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.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EdACL31Tjo National Security Agency (NSA) director Mike Rogers congressional hearing If an NSA employee came up to you and said, ‘Hey, boss, we have reason to believe that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov or Iranian foreign minister Javad Sarif is conducting official government business on a private server, how would you respond?” “Uh . . . from a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents [an] opportunity,”

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still totally academic. Regardless of how well known these people are, it is only speculation. The fact that any given server logs might not show if hacking has occurred is common to all server logs everywhere. It is a generic thing that is not specific to the subject of this article. It is fine to include the verifiable fact that the server logs do not show evidence of hacking, but it is not fine to include speculation. Moreover, by including this speculation it has a nullifying effect on the factual sentence that preceded it. In essence, it is functionally equivalent to having neither sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SPECULATION, it's useful to distinguish between mere speculation as opposed to events that are anticipated or expected. If reliable experts and sources are merely speculating about whether hacking occurred then that might not be notable for us, but if they expect with substantial probability that hacking occurred, or if they anticipate that there was a substantial vulnerability to hacking, then that's more notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right that it is something not specific to this topic. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included for proper context. When multiple sources include that context, we should too. [2] "The logs do not conclusively prove that the server was never successfully breached, but “computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers,” the Times adds.". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that already seems like a better way of putting it:

"According to Pagliano, security logs of Clinton's email server showed no evidence of successful hacking. The New York Times has reported that "forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers," adding the logs "bolster Mrs. Clinton's assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments."

It's wordier and... er... quotier, but it seems like it would get the point across you are trying to make without having that nullifying effect on the first sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggested wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Then, as the saying goes, we have an accord! Please feel free to implement the change at your leisure. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

E-mail vs email

E-mail should have a hyphen and this article should be moved permanently to Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy, it is poor English to leave out the hyphens in such important words. Solecisms of this nature should not be tolerated anywhere on English language Wikipedia since this defaces our precious language. Henry Mazzer (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Email" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as noted in the article and by its title. "E-mail" is an outdated term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. COMMONNAME yes, preferred on Wikipedia, yes, but "e-mail outdated"?, no. Not only alive but not likely to be abandoned since the hyphen in e-mail and e-books is supported by logic. The idea that anyone can say it is "outdated" implies it was once the norm until someone discovered that the removal of the hyphen is somehow "better" the same way Windows XP is outdated thanks to Windows 10 and all those in between."Email" and "Ebooks" is merely common, more common, but that's where any argument that favours them grinds to an abrupt permanent stand-still. There is no logic to suggest it is better or that the others are obsolete, or heading towards extinction. Those hyphens will be there long after "ain't" ousts "am not". The 321 kiddo (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make any sense at all. Style guides, dictionaries, scholarly texts and other publications all over the world have been changing from "e-mail" to "email" for years now, such that "email" is extremely common and "e-mail" is quite rare. That is the very definition of "outdated". At the very least, "e-mail" is an anachronism along the same lines as "weblog" (now "blog") and "web site" (now "website"). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not the definition of "outdated", that is merely a corpus to demonstrate that many publishers are bowing to common pressure. All the terms you stated are too modern to be classed anachronistic. Descriptive style guides naturally follow the most common usages, but the prescriptive grammars continue to support "e-mail" and this is why the hyphenated version is not as rare as you think (the last one is February 2016). The 321 kiddo (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please stop disruptively moving pages. You must seek a consensus for a move, especially when you have had the same move previously reverted. Wikipedia uses email, which is the most common form used in style guides and dictionaries around the world. Please see this discussion for sources that corroborate this fact. And now I think about it, I am a teeny bit suspicious that two users created accounts within 2 days of each other (A, B) and immediately involved themselves in this page move. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support email. Less clutter, less effort, down with the hyphen (everywhere I mean). Reggie Wisecrack (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although I'm perfectly happy to see "e-mail" in the titles of citations that used it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@The 321 kiddo: Are you for one minute implying that there can be some form of ambiguity? You write e-mail, I write email, all means the same thing. So your form is clutter. Reggie Wisecrack (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"Clutter" is an exaggeration, it takes one character more. The rest of your argument can be applied to tshirt (sic), tbone, and since you said in your first comment "down with the hyphen", shelllike (sic), with three l's. The 321 kiddo (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are thousands of examples where hyphens have been dropped, such as crybaby, bumblebee, pigeonhole, logjam, leapfrog, chickpea. Sometimes the hyphen is replaced by a space. Ice cream, pot belly and hobby horse all used to be hyphenated. I can see a future where t-shirt and t-bone might become tee shirt and tee bone. You just never know. But certainly with email, the hyphenated version is a rarity nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh come now 321 kiddo. Tshirt? Is that the best you can do? One look at that word and nobody can be expected to pronounce it the way it is intended, it is such an unnatural cluster of consonants. But "email" is a 100% natural formation that is impossible for anybody to mistake, there is no way hat the word "email" can be looked at and pronounced any way other than its actual pronunciation. Reggie Wisecrack (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: You obviously have good knowledge of English development and yes, everything is an adventure and nobody can quite predict the century ahead - it has all happened as you said but I am not going to go into another discussion on how rare the hyphen is, I say it is not becoming rare but I have otherwise conceded to your observation that "email" is by far the more commonly used.

@Reggie Wisecrack: So you say "email" is impossible to mistake while "tshirt" cannot be expected to prompt a correct response? Maybe if 'tshirt' was as common as 'email' I am sure people would have pronounced t-shirt the correct way too. But I don't know from where you derive this idea that "email" cannot be pronounced any other way. Once again, we know it to be common, but this word's history as we know it only goes back to 1993. So imagine it were the 1980s and you presented this wholly unnatural contraption "email" to people. This is an experiment impossible to prove now but you would likely have had a number of replies but none (IMHO) would have said "e-mail" as we know it. And why would they? The only word that springs to mind which is composed of vowel + consonant + "ail" is avail. Stress is on the second part, the diphthong with heavier emphasis on the "v" than the opening "high vowel" sound of the second syllable. As the first letter is unstressed, it becomes a schwa as would "e" if unstressed at the beginning (ie. "estrange"). In fact, there would be no clue to a reader unfamiliar with post-1993 conventions that the opening sound is a full "ee", and even if he were told this was the case, what are the chances of him then predicting the remainder to be "mail" like a single word? Had the first syllable been stressed (be that fast "eh" or long "ee") the likelihood is that the second would have been unstressed, and for an "ai" combination it is hard to find instances of how this should be. So they might have made the second part a schwa. But then this may just happen with our youngsters in future, and if so, then to all those who pushed for "email" in the present day who will later be complaining "hey, you should pronounce the items separately because the 'e' and the 'mail' have different roots", then it will serve you right when this happens. And why not? An English town like Feltham keeps its pronunciation because locals realise that Felt + Ham came together, but not in Amersham where Amers met Ham but the "sh" over time assimilated. This is what happens, and is also why "postman" is standard without the middle 't' and "man" is unstressed (Pohs-mun). The linguistic world is tit for tat and to those that gleefully seize every opportunity to mock tradition and annoy the purists, well history has shown you always get hit back at some stage. The 321 kiddo (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I've perused all of your arguments and this is what I have found: Scjessey and Muboshgu have claimed that the hyphen is outdated, and that COMMONNAME supports "email" with no hyphen. They have argued that style guides are all adopting the non-hyphenated version. Having taken these arguments into due consideration, I find that none of these points counter the inescapable fact that this is extremely poor English. Many items which are common are also vulgar, but it does not mean that we need to embrace these solecisms on Wikipedia, and to that I see no further reasons to support the continued suppression of the hyphen, so I have therefore decided to return the article to its correct version. Case closed. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Who made you King of Wikipedia? Reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

E-mail, Email, doesn't make any difference to me, not something I go to bed thinking about but Henry Mazzer, I need to inform you that you are not "judge jury and executioner", you and the others are but editors and you need to find common consensus. At the moment, we don't have it. COMMONNAME favours no hyphen, and yes, even if it is wrong, sorry! That's the rules of the game. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Email is the accepted form on Wikipedia. If this were AOL in 1992, e-mail would be the preferred style.- MrX 21:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Email is preferable here to e-mail. It's not only more prevalent but also a bit conciser. If I'm wrong about that, then IOU a UFO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes Anythingyouwant, "email" is preferable here due to the sloppy conduct of most editors, but I cannot argue about it being more concise. Then again "ain't" is more concise than "are not", and "dunno" is more concise that "do not know", so yours is a vacuous argument. I recommend put the article back to its grammatical location. Henry Mazzer (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Email is the standard, preferred form. We don't need to turn this into a debate about how language evolves. It does, but either way, email it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Prefer no-hyphen. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Continuing with my vacuous argument, as of 2012, American publications were more reluctant than others to let go of "e-mail" mainly due to the influence of the New York Times, which is very stodgy with tech terms.[3] But in 2013, even the NYT caved in, also adopting "website" instead of the two-word-form.[4] There are some bitter clingers, like the Washington Post, but WaPo is renowned for bad spelling (that reputation started a hundred years ago when they meant to discuss President Wilson's entertainment of a female companion: "the President spent the evening entering Mrs. Galt").Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I know those things, my arguments involved not what a majority was doing but what is inherently correct. As for WaPo, well two wrongs don't make a right. Henry Mazzer (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The spoken language evolves, and so does spelling and usage. The game started out as "base ball", then "base-ball", and now "baseball". And there was no sudden change; it was a crossover, as with "e-mail" --> "email" nowadays. Even after "base-ball" had become the common spelling, "base ball" was still in use. And "base-ball" was around for a while after "baseball" had become common usage. And many times I have heard people pronounce it like two separate words, even though it's been generations since it was spelled that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is why good lawyers must also be historians, to ensure that random historical changes in English spellings and English definitions do not inadvertently obscure legislative meaning. For example, a tax on "base ball" tickets should not be escaped by a societal shift to spelling "base-ball" or "baseball", although today I (being a Bostonian) favor a much heavier protectionist tax on foreign teams especially Toronto's.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs. Slightly different from the "baseball" scenario. E-mail in my honest opinion, does not need the hyphen and I am not one of those "pro-hyphen" demonstrators. Firstly it is questionable whether what is essentially "mail" should even be pluralised, but given its new life created by "e-mail", a contraction that pairs a first letter (initial) with a full word, I have no issue with the "e-mails" singular/plural. I view baseball, and blog (from weblog) as sound examples of welding. It starts with pronuncuation, to give you an example, if speech came to make bacon+roll sound like one word, I expect it too will become baconroll as with aftershave and clipboard. E-mail is different, this is an inconsistent combination of initial plus full word. Nobody is pronouncing the term as though it were one word, and as you know (whether you use American, British or any form of English), two syllable words generally have one strong pronunciation and one weak (unstressed) one. So what I am hearing is "e mail" and I have no problem with a space between the two constituents. But that really isn't practised, this is all or nothing, either one goes down to "email" or he continues with the hyphen. But nobody will ask you what you want for break fast (breakfast, note the "fast e" of first syllable). So this is why baseball is a mild case of false equivalence. The 321 kiddo (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Arguing over hyphens is stupid. And while "e-mail" was once preferred, "email" now is. Oxford says "email (also e-mail)".[5] And for what it's worth, I often still use the hyphen. But what I prefer is not in accordance with what has become preferred usage in the language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that consensus favors "email". Maybe we should close this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that consensus is non-existent, that is to say you favour "email" but I don't. I am not alone anyhow. Henry Mazzer (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to count up the "email" vs. "e-mail" vote? You're clearly on your own, unless The 321 kiddo is actually someone else and not your sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus of the sources is "email". Mazzer has only been here a couple of weeks, and he needs to learn some things. One is what consensus means here. Another is that he's a crusader, and crusaders typically do not last long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMOUS. In any case, no-hyphen is the status quo. If there is no consensus, then the status quo wins. It is up to those who desire a change to show that there is consensus for their change. There is clearly not such a consensus now. Persist in edit warring over this and you are likely to be sanctioned. Such a dumb issue to get sanctioned for. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the count so far: – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Users who prefer "email"

1. Muboshgu
2. Scjessey
3. Reggie Wisecrack
4. Wikidemon
5. MrX
6. Anythingyouwant
7. Baseball Bugs
8. Gaijin42

Users who prefer "e-mail"

1. Henry Mazzer
2. The 321 kiddo

I don't need to know the score, I wasn't contesting the figure, but if you count the arguments then the collective have produced one valid argument (common with masses) versus a dozen or so to support the hyphen. As for WP:NOTUNANIMOUS, if not unanimous, then no consensus, you have one party playing on majority status to suppress its opposition. Henry Mazzer (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

IF there is WP:NOCONSENSUS (but there is) then a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Common usage is the trump card here. 10 years ago it was "e-mail". Now it's "email". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All right, the hope this page can be moved is without merit. I need to move on. Henry Mazzer (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Three months prior

This is a peculiar sentence: "The software was installed in October, 2013, and for three months prior to that, no such software had been installed.[48][49]" So what was the situation four months prior?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Unknown. The ultimate source for that statement is from SECNAP (security vendor). The protection software was purchased in June, but not installed until october. For that 3 months there was definitely no protection. Prior to that there may or may not have been protection, but sourced do not discuss it. WP:OR : However, it seems unlikely that someone would have uninstalled any prior software prior to installing the new software, so the 3 month gap is probably a "prior" gap, but we don't have sourcing for that yet. Presumably Pagliano will now shed additional light on that situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

from the boston link "Clinton has not said what, if any, firewall or threat protection was used on her server before June 2013, including the time she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and the server was kept in her home in the New York City suburbs." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Surprising no reporter has asked her.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation allegation

The following text was removed from the Clinton Foundation article, from which article it was removed due to the irrelevant fact that the principal, or at least most publicly visible, subject of investigation happens to be involved in a political campaign. It is not a 'copypasta;' its provenance is visible at that page. It belongs on one of these two pages. Please discuss which is more appropriate.

In January 2016 it was reported that the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton's email practices while Secretary of State had been expanded to examine "whether the possible 'intersection' of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws," according to multiple unnamed intelligence sources. The public corruption portion of the probe would investigate possible overlap between Clinton's Foundation work and her duties as Secretary, and seek to determine whether donors benefited from contacts within the State Department. Hillary Clinton later called the initial report "unsourced" and disputed its accuracy. Former U.S. District Attorney Joseph DiGenova concluded that, based on the size of the FBI investigation, "The Bureau has between 100 and 150 agents assigned to the case. They would not have that many people assigned to a classified information case. Based on reports that agents are asking questions about the foundation, it seems to me it is the subject of [the corruption] prong of the investigation."

Other observers have drawn the same basic conclusion, viz. Kimberley Strassel in "Hillary’s Other Server Scandal." Many, many articles exist, published by reputable journalistic institutions across the political spectrum, containing comments from observant professionals in a number of directly and indirectly professions that attest, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the factual nature of the sourced scenario provided above.

Additional references appear here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I think this may be the right article, however I don't have much of an opinion on the proposed content itself. It seems to be reasonably well sourced. Where do you propose it should be placed in the article?- MrX 15:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this is not directly related to the email controversy. On the other hand, the email server, classified info, foia issues, and this issue etc are all related in a nexus of activities that are tightly interrelated. Regardless of if it is ultimately included or not, this was a legitimate talk page comment, and its removal was inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is a disruptive example of "shopping around" content, for which the editor was already scolded by other editors (including a member of Arbcom). It's also dubiously sourced, with "Daily Caller" and Fox News falling into that category. Look how one quote has been manipulated to shoehorn the word "corruption" into it! In fact, the Washington Post reference seems to pretty much refute most of it anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Poppycock. A member of Arbcom edit warred against this content. Fox News is a reliable source by the way. - MrX 15:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's only reliable in the eyes of Republicans from the left side of the IQ bell curve. Really, it is incredibly partisan, and it's astonishing that some people maintain otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not being 'shopped around.' It was removed to due to accusations of political partisanship from the Foundation page. It is manifestly not a partisan issue; it is a obviously criminal investigation (immunity, subpoenas, "career lawyers" at the Department of Justice, etc.) which happens to temporally overlap a political campaign. Due to a one-sided and rapidly-escalated dispute, in contravention of a number of Wikipedia policy guidelines including Verifiability, BeBold, BOLD, revert, discuss; removal of sourced material etc., it was removed from the Foundation Page without discussion. The author, after consideration, now submits that it belongs on this page due to its connection to the originating controversy, and asks that someone else find an additional source or two and take responsibility for adding it to the page, in order that the author might avoid further accusations of partisanship from editors such as SCjessey (no offense is meant) and post what seems would pass editorial muster on almost any other topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I would submit that it belongs under the "FBI Probe" section as the most recent development thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You have constructed a false narrative by misusing sources, some of them dubious, to make it sound as if there is a "public corruption investigation" going on, which there absolutely is not. In fact, claiming so is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. The Washington Post source, in fact, seems to refute your narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have little choice but to rather blunt. Did you read the title of the first source by respected, veteran reporter Catherine Herridge? It reads: "FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track." The Washington Post source does not refute the narrative, it provides Hillary Clinton's response to the initial report. There is an enormous difference. I don't impugn anyone's honesty solely for the sake of it, but as another headline (and many, many, many reputable outletssupport this) states "Hillary misleading about email probe during debate, former FBI agents say." It is possible for people to deny things in public that they prefer the public believe to be untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Former prosecutor Rudy Giuliani, on CNN, stated: " I think it's clear that she had a conflict of interest; her husband getting hundreds of millions of dollars. She's making decisions about companies and about corporations that he's getting money from. And I think they filed a joint tax return. I'd have her under investigation for about five different crimes right now." Instead of my posting sourced material on this talk page, I would appreciate it if someone else would investigate, as I asked, instead of impugning my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm not getting past Fox News on the sources. Is there any reliably sourced content to suggest that a probe of the Clinton Foundation has arisen from the email controversy, and if so, how and what? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@173.24.171.34 - Please try to sign your comments with four tildes ("~~~~"). Also, Rudy Giuliani? Let's not pretend he knows diddly squat about this and isn't a horribly biased source anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Presumably mishandling of classified information is a vastly different matter than corruption. The present author cannot force the New York Times to write a particular article for him/her to use as a source. Therefore, the primary attribution is to a respected, veteran reporter at Fox News. As the former U.S. attorney quoted above makes clear, "The Bureau has between 100 and 150 agents assigned to the case. They would not have that many people assigned to a classified information case. Based on reports that agents are asking questions about the foundation, it seems to me it is the subject of [the corruption] prong of the investigation." That was in the Daily Caller, but, since the speaker is a former United States Attorney, the 'partisanship' of the source can at best be a secondary consideration. There are therefore two prongs, just as stated: criminal mishandling of classified material, and public corruption. The FBI's own web page states, "Public Corruption It’s our top priority among criminal investigations — and for good reason." If anyone cares to investigate, numerous respected observers have made similar statements to that quoted above in this parahgraph. Former prosecutor Rudy Giuliani has given grounds on which a corruption case can be made. As quoted in the article "Hillary misleading public about email probe during debate," “[The FBI does] not do security reviews,” Pomerantz said. "'What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal investigation. Pomerantz emphasized to Fox News, 'There is no mechanism for her to be briefed and to have information about the conduct, the substance, the direction or the result of any FBI investigation.'" A great deal of evidence rules out some sort of non-criminal "security review," which, again, as numerous observers 'out there' (which at this point I beg someone to at least cursorily research on their own) have pointed out, are as imaginary as unicorns. 173.24.171.34 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton Foundation matter and the Emails matter are only linked by the name "Clinton". You have used dubious sources to support a narrative you have synthesized that tries to conflate two separate issues. There's no way this is appropriate for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Of the usable sources (above), the only one that actually establishes a link between the foundation and the email server is this one

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.
— Fox News

If this expansion of the FBI investigation can be verified in other sources, then at least a brief mention is warranted in this article. If not, it fails WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 20:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Even that source, which quotes anonymous people "not authorized" to talk on the record, only talks about possibilities and not facts. It's purely speculative. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's speculative. Here is one other source, although it is an editorial: [6]. If there is something to this, there will be plenty of sources forthcoming. It seems that this aspect of the investigation is in the early stages. We should hold off until there is more coverage.- MrX 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Some speculation is notable, other speculation is not notable. One of the dividing criteria for my personal calibration (and others may certainly differ) is that within a larger notable topic, small bits of speculation may be notable and contextually appropriate (for example the likelihood of hacking speculation, which is within the larger topic of the server existing within her home which is established fact). In this case, the entire sub-topic is speculation. It may be true, it may be false, but we don't have anything concrete regarding the existence of a foundation investigation yet. Beyond that, the "fact" that we do have (100-150 agents) is (afaik) unsourced and unattributed, so without having that be confirmed, the basis on which this speculation is built seems weak right now. Therefore I must weigh in against inclusion at this time. However, if it we can later confirm that there is/was an investigation into the foundation, I think the matter would be appropriate for discussion in this article (as well as the foundation article), as it is closely coupled with the FOIA investigations and the emails (which are purportedly the initial evidence that started the alleged investigation.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell for the moment, this is balderdash, a setup. If anything is real about it, mainstream sources will soon cover it (and if they cover the existence of balderdash, that does not count). - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to categorically call sources like Washington Times, Fox News, and the like unreliable, without a particular reason. Catherine Herridge seems to have impeccable credentials. It's true that the moonies founded the Washington Times, but the yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst founded Hearst Newspapers, which include lots of reliable sources.[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

retroactive

Scott Illini This is going to be a sot of ironic situation, in which Scjessey and I agree, but for completely opposite reasons. Your wording is worse. Scjessey is going to say that that the emails were not classified at all, and the action is purely retroactive. He is right that State (and other agencies) retroactively deemed them classified. That does not contradict that they may have been born classified anyway.

I argue that your wording "no judgement has been made as to their sensitivity at the time they were sent" is wrong in the other direction, as the IG has directly said some were classified at the time, and classification marking dates of declassfication (per reuters) argue that the content was actually classified at the time (though not marked).

There might be better wording than what we had, but your wording is not it, as it directly contradicts both sourced POVs. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "retroactive" is a positioning word that implies "not classified at the time". Deeming something classified does not mean "retroactive". It means deeming it classified when it is shown to you, nothing more or less. "No judgement" is directly from the NY Times article which is actually referenced with this sentence, and the most recent of the three references. Again, no Reuters is referenced here. Scott Illini (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The reuters bit is the second paragraph of the journalists section. I have updated the wording to say "retroactively marked" which is objectively true. As the Reuters analysis indicates, some of those retroactive markings set the date of classification as the date the email was written, not the date the marking was done. (which I think is your argument, and one I agree with). But your wording actually cuts against that argument - because there in fact has been judgement regarding the sensitivity at the time, but it is disputed. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I agree with what you are trying to accomplish with the lede; however, this doesn't look right at all to me:

"Nearly 2,100 emails on the server have been retroactively marked as classified by the State Department, though they were not marked as classified at the time."

Not only that, the opening paragraph of the "Classified information in emails" section fails to note the emails were not marked as classified, which is an extraordinarily important point. Since this is very much your wheelhouse, can you tidy these up? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Excellent, thank you. Presumably these changes can be propagated to the various related articles? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely bogus attempt to explain away clinton's actions really no place at a so-called encyclopedia. Certainly not in the lede. This is simply a talking point, not a subject of fact. The new york times, hardly some sort of right wing extremist version of of the news, clearly states as much and the article is sited here on this very wikipedia page. So why does this wiki article continue to falsely claim the emails were only "retroactively" labeled classified. The fact she did or did not know they were classified is a diffeent matter entirely and when/if the question of her knowledge is presented it should also be covered that she specifically stated "she would know classified material when she saw it" Direct quote the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. " http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.149.104 (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede reads Government policy, reiterated in the non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton as part of gaining her security clearance, is that sensitive information should be considered and handled as classified even if not marked as such. After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question fell into this so-called "born classified" category, a probe was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding how classified information was handled on the Clinton server.". The body later directly states the POV of the IG. Going further than this in wiki-voice is not currently possible. The ultimate resolution of the question is in dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that information which ought to be classified, information which has the potential to damage national security, is often not labeled so formally at its creation, there must be some procedure which does so. That includes some emails by the Secretary of State. There is also the problem of parallel reporting, material gathered by both an intelligence operative and by a reporter. This material may be published in world wide media. An unsecured server containing sensitive information, which an account used by the Secretary of State will surely be, is certain to risk sensitive information, indeed, the Secretary of State can generate it. The labeling of material as classified occurs routinely at intelligence agencies and at the State Department. The catch here is that private email communication were out of the loop until discovered. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does a fine job of de-emphasizing the controversy that the whole affair caused. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How so, User:MagicatthemovieS? I don't really understand the reasoning behind your article edit, which merely moved content without apparently changing it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? the fact that we even have an article, should speak volumes as to emphasisng "the controversy that the whole affair caused". Just because we try to avoid adding information that is clearly wrong, or from the lunar-right wing media, doesn't mean we're "de-emphasizing" anything.

If you believe we're doing that, how about you suggest edits? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversions

IP editor 74.62.192.83 has made a series of reversions that seem to ignore the advice of several editors, violate WP:3RR and violate the discretionary sanctions this article falls under. The IP editor has been warned about edit warring, and about the sanctions, but nevertheless reverted a fourth time anyway. I request the IP editor self-revert and discuss the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There are absolutely questions as to both the legality and propriety of the arrangement, and those questions are well sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 8:42 pm, Today (UTC−5)

74.62.192.83 (talk · contribs)'s unsourced conclusions of guilt went well beyond reliable sources raising questions. Hence, he's blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

number of FBI personnel detailed to the investigation

This edit has appropriately added precission to the estimated number of agents. We now have three sentences in that paragraph:

1. According to two unnamed law enforcement officials, as of March 2016, the number of FBI personnel detailed to the investigation was fewer than fifty.[84]
2. A former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation said "there are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case."[85]
3. A former FBI official also said 50 agents sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry, saying "you need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something."[85]

re the third sentence, our WP:OWN editor has declared "either we have this, or we remove the discredited WashPo stuff completely. The latter requires the former."

The third sentence doesn't "discredit" the first in any way whatsoever ("about 12" is indeed "fewer than fifty"), while the second already does a fine job of adding new precision to the first. So what need is served by the third sentence and the absurd comparison to terrorism? If the "former federal law enforcement official" is actually qualified to state "there are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case." why do we need to know their opinion on any other number or topic? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It clarifies that that report of 147 agents was bunk. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly so. The WaPo article has been widely derided and discredited, so either we have the clarifying sentence or we should remove the WaPo stuff completely. In fact, maybe we should remove the entire paragraph, since 12 agents isn't really notable, is it? And UW Dawgs, your constant personal attacks are become extremely tedious. Wikipedia knows you don't like me already, so there's no need to embarrass yourself any further. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We should remove the entire thing. A discredited source is unreliable, regardless of who the author and publisher might be. The only reason to include something like that in an article is if the bad source is itself sourced to be related to the article subject, which I don't think is the case here. The correct number of agents assigned to the case, and the Washington post's apparently incorrect reporting of the same, is quite tangential to and not of much weight with respect to the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the Wapo has corrected itself, the original number should be removed. However, the actual number of agents is not settled. Time has it as 20-30 [8] We should probably give the top and bottom range. And to answer Scjessey, yes, having 12 agents investigating your actions is indeed notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"147" was already changed in this article to "fewer than fifty" per the WaPo's changed number and attribution. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

No, the number of agents is not notable. The Time article gives a vague range and fails to clarify the nature of the sources, whereas the Ari Melber article specifically refers to federal law enforcement familiar with the investigation (and is thus a better source). Indeed, my initial feeling the paragraph should be removed has been reinforced as this has now been exposed as a setup job on a foolish WaPo reporter by a Republican lawmaker. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its notable, because... its been noted by many many sources. (granted they all have different numbers) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of a fact is not exactly the standard for including that fact in an article. If it were truly notable, we could have an entire article on it: [[the 2015 Washington Post misreported Hillary Clinton Email FBI agent count incident]] As it is, the significance of this is obviously less. That 147 FBI agents were detailed to the investigation is not a fact noted by many sources. It is an inaccuracy repeated by a number of sources, which is an entirely different thing. Inaccuracies are not inherently notable just because they have been repeatedly published. Reporting on the existence of an inaccuracy is beyond the scope of this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Im not arguing for the meta-story about the wrong number. I agree that culvert is a non-story in the long run. Im saying the number of agents involved in the investigation is a notable factoid, because many sources have discussed that number (but they are not in agreement about what it is) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. More of these particulars of the ongoing FBI investigation will come into focus. I see no issue with consolidating the agreeable sources into a range with attribution at this time. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WaPo's "fewer than 50" feels needlessly vague against the specific Times "20 to 30 agents" and MSNBC "about 12 FBI agents" citations. Do any of these (substantially identical) options resonate? UW Dawgs (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Conflicting media sources sized the FBI investigation from 12 to 30 agents as of March 2016.
2. Fewer than 30 FBI agents were involved in the investigation as of March 2016.
3. In March 2016, reports surfaced of 12 to 30 agents assigned to the investigation.

Nonsense. We don't have reliable numbers, and even if we did it doesn't mean anything or add any value to the article. It would be different if reliable sources were saying "lots of agents were needed because of the magnitude of the issue", or something like that, but we don't. When it was "147 agents" it meant something, but now it is just a handful it doesn't. All the media coverage is about how Washington Post fucked up, rather than about the investigation itself. So it doesn't belong in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, Wikidemon, and Gaijin42:

Any thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the "conflicting" wording is best. Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources Scjessey : What sources do you have to indicate that the "handful" means nothing? So far its just your personal assertion. Because I see lots of source that say it means something, because they keep writing stories about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. What sources do you have to indicate the number of agents means something? So far, all we seem to have is lots of websites repeating the erroneous stuff WaPo printed, and lots of articles making fun of WaPo for doing it. In fact, it has become a story about how journalists are misled by Republicans to do their bidding (see previously posted links). This is not a story about Clinton or her emails, but rather it is a story about shoddy journalism. So this is, in fact, not the article it should be in (if at all). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 ("Conflicting media sources sized the FBI investigation from 12 to 30 agents as of March 2016.") works for me as well, using both Scjessey's MSNBC "about 12" and the Time "20 to 30" citations. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate why the number of agents is significant. It was a thing when it was "147", but when that turned out to be total BS it became not a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Allen3, Muboshgu, and Wikidemon: Any further thoughts on the Option 1 language and citations? UW Dawgs (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since this has literally vanished from the mainstream media completely, I guess we did the right thing by treating it with the scorn it deserved. Besides, giving an arbitrary, unsourced range based on conflicting reports would by synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"We" was your WP:BOLD edit which removed all three sentences during this ongoing discussion, after previously and repeatedly expanding this content.

You are welcome to propose alternate text to address your new stated concern, which can be addressed by splitting the range supported by the Time and MSNBC citations into two discrete statements, each with their own citation. That's easily done if you're inclined.

re your new WP:SYN objection, you are welcome to quote the exact section of the policy which you feel is applicable to Option 1 as written. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! The first sentence. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There's no source saying "12 to 30 agents" anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This naturally precludes "The FBI investigation is C agents." It does not prevent "Conflicting media sources sized the FBI investigation from A to B agents as of March 2016." Again, you're welcome to offer alternate text, including "Time says A, while MSNBC says B" or "...reported as both 'about 12' and '20 to 30' agents" which aligns with Conflict between sources. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, Wikipedia's purpose is not to digress on the observation that sources conflict. That initial reports had the number way off, and others disagree but on a lesser number, reduces the reliability and significance of the number, unless we want this article to be about the reporting of the controversy rather than about the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the relevant part of WP:NOTOR (which is only an essay, unlike WP:SYN) is this: "If the conflict represents information that is trivial or of limited value to the article, you may also omit the disputed information entirely." When it was 147 agents, it was a surprising number that was of some note. Now the number has been reduced to "is that all?" levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, for inclusion of Option 1 for four weeks. Multiple rounds of good faith efforts to solicit feedback from additional editors has not been successful. Wikidemon's generally neutral comments point to a desire for a concise description and minimize focus on the sources themselves (I will stand corrected if this is misrepresentation). This is consistent with my original edit, the ensuing creation of this discussion, and my offered text. The lone voice of opposition has raised a littany of points aimed at removal, but without receiving any replies of agreement with their position(s). Additionally, they have chosen not to respond to repeated requests to offer alternate text more to their liking. Therefore per current consensus, I've updated the article text with Option 1. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that edit. Not that I'm sure that any number matters, but at least we're not using the ridiculous 147 figure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Nearly 2,100 emails on the server have been retroactively marked as classified by the State Department."

Per Classified information in the United States#Levels of classification used by the U.S. government no emails containing state secrets are ever "marked classified". They go through a process of classification (literally. placed into classes) and are marked with a secrecy level such as confidential, secret or top secret. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement which stated that classified material may be "marked or unmarked".
[1]Douglas Cox (July 27, 2015). "Hillary Clinton email controversy: How serious is it?". CNN.

[2]Glenn Kessler (February 4, 2016). "How did 'top secret' emails end up on Hillary Clinton's server?". Washington Post.
[3]Ken Dilanian. "Clinton Emails Held Indirect References to Undercover CIA Officers". NBC News.
[4]"Non-disclosure agreement with signature of Secretary Clinton", via U.S. State Department.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The "as" makes it technically and grammatically correct to use "classified" — an adjective, rather than an adjective used as a noun, or something like that. It would be more wordy, but one could also say "marked with a classified designation" or "marked as having one of the classified secrecy designations". - Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the marked with a classified designation is probably more technically correct, but I have no objection to the colloquial marked as classified. Apparently so are many others, including Clinton's own apologia for this event [9]. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22marked%20classified%22 Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See also

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

---

How does an article of this size and significance not have a "see also" section? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What has the size of an article got to do with whether or not a "see also" section is warranted? Such a section is only needed if there are related articles that are not already linked in the body or templates of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The "see also" links do not have to have a direct relationship. They are tangential. The size of the article has everything to do with it. It's a rather large article. And it encompasses many related ideas/concepts/fields. It is a pretty diverse article. It covers politics, scandals, hacking, emails, the Clintons, government, elections, etc., etc., etc. You are telling me that there are no related articles among the other 10 million Wikipedia articles? Come on. Things like Watergate, Lewinsky, hacking, etc. There are dozens of related concepts. And, yes, the size/significance/scope of the article have everything to do with its "ability" to branch off (delve into) many other related topics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

In simple terms: the bigger an article, the more "stuff" it relates to (or is related to it). With a stub article, you are not expected to see much of a "see also" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And, because they indeed are tangential, they would not be linked in the article (for that very reason). So, your comment seems to indicate that you do not understand the purpose of the "see also" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:See Also: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So, there are no tangentially related topics to this? Geez, really? None at all? The statistical probability of that is zero. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggest one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: First, it is not a particularly large article. Second, while it can indeed be tangentially related, that does not mean the "see also" section can become a shit magnet. Third, the link you put in ("Guccifer") was already in the article, and thus cannot be in the "see also" section. Fourth, "see also" sections are not mandatory. Finally, as Anythingyouwant implied, give us some examples and we'll let you know if we think they make sense or not. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) Who specifically asked for a shit magnet? (2) You stated: the link you put in ("Guccifer") was already in the article, and thus cannot be in the "see also" section. (emphasis added). That is not true. The "cannot be" part is not true. (3) Who said that a "see also" was mandatory? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note the following parts that I placed in bold from WP:See Also: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. (1) That is, the guideline offers it as a general rule, indicating that it is not a hard-and-fast rule. Indicating that there are instances where it is acceptable/permissible to duplicate "see also" entries. (2) The guideline says "should", not "must" or "cannot" (as you incorrectly stated). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Guccifer" wikilink should not go in a seealso section because it is already in the main text of the article. Therefore, I'm against including it in a seealso section. Joseph, are there any wikilinks that you'd like to put in a seealso section that are not already wikilinked in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) My question was general in nature. It seems odd that an article of this size, significance, and breadth has no "see also" tangentially-related articles. (2) Why are you imposing the additional requirement that an article mentioned cannot be added in the "see also"? Did you read my above comment? You seem to already have foregone conclusions and will not entertain any suggestions I put forth, because you have added your own personal "rules" that are counter to the "real" rules. (That is, you are adding your own personal stipulation that an article linked in "see also" cannot have already been mentioned in the article proper. Which is your own personal rule, counter to the actual rule/guideline/policy.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't given any good reason as to why the Guccifer wikilink is so exceptional that it belongs where it should not exist. Is there another wikilink that you'd like us to consider? By the way, here's a list of the featured articles about politics and government, and I think you'll find that many of them have no seealso section:

1880 Democratic National Convention · 1880 Greenback National Convention · 1880 Republican National Convention · 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt · 1975 Australian constitutional crisis · Boroughitis · Bring Us Together · William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 · California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 · Canadian federal election, 1957 · Checkers speech · Cross of Gold speech · European Commission · European Parliament · Fourth International · Gateway Protection Programme · Government of the Han dynasty · Governor of Kentucky · First inauguration of Barack Obama · John Edward Brownlee sex scandal · Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 · League of Nations · Liberal Movement (Australia) · Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey · William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 · New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 · Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia · Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico · Ostend Manifesto · Overman Committee · Profumo affair · Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 · Privy Council of the United Kingdom · Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence · Rhodesian mission in Lisbon · Royal assent · Rudd Concession · Scottish Parliament · State of Vietnam referendum, 1955 · Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 · Thorpe affair · United Nations Parliamentary Assembly · United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 · United States Senate election in California, 1950 · United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898 · Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng · A Vindication of the Rights of Men John Adair · Yasser Arafat · Chester A. Arthur · Alexandre Banza · Alben W. Barkley · Thomas F. Bayard · Hugh Beadle · J. C. W. Beckham · Judah P. Benjamin · Luke P. Blackburn · Barthélemy Boganda · Margaret Bondfield · Horatio Bottomley · William O'Connell Bradley · Bessie Braddock · Political career of John C. Breckinridge · John Y. Brown (politician, born 1835) · John Edward Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta · Stanley Bruce · Simon Bolivar Buckner · Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná · Neville Chamberlain · Happy Chandler · Murray Chotiner · Wesley Clark · Grover Cleveland · Hillary Clinton · Jane Cobden · Martha Layne Collins · Bert T. Combs · Calvin Coolidge · John Sherman Cooper · Richard Cordray · John J. Crittenden · S. O. Davies · Bill Denny · John Diefenbaker · Benjamin Disraeli · Alec Douglas-Home · Tom Driberg · Don Dunstan · Early life and military career of John McCain · William Hayden English · Ernie Fletcher · Joseph B. Foraker · Gerald Ford · Wendell H. Ford · James A. Garfield · William Goebel · Emma Goldman · Horace Greeley · Herbert Greenfield · Mark Hanna · Warren G. Harding · Benjamin Harrison · William Henry Harrison · John Hay · Rutherford B. Hayes · John L. Helm · Garret Hobart · C. D. Howe · Muhammad Ali Jinnah · Andrew Johnson · Keen Johnson · Paul Kagame · George F. Kennan · Nikita Khrushchev · Paul Kruger · Ruby Laffoon · Franklin Knight Lane · George Lansbury · Leopold Report · David Lewis (politician) · Luo Yixiu · Angus Lewis Macdonald · John A. Macdonald · Gregor MacGregor · Thomas R. Marshall · George Mason · John McCain · James B. McCreary · Bob McEwen · William McKinley · Harvey Milk · Edwin P. Morrow · Ngô Đình Cẩn · Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ · Pat Nixon · Richard Nixon · Louie B. Nunn · Barack Obama · José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco · Paul E. Patton · Franklin Peale · Franklin Pierce · Józef Piłsudski · Thomas Playford IV · Premiership of John Edward Brownlee · Vidkun Quisling · Rainilaiarivony · Norodom Ranariddh · Samuel J. Randall · Nancy Reagan · Ronald Reagan · Richard Gavin Reid · Louis Riel · George W. Romney · Mitt Romney · Rise of Neville Chamberlain · Juan Manuel de Rosas · Lawrence Sullivan Ross · Alexander Cameron Rutherford · Terry Sanford · Charles Scott (governor) · William H. Seward · Solomon P. Sharp · Isaac Shelby · Arthur Sifton · Ian Smith · Albert Speer · Augustus Owsley Stanley · Ed Stelmach · Thaddeus Stevens · Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) · Jeremy Thorpe · Benjamin Tillman · Harry S. Truman · John Tyler · Fakih Usman · P. K. van der Byl · Jerry Voorhis · James B. Weaver · Lawrence Wetherby · Roy Welensky · Gough Whitlam · William Wilberforce · Ellen Wilkinson · Wendell Willkie My guess is that well over 95% of these articles have no seealso section that includes a link that was already mentioned in the text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) You didn't answer my question. (2) Wikipedia has 5 million articles. You have selected a tiny sample of, say, 100. I guess to "prove a point"? I can easily find another 100 (out of the 5 million) that "prove" the opposite point. (3) And, again, you didn't answer my question. But thanks, anyway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

These are the only featured articles in the area of politics and government, so they're a very good gauge of best practices that we ought to follow. I thought I did answer your question. Anyway, have a good day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Should not" is more or less don't. And really, we'd rather not have a "see also" section if there are only going to be one or two items in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. "Should not" is certainly not "don't". If it were, then the "should not" would be crossed out and replaced with "don't". It's the difference between having or not having discretion. If something were an absolute requirement (let's say, for example, BLP violations), the policy would be saying "don't". It would not be using the more discretionary "should" or "should not". And what kind of reasoning is that? If the "see also" only has a few items. we'd rather not have one? Makes no sense. Most "see also" sections are small, perhaps 1, 2, or 3 items. In any event, this page is not that important to me. And it's quite clear that there are ulterior motives and agendas here. Not to mention, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misreading of -- and misleading positions on -- Wikipedia policies. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is flogging a dead horse and this point. You've made a weak content proposal. Please don't follow it up with behavioral WP:NPA violations. Let's close and archive this thread to prevent further ill will. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What was my "weak content proposal"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "should not" is certainly not "don't", but it does grease the way toward "don't". James, I don't think this is a partisan thing, it's just a style and editing thing. If I and these other editors agree, you can be sure it's not partisan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I said "should not" is more or less "don't". "Should not" implies to be avoided. Anyway, it would seem the local consensus here, at the moment, is to not have a "see also" section, particularly as the only link thus far offered up for it is already in the body of the article. There's no agenda from me. I just think short "see also" sections are fugly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see a consensus to not have a "see also" section? I see most of the discussion about not duplicating links in a "see also" that are already in the article. You've made quite a leap. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really a big leap. I see you wanting a "see also" section, and nobody else. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) Sorry. I was operating under the assumption that you had reading comprehension skills. Oops. My bad. (2) If indeed you had reading comprehension skills, you will see that people objected to duplicate "see also" entries. Not to any and all "see also" entries. (3) In fact, several people had asked for some suggestions as to what I would want to add into the "see also". Seems odd that they are soliciting which specific entries should be in the "see also" section when they object to having the section altogether. Yeah, cuz that makes sense. (4) We don't want a "see also" section". Why not? Reason: because we don't want one. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

FBI probe or investigation

re Hillary Clinton email controversy#FBI probe

• "probe" is supported by the existing Nov 2015 Politico citation, of

Still, the FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, while suggesting it is interested in broader questions about how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily launching a criminal inquiry.

• "investigation" is supported by a May 2016 Politico article including quoting FBI Director James Comey:

I remain close to that investigation to make sure that it’s done well and has the resources that are needed...My goal in any investigation is to do it well and do it promptly, especially investigations of intense public interest. All of that remains true

The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."

Seems like an investigation, if that's what the FBI Director explicitly calls it. Other citations welcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Retitled accordingly. November 2015 characterization is no longer accurate per May 2016 citation. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

rainbow speculation

Anythingyouwant I reverted your addition. I think it gets into WP:OR a bit to much to compare and contrast the various point of views. Also, you completely omitted the "will be" POV, which while smaller is notable and sourcable. Finally, a sentence basically saying "some people think no, some people think maybe, some people think yes" doesn't seem very valuable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

All of the four cited sources actually quote and analyze the relevant statutes, which is something we have not done, and so those links alone ought to be useful. We don't even say what the relevant statutes are. If I missed a prominent POV, then I support adding it rather than deleting the whole bunch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how we are going to avoid the "the opinions cover every possibility" problem, but I'm happy to try and work out some wording. Here are some sources that could be used for the missing POV [10] [11][12][13][14][15][http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/ Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you pick out ones that actually focus on what the statutes say, or do all of them do so? That's how I picked out the four sources that I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

the USAToday article is the most like that. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but I already cited it, and it predicts she won't be indicted. Is there any column anywhere that predicts she'll be indicted while also analyzing the pertinent statutes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong section

Yesterday's IG report is in the wrong section. Did not address classified info. Addressed other problems with her practices. 2600:1001:B00C:F671:9999:BDB5:4BC6:58 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done good point. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I do think that section is too long and detailed as a matter of weight versus all the other reports, investigations, claims, etc., that have come out and are likely to come out. I don't think it's necessary to go into so much detail about how operatives on all sides of the issue have tried to spin it. However, we can wait until things have died down a little, and then step back to see what really is relevant and significant. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)