Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Deletion of longstanding info from lead

merging two sections discussing same content

I cleaned up a lot of grammar for ease of reading and added clarity or precision by virtue of my gov't background to make things more clear and precise for the average reader as well as those readers with actual gov't experience so they won't choke as they attempt to read some of the conflicted constructions that were here earlier. I don't believe that I added or changed any content that materially tilts the direction of this article per the citations. If you believe that I have, please state how and why in clear and precise terms and I will be happy to work with you on the issue. Cheers. Veriss (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. This is an epically misleading section title. Your changes completely altered the way the issue is being portrayed. The body of the text must reflect what sources say, including (most notably) that emails were retroactively classified or determined to be classified only after they were sent or received. Also, there's no source stating the private Clinton server was "insecure". I've also reverted the work of another editor who changed "probe" to "investigation", which you later augmented. That isn't what the sources say either. A couple of other changes from other editors have been swept up in this reversion, but trying to unpick everything would've been extremely difficult and it makes more sense to revert back to the last stable version and then fix things after. In the strongest possible terms, I want to stress that on an article as controversial as this, content changes of this magnitude must be proposed on this talk page first, and consensus sought from other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that this same issue was changed and then reverted just now. For the record, I also think that the page must note that the emails were not marked classified at the time (agreeing with the undo). This is a common point of discussion online, and the page should make it clear, as it does now: (a) that they were not marked classified at the time, and (b) that isn't really much of a defense, as the rules for classified information apply even when not marked. MikeR613 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Again someone has reverted this, getting rid of the "not marked classified" phrase. I again urge that it be kept, and the followup paragraph make the point that this isn't a good defense. Should I revert the change? Should I change it to "_apparently_ not marked classified"? Though the changer says that there is no consensus on this statement, I don't think I've seen a contrary claim. MikeR613 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is/was consensus for that statement, built through collaboration from editors on both side of the debate (primarily Wikidemon and myself. The tail of that thread can be found here but I think there were prior sections as well that built up to that point, that are archived elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit removed a longstanding sentence (here in bold) from the lead:

“ Nearly 2,100 emails on the server have been retroactively marked as classified by the State Department. They were not marked as classified at the time they were sent. ”

The bolded sentence is fully supported by material later in this Wikipedia article:

“ None of the emails on Clinton's server were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but 2,093 email chains on the server were later retroactively marked as classified by the State Department. ”

In turn, this material in the body of the Wikipedia article is fully supported by the cited sources. From the New York Times:

“ None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent. None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent.[1] ”

From Associated Press via US News and World Report:

“ No emails Clinton wrote or received were marked as classified at the time of transmission.

[2]

”

No reason was given for suddenly removing this material from the lead, beyond the false statement that "There is no consensus for this". It's been in the lead for months, so, yes, there is consensus for it. Whereas there's no consensus for removing it. And in any event, consensus or lack of consensus is never an adequate rationale all by itself.

As far as slant, I'm not sure who the removal helps. You could say it helps Hillary because the removed material highlights her failure to mark stuff that should have been marked. Or you could say it helps Trump because the removed material gives Hillary an excuse for not realizing the stuff was confidential. Anyway, it's very pertinent info, and I will restore it again to the lead because no rationale has been given here at the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What does Trump have to do with this article? Isn't this article is about the Hillary Clinton email controversy? I think the race for president should be left out as it isn't relevant at this time. Although it may become pertinent later if as one said is begins to degrade or improve her chances.Chryslerfan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; thank you. MikeR613 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead now states "Those official communications included email originally marked as classified with thousands of emails that would later be marked classified by the State Department retroactively." It also says "According to the State Department, Clinton's server had emails that were marked as classified at the time they were sent as well as being marked retroactively." These statements link to a Reuters article and to an article from Fox News. The Reuters article does not say that any emails were marked classified at the time they were sent. In fact, it says that "it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings." The Fox News article argues that Clinton sent one email that was marked classified. Therefore, I suggest that the first statement at the very least be edited to say that "Those official communications included at least one email originally marked as classified," etc., or "those official communications included emails originally deemed classified," etc. Similarly, the second statement should say that "Clinton's server had at least one email that was marked as classified at the time it was sent" or "Clinton's server had emails deemed classified at the time they were sent." Also, the second statement should link to the Fox News article, not the Reuters article.

Y2K-96 (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the claim from the lede, as it is currently sourced only to Fox News. If it is legitimate it will appear in more sources, and more reliable ones at that. I think it's okay to include later in the article, with the inline citation that Fox News reported it in June, 2016, being carefully to point out that Fox News claimed only that a single email received by Clinton had a "portion" marking part of the email as classified. Fox News claims that an unnamed official said there were others; if that is true then, again, it will bear out in further sources. If none of this bears out with further sources, this too should be removed. See the June 11 discussion below. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

FBI Probe/Investigation RFC

The consensus is to describe the process as an investigation. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

FBI director James Comey has stated "we are doing an investigation". Clinton has said it is a "security inquiry". When using wikipedia's voice (eg section titles, or other wiki voice prose), how should this process be described? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Investigation This is the FBI's process. The director of the FBI has explicitly said it is an investigation. The target of the investigation prefers euphemisms. Sources from 6 months ago didn't use the word investigation. They do now. Reliable sources repeatedly refer to it as an investigation. The NYT explicitly discusses the transition in the nature of the investigation "The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information."[3] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Ludicrously premature RfC. Again. This debate just started an hour ago, for goodness sake. This is an abuse of process. From WP:RFC:

  "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Investigation. Per NYT, "multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation. (WP:SNOW). Per May 2016 Politico article and FBI Director James Comey's "I remain close to that investigation to make sure that it’s done well and has the resources that are needed..." statement and similar within that article. The previous Nov 2015 "probe" characterization is based on "The FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation." That might have been true when written, but the FBI Director's statement is definitive and current. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• One or the other, but for goodness sake let's not fill the article up with content about the debate over whether it is an "investigation" or whatever the Clinton camp is calling it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Comey, very deliberately chose this description. This investigation involves Title 18 of the United States Code Chapter 37, Section 793 (f) (commonly known as 'The Espionage Act'), which provides for criminal sanction for 'gross negligence' in the handling of 'any... information, relating to the national defense.' Under 793 (e), 'willfully retains the same' is also subject to sanction.(source) The Secretary of State may never have handled information relating to the national defense on this system in the period 2009 to 2013. We can only know the law, not the result of the investigation, at this time. PLawrence99cx (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Probe given that even those who favour the other term concede that this is the longer-term COMMONNAME, its use is preferable to any recent usage. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation. We should be guided by the Director of the FBI's public statement on this. He is in the best position to indicate what his organization is in fact doing on this.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation per UW Dawgs' arguments. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Who cares - ridiculous discussion. I see that the article uses sometimes one, sometimes the other, and stresses, "The FBI didn't call it an investigation" - except that it says that Comey, their head, did! Ridiculous. MikeR613 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Investigation, as "probe" carries the wrong connotation to describe the sources covering the FBI case. Searching "clinton email probe" and "clinton email investigation" on Google News, the former ("probe") is used by 17,000 news articles while the latter ("investigation") is used by 10,000. However, the main purpose of NPOV is to ensure that content conveys the actual information representative of the relevant literature; neutrality in the language used to describe information is secondary. It is important, thus, that the wording has the right connotation, and most recent sources state that the case was not started merely for security purposes or to safeguard classified information that may have been damaged by Clinton's email practices, but to determine whether Clinton has violated any laws or rulings in using a private email server. For example:

• Reuters: "The nine-month investigation into whether laws were broken as a result of the server kept in her New York home has overshadowed Clinton's campaign to become the Democratic Party's candidate in November's presidential election."
• The Washington Times: "The White House insisted Thursday that President Obama’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, including gushing praise for her high “character,” won’t influence the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into her secret email system from her time as secretary of state ... White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Mr. Obama is “resolutely committed” to an independent investigation and he feels confident that FBI agents and other Justice officials won’t be influenced by the president’s support of Mrs. Clinton."
• The New York Times: "For Mrs. Clinton, the biggest obstacle to getting past the email controversy is the F.B.I., which has not yet completed its criminal investigation to determine whether any laws were broken in the handling of classified material or other matters relating to the emails. Mrs. Clinton is expected to be interviewed as part of the investigation, but it is not clear when that will happen."

When describing any criminal investigation/probe, "probe" is rarely used, and seems to be a novelty in the Clinton email case (Google ngram, Google News investigation vs. probe). In addition and because of this, "probe" implies that the investigation is not a criminal one, contradicting what recent sources say otherwise. — Esquivalience (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Threaded Discussion

Reliable sources

Politico, 11/4/15 currently backing "probe" [4] Headline "House GOP split over Clinton email probe" Body "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. Politico 5/11/16 [5] FBI's Comey: I feel 'pressure' to quickly finish Clinton email probe FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly. Comey also swatted away a series of questions about the status of the investigation, describing it only as pending. He did repeat that he is tracking the probe closely. The FBI began investigating Clinton's e-mail set up last summer, Hill 5/11/16 [6] The head of the FBI on Wednesday appeared to challenge Hillary Clinton’s characterization of the federal investigation into her private email server. Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.” But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description."It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do,” he said, according to Fox News. Comey reportedly declined to say whether or not the investigation is “criminal” in nature. Politifact 5/12/16 [7] What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails Here’s what we know about the investigation so far. The FBI is conducting an investigation. (It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.) NYT 3/3/16 [8] Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks. It is commonplace for the F.B.I. to try to interview key figures before closing an investigation, and doing so is not an indication the bureau thinks a person broke the law. Although defense lawyers often discourage their clients from giving such interviews, Democrats fear the refusal of Mrs. Clinton or her top aides to cooperate would be ready ammunition for Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner. A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes,the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom. NYT 5/12/16 [9] Headline Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Won’t Be Rushed, F.B.I. Chief Says The director of the F.B.I. said Wednesday that he would not be rushed into finishing his agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails on an election timetable. And he would not say whether the inquiry would be wrapped up by the November presidential election. [...]While Mrs. Clinton has characterized the investigation as a “security inquiry,” Mr. Comey said he was “not familiar with the term.” The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information. Mr. Comey said he had been receiving regular briefings on the status of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails NYT 5/11/16 [10] Her server is now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, which is likely to conclude in the next month, about whether classified information was mishandled. Whatever the disposition of the investigation, the discussion of troops to Bahrain reveals how routinely sensitive information is emailed on unclassified government servers, reflecting what many officials describe as diplomacy in the age of the Internet, especially in urgent, fast-developing situations. Of the 30,322 emails, the F.B.I.’s investigation has focused on a smaller number, including 22 that the C.I.A. insisted contained information classified “top secret.” Hillary Clinton, during a campaign stop in Ashland, Ky., last week. She said on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday, regarding an investigation of her use of a private server for email while secretary of state, “I hope this is close to being wrapped up. Time 5/17/16 [11] A law enforcement official familiar with the separate FBI investigation into how classified information got onto her private server says there is little evidence of a crime there either, though the probe is continuing. Wapo 5/1/16 [12] Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off-limits, according to several people familiar with the matter. Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. The incident was described to The Washington Post by several people, including U.S. law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and those involved could face professional consequences for discussing it publicly. Confused about the investigations around Hillary Clinton? Here are the basics. There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why ABC 5/9/16 [13] abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-stake/story?id=38940751 What's Next in Hillary Clinton Email Investigation and What's at Stake it may be fair to say that this outstanding investigation about the handling of sensitive information on a private email server during her time at the State Department is the biggest obstacle on her path to the presidency. As the emails were slowly produced, the inspector general for the intelligence community believed there was enough cause to ask the FBI to investigate whether classified information was mishandled via that account. Where Does the Investigation Stand? The FBI will be interviewing Clinton in the coming days, meaning the investigation may be nearing a conclusion about whether to levy any criminal indictments. And her top IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has been offered immunity by the Justice Department and is said to be cooperating with the investigation. MotherJones 3/29/16 But the ongoing FBI investigation into her handling of classified information and the use of her private email server located in the basement of her New York residence never disappeared, even if it has receded into the background. NBC 5/5/16 [14] The FBI Has Interviewed Hillary Clinton Aides Over Email Investigation Some of Hillary Clinton's top aides when she was Secretary of State have been interviewed by the FBI "within the past few months," officials familiar with her email investigation confirmed to NBC News on Thursday. As for where the investigation stands, these officials say it is a long way from over. MSNBC 2/8/16 [15] FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server LATimes 5/5/16 [16] Top aide to Hillary Clinton questioned by FBI in email server investigation Huma Abedin, a close aide to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, was questioned last month by FBI agents investigating whether classified material was mishandled on the private email server used by the former secretary of State and her aides, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The FBI investigation has caused Clinton considerable political pain as Republican rivals insist her use of a private email server should lead to her indictment. Wapo 5/25/2016 [17] There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why. But its release — as well as the conclusion of an ongoing FBI investigation — have also been seen for months by her allies as key milestones to finally putting the email issue to rest. The FBI investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified material through her use of the private server in her home in suburban New York is still underway. FBI Director James B. Comey has said there is no “external deadline” for concluding that probe, but he acknowledged that there is pressure to wrap up the matter promptly and thoroughly. They have also told The Post that their investigation so far has found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac Stewart (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources we used in the article refer to it as a probe. Comey is the first official to use the term "investigation". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A source from 6 months ago called it a probe. That same source (politico) now calls it an investigation. But sources also already in the article called it an investigation [18] There are many many newer sources that call it an investigation. Sources which you removed from the article today. Comey is THE official. Its the FBI's investigation. What other people call it really doesn't matter. But pssst... many many many reliable sources call it an investigation too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Politico still calls it a "probe", even as it quotes Comey saying "investigation". Also, have you nothing to say about your abuse of the RfC process? Discussion needs to have stalled before you get opinions from elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapse meta meta discussion.

There was a talk page section devoted to this issue above titled "FBI probe or investigation where you could have discussed this. In any event, an effort was clearly made to discuss the matter in question before making the request, and the effort does not always have to be by the same editor who starts the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC) That's complete bullshit. There was no "discussion" at all. It's a total abuse of the RfC process to start an RfC when there's been no attempt to seek consensus or anything. One would normally expect a "discussion" to go on for several days before an RfC is even considered. Editors familiar with the subject are far better equipped to discuss and debate these things than editors pulled out of the ether in an RfC. That's why RfC's are only supposed to happen when discussions are deadlocked or stalled. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC) You did plenty of article-editing and even reverted this article (on the very point under discussion) while making no attempt to join the discussion in the previous section above. If you want to persuade people to !vote your way in this RFC, then please discuss the merits instead of cussing about your own previous failure to discuss and debate. Thanks.❤️Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I did join the discussion immediately the changes were made. Maybe you just didn't look hard enough. I accept your apology. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I do apologize for overlooking your tiny little argument here at this talk page where you said "That isn't what the sources say". So we have an entire talk page section that you didn't join, plus your bald assertion "That isn't what the sources say" buried in another talk page section, and you dispute that there was an effort to resolve this at the talk page? I accept your apology too. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I started the RFC because we have danced this dance several times now. You blindly revert ridiculously well sourced information, force us to hash out the debate for 5 days and get overwhelmingly WP:SNOW overruled by consensus. I'm tired of wasting my time with your obstructionist stonewalling.I don't have the time to waste convincing you personally that 2+2=4. the "scandal" redirect, the fact of classified emails being on the server, the security holes in the server, the analysis by security professionals of the server to name just a few. Every one you draw your lines in the sand. Every time your opinion is shown to be completely wrong. This skips over all of that. You don't want RFCs, start working collaboratively instead of being a Hillary PR firm. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC) A complete mischaracterization, as usual. And yet again, you violate Wikipedia policy and basically accuse me of working for the Clinton campaign. You ignore my policy-based comments and apparently do whatever you possibly can to make this faux controversy look as bad as possible. Your behavior contradicts what Wikipedia is meant to stand for, and now you have compounded this with an out-of-process RfC based on an edit that occurred just a few hours earlier. Shame on you. Shame! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I note that you have focused on the process here, and not actually taken a position in the RFC. Given the sources above, do you still object to wikivoice "investigation" ?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I'm starting to think nobody is reading any of my comments, or at the very least they are being selectively ignored. My position on the RfC is that there shouldn't have been an RfC because it was an abuse of process. My position on the choice of word remains the same as it was the previous times I expressed it. We have multiple reliable sources pointedly using the term "probe", and now you want to change it to investigation because of a recent use of the word by a single FBI official speaking flippantly about what the "I" in "FBI" means. But as I said, my chief concern is with the RfC being used to circumvent the normal discussion process. The RfC should be withdrawn in favor of a proper discussion, and only reintroduced in the unlikely event no agreement is reached. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Your argument is based on reliable source. I included a great many reliable sources, which are not quoting Comey, using "Investigation" in their own voice. While "probe" was more common 6 months ago, it is not more common now, as events have developed and more information is known. As for "one official", it is the FBI's investigation, the director of the FBI is that one official. His opinion would seem to be authoritative on what actions the FBI is taking. Please evaluate the sources provided. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Clinton email probe", 793K news results vs "Clinton email investigation", 496K news results. It would seem "probe" is more common with news sources. And like I said, Comey's comment was flippant in nature. Again, you fail to address the process problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC) And clineton fbi probe vs clinton fbi investigation is 2:1 in favor of investigation. As I stipulated, probe used to be more common. I listed a dozen recent highly reputable sources using investigation. Not to mention [19] In any case, it appears we are indeed at an impasse, so the RFC will be required to resolve it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC) That's just complete nonsense. I would expect a discussion to run for many days before even considering an RfC. You did it in just hours with almost no discussion whatsoever. Look, this probe vs investigation thing is not a hill I care to die on, particularly as it seems most editors simply don't give a crap; however, the abuse of process is something I care about. I insist you withdraw the RfC and conduct business in "regular order". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC) If he does withdraw it, it would only be a personal favor to you because you're so cuddly and charming. Or to put it another way, I don't see that it violated any policy or guideline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your completely unhelpful comment. I quoted the relevant part of WP:RFC in my response to the "survey" section above. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Yup, and starting a talk page section that you didn't join for over a day (and stil haven't joined) was a reasonable attempt to work out the dispute before seeking help from others; your only talk page comment was in another section where you said "I've also reverted the work of another editor who changed 'probe' to 'investigation', which you later augmented. That isn't what the sources say either." But you still were not responding to the talk page section above where this source was quoted at length.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC) I wasn't online during the (unreasonable) edit you referred to, and in any case, I am not interested in engaging with that particular editor because of previous egregious behavior on their part. I responded to a different edit that made wholesale changes. Why are you inserting yourself in the discussion between me an Gaijin42 anyway? It seems to me that you are just badgering me now, presumably in the hope I will do something stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

---

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.

I'm wondering if today's NYT article, picked up by other sources (WaPo,NPR,...) is a pretty good closer of the above discussion. According to the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html), "The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state." a) investigation, b) broke the law, c) Clinton included. MikeR613 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Loretta Lynch

@MikeR613: Thought your original edit was fine, but we can both quote Lynch directly and provide additional context around her remarks. I have done so. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That this even exists in the article is astonishing. I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia, quite frankly. Talk about a whole lot of nothing about nothing. It should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

For now it probably doesn't belong in the article. If there is any continued coverage of it as an issue over time it may be relevant; otherwise, it just looks like news of the day, and several steps removed from the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The topic is relevant to the article. I've reworded the content to make it more encyclopedic in tone.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of relevant, but utterly insignificant. Were not here to help manufacture controversies.- MrX 18:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this meeting is going to pass the ten-year test. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Attorney General, who has responsibility for the FBI, meets privately with Bill when the FBI is investigating Hillary regarding the email controversy this is the subject of this article. That definitely meets the bar for relevance here. And the fact that both the AG and the White House have had to make multiple public statements regarding the meeting definitely makes it significant.CFredkin (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

They talked about grandkids. That's not relevant. They had to make public statements because it was an ill-advised meeting and they need to quash conspiracy mongers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The airport thing is just right wing echo chamber nonsense. This is a serious encyclopedia project, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a private meeting. We don't know what they talked about. That's the point.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

She said they talked about grandkids. Suggesting anything else is WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Prosecutors don't meet privately with the spouses of people who are under investigation, and even the WH has said that questions about the meeting are "entirely legitimate".CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

They met accidentally/coincidentally on the tarmac of an airport because they both had scheduled events there. Once again, this is another manufactured controversy that unreasonably attacks the integrity of an Obama appointee and a former president. Ugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions can be legitimate, and answers can be simple, and much ado about nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The facts are that the head of the organization conducting a criminal investigation (discussed in this article) of Hillary met privately on her plane with Hillary's husband. The explanation given by those involved is that Bill happened to discover that Lynch was flying through the Phoenix airport (We're supposed to believe that Bill's security team is in communication with Lynch's security team and that this information was passed along by chance.), and requested a meeting with Lynch. Lynch agreed to the meeting and says the discussion was "primarily social" and focused on their grandkids. The incident has been discussed widely by reliable sources and commented on multiple times by both Lynch and the White House. Relevance and significance here are indisputable.CFredkin (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And with phrases like "we're supposed to believe" I think it is clear you are unable to approach this from a neutral perspective. But keep throwing stuff at the wall - maybe something will stick. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My use of that phrase is in response to arguments to the effect that "since it was a private meeting and no one can prove otherwise, we have to take them at their word that they just talked about grandkids and therefore this subject is not relevant here". That is absolute rubbish.CFredkin (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since we don't have any other way of knowing what they talked about other than what they said they talked about, we kind of have to take their word that they talked about grandkids. Grandkids have nothing to do with email controversies.- MrX 18:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here. Lynch has said that she will accept the FBI recommendations. Why isn't that an important piece of information, as we await the FBI report? I didn't put anything in about the meeting with Bill Clinton, but what I did add is certainly relevant. MikeR613 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow, I put my original back, though it may not be the best version (since then I think she has spoken directly). I would agree with leaving out the "airport meeting" stuff. MikeR613 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And now I wonder if this also should be removed, since Lynch has apparently backed it out, at least according to Cory Booker at CNN. Or should it be revised that she re-changed her mind? MikeR613 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - typo

There's a typo in the lead: "...they were classified, including 65 emails deemed 'Secret' and 22 deemed 'Top Secret'.." The sentence ends with two periods. Can someone remove one of the extra periods? Annoying that this article is semiprotected for one full year and that there's a whole class of users that can't make productive edits... 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:91AC:465F:4B81:5831 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

findings contradict clinton responses

In addition to the sources from AP & Politifact already in the article ([20] [21]) that say Clinton's responses were... incorrect, there are now several new sources discussing this as well. The clinton responses section should probably be cleaned up to remove the drip by drip chronology and a fairly strong paragraph needs to be included indicating that every claim along the way was bunk.

• [22] NYT : "F.B.I. Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton’s Claims"
• [23] AP : "AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe"
• [24] Wapo Factcheck : Upgraded to 4 pinnochios
• [25] "How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton’s email defense"
• [26]
• [27] Isikoff On Clinton Emails: FBI Findings “Undermine Virtually Every Pillar Of Her Public Defense”
• [28] Andrea Mitchell: " It discounts all of her explanations that she has made over the course of a year."
• [29]

Gaijin42 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These are effectively opinion pieces so they really shouldn't be used in a BLP. Which part of the article are you referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Primarily Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Clinton.27s_response Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that these are opinion pieces. They are reliable sources, describing what was in Comey's report and how it compares with Clinton's statements and her campaign's. MikeR613 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be arranged topically rather than chronologically to avoid being a compendium of news accounts. It would violate NPOV that the gist of the section is a refutation of Clinton's statements. We should simply go over the statements, any disagreement with them that is worth noting on its own terms, any opposition that is worth noting because it is part of the controversy, and carefully, with impeccable sourcing, state in Wikipedia's voice anything that the full weight of the sources establish to be true, untrue, and why. "Fact check" sites and stories are not particularly reliable here, they are link-farms for publishers. But they may provide some guidance. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue does to reach into the opinion piece area. Findings indicating false statements are significant because they amount to lies and thereby perjury. Keep this topic in. Dogru144 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they're in yet. Someone needs to add them. MikeR613 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedia's weakness when dealing with highly politicized matters

I gave up trying to edit Wikipedia articles years back because whenever there was even an element of politics involved, things would degrade quickly into edit-war nonsense, and the Admins would end up being worse than useless in sorting things out, most notably when there were big, irreconcilable conflicts between primary sources and secondary sources. By relying on supposedly "reliable, published sources," like news outlets, and with the quality of the overall US news media steadily degrading journalistically, it became very easy to find "reliable sources" that are just one short step (or edit) away from crazy nonsense. You can just look at all the years of battles that have raged over the Climate Change article for instance: it mattered not that the overwhelming number of *genuinely* reliable, published sources, especially those based on actual climate research science, agreed that that climate change was a done deal and it was only the details to be worked out -- skeptics and deniers had no problem finding other Wikipedia-acceptable "reliable, published sources" game the article. There was an study on all this published last year: http://gizmodo.com/updated-anti-science-trolls-are-starting-edit-wars-on-1724422402

What's even worse is when the mainstream news media completely drops the ball, which frequently happens with any topic involving technology and science that needs to be journalistically researched and then explained clearly, but which doesn't happen. That was the case with Deflategate (gas laws, shmash laws, and what does temperature and poor pressure measurements have to do with anything?) and the Killian Documents "Controversy" (let's not check for other proportionally printed military memos from that time or before, and let's all memory hole how IBM was making more money selling and leasing word processors than typewriters by 1971 -- it's all about the Selectrics, man.)

In the case of "Hillary Clinton email controversy," Wikipedia is again allowing an article to become nonsensical rubbish thanks to the use of nonsensically poor "reliable, published sources" that obviously did no real research. Every single major element of it, from BlackBerrys & Microsoft Exchange Servers to government networks & the classification system, was completely botched by the news media, including the likes of the NY Times and Washington Post.

Take the basic issue of why would Clinton would want to consolidate her personal email with her office email -- was this suspiciously unusual? Absolutely not if one actually bothered to look up how typical Blackberry users wanted to use their devices around the time Clinton became Secretary of State: just do Google search on "blackberry multiple exchange accounts" and see what your results are. Examples: http://www.blackberryforums.com/bes-admin-corner/257214-one-phone-2-bes-accounts.html http://www.berryreview.com/2009/12/28/using-multiple-bes-accounts-on-one-device-the-how-to-guide/

At the time, 2009, using an Exchange Server to consolidate personal and work-related Exchange email (plus calendars and contacts) was simply a clever workaround for the limitations of Blackberrys at that time.

Was this irresponsible? Again, there's been a lot of confusion about what exactly was the "office" email that her personal server was accessing, but it was the unclassified or "OpenNet" network system intended for general office email: http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2015/03/us-military-and-intelligence-computer.html

Was using her own Exchange Server that much more risky than using the official State Dept "unclassified" system? No -- the State Dept system had had many security problems, and as a general rule, the less physical Exchange servers you have, the easier it is to maintain security: http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/latest-security-news/state-departments-smart-system-lacks-basic-security/ https://securityintelligence.com/us-state-department-hack-has-major-security-implications/ http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/en/server_consol.pdf

Should Clinton have known if certain emails should have been marked classified? Aside from having to deal with at least 60,000 emails during her 4-year Secretary of State tenure (the total number mentioned by the FBI), apparently there was an issue with the State Dept's classification marking system (skip to page 8, by PDF page count): http://www.governmentattic.org/10docs/StateOIGreportOverClass_2013.pdf

Were there similar security and email issues during the Bush administration, and were they worse or better? Yes, and much, much worse: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090201029.html http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-and-obama-settle-lawsuit-over-missing-bush-white-house-emails

So, with a little bit of research, this boiling hot "controversy" becomes room temperature bathwater. But....Wikipedia's rules allows the boiling bit to keep bubbling over even though it literally makes no real sense whatsoever. For what it's worth.... -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything you said. Partisan editors here, however, will never let this article reflect anything close to reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We have done our best to aggregate the reliable sources. I understand that Clinton fans will want their sources to take precedence. But perhaps others can see why the FBI report, and the Inspector General's report - and many other sources - might see it differently. Just read the article and any honest observer will see _many more things wrong with what happened_ than the whitewashed list you presented. I think it is obvious that Hillary Clinton disagrees with you 100%; there is no other explanation for her year-long constantly changing list of explanations, all of which have "evolved" as new facts come out. She thinks this is really damaging, and it seems that the majority of Americans do too: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/ MikeR613 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't realize that you had commented on the Killian documents. Again, anyone who followed the story, OR reads the wikipedia article on it, will understand that the issue is absolutely clear, and within weeks everyone knew that the documents were forged beyond doubt. Those who don't are just not willing to change their minds when they have a political preference, and only accept sources they like. Sorry, but by even imagining that they might be genuine you are identifying yourself that way. MikeR613 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The point about the Killian documents was that *all* the charges of forgery originated came from people with no demonstrable knowledge of what they were talking about, and no real evidence to back up their claims. Even Charles Johnson's overlay of a Word-created Times Roman copy over the shortest of the Killian memos was nonsensical evidence to a trained eye: the GIF animation shifted too much for such a short document created with the same font, even allowing for fax distortion; and his little "trick" fails completely with the other 3, longer and more complex memos that CBS used. And all the claims about how you needed expensive typesetters and such back in 1972 to print proportionally was also wholly nonsensical as a little bit of research into common office equipment back then would show. *You* may think things were clear, but it was all based on zero research and very faulty memory. For instance, want to see another document from 1972 that's clearly proportionally printed? No problem. Seriously look really closely: it's a personal letter from a army general -- do you really think he did that on a typesetter? But it's not really your fault that all the nonsensical news "coverage" made you think things were clear, but in a really, really wrong way. Again another example of relying on really, really faulty "reliable, published sources." -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, read the wikipedia article and the related Killian documents authenticity issues. What you are calling "a little research" is really "reading sources from some little corner where they all agree with me". Read the wikipedia article, and look up a few of the sources there. You will see all your points answered completely, with lots more points that your sources skipped. This is overwhelmingly settled. Numerous top experts have found literally dozens of reasons why those documents must have been produced on computer and/or cannot be genuine. Just finding typewriters that use proportional font is very different than being able to reproduce the Killian documents; AFAIK no one has ever come anywhere close to doing that from a typewriter, whereas Charles Johnson did it in five minutes using the _default_ Windows settings. That in itself is proof enough: see Bayesian inference.

Dude, I seriously don't want to revisit the Killian nonsense -- it's water under the bridge, out to sea and around the world-- but you are deliberately being a bit obtuse here: there *were* no real experts involved in the forgery claim -- none, nada, squat. The only real, applicable expert for that sort of stuff is a skilled, forensics document examiner, and nobody hired one, not CBS, not the news media, nor even that so-called "independent panel" that was to investigate the situation, but actually didn't. Look at how a genuine forensics document examiner considers matters and compare that to the behavior and rhetoric of all the fake and pretend experts coming out of the woodwork claiming they knew all about "typewriters," military document formats and all that. But it was all just delusional nonsense again based on *no* real research and faulty memory, and actually refuted by *all* still-available primary sources (contemporaneous memos, military writing guides, common office equipment specs, and so on.) Take your claim that nobody was able to reproduce the Killian documents with a "typewriter" (which again ignores how IBM was making more money selling and leasing *word processors* by 1971): go try to find even a functioning daisywheel printer from the 70's -- they don't exist. The same would apply for even a common Xerox copier machine from that era -- agencies and companies didn't keep these things around once they were done with them. And even if you did find an functioning printer from that era, you would have to find a matching old functioning word processor to connect to it because Microsoft Windows never supported them. I linked to this 1972 personal letter by a US general above that was clearly proportionally printed (and which you noticeably didn't comment on), but want to see how far back in time you can go to see proportionally printed documents? Here's one from someone you might have heard about involving an situation you might also have heard about (although, to be fair, even I'm not really sure about what would have created that.) And with that, I'm done with the Killian stuff -- it's pretty obvious that this is more a religious canon to too many people than just what it really always was: a perfect storm of confusion, politics, misinformation, false claims, faulty memory, and most of all, a complete failure of the US news media -- aka "reliable, published sources" -- in doing even the most basic, basic of investigative journalism to clarify and explain what was really going on. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep commenting on this: Take it to that page. You aren't listening, you're repeating a trivial point which I did answer already (proportional font) and ignoring a dozen others. And only your expert is a real expert. Etc. MikeR613 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You complained about people doing this on climate change, but you want the rest of us to do it on subjects where you prefer the fringe point of view. Wikipedia has its issues on controversial subjects, but your claim isn't right. Even in the link you posted on Wikipedia and climate change, the authors updated that the case wasn't clear. Though climate change has some parts that are settled, there are plenty of important issues that are still controversial and many of the edits may have been about those.

And that's enough way off the topic. MikeR613 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please do without the accusations of ulterior motives? Wikipedia is only as good as the state of human knowledge appearing in best available reliable sources, as compiled by us editors. When human knowledge or the sources reporting it are flawed, as they may or may not be here, there's not much an encyclopedia can do. If we were editing during the era when people still believed in alchemy we'd have a lot of articles about efforts to turn lead into gold because that was the state of knowledge at the time. It's up to the scientists, journalists, and historians to get their story straight, not the encyclopedia to jump out in front of them. If people who truly understand blackberries and computer security believe NYT, WSJ, FBI, etc., have it wrong, they need to take those complaints up somewhere else. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, and I'll try to desist. MikeR613 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's opinions

I've done my share of edits / reversions for the day, but could someone please take a look at this new addition[30]: Clinton's opponent Donald Trump criticized this decision by claiming that "the system is rigged" because "General Petraeus got in trouble for far less.". Trump voices an opinion on everything under the sun. I don't see how his predictably anti-Clinton statement about the FBI's recommendation does anything to elucidate the issue, or any bearing on the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the significant differences between this situation and the Petraeus issue, I totally agree Trump's opinion isn't relevant here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The first part's alright but I'd leave the Petraues out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I added Trump's opinion initially because he brought this controversy up during the 2016 election. I will add it again, but take out his Petraues statement. In addition, I added in the opinions of other Republicans too. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Another editor removed it,[31] then it got re-added. Please don't re-add disputed content as you do here.[32] Trump's wild claims on the subject are particularly egregious, but the opposition's talking points overall to every single development related to the controversy aren't really part of this picture. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, per WP:BLPREMOVE the content has been removed, now we should discuss whether or not to include it. Since this is very much an election controversy, I think the first part of Trump's statement is notable. I agree with keeping the mention of Gen. Petraeus out of the article, as it isn't relevant. The Paul Ryan remarks are similarly not relevant, though that would change if the House convened a committee to investigate it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's comments should be left out. They are spurious at best.- MrX 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, we can wait a few days to see if anything more comes of it but the testimony of the FBI director, and further moves by the Benghazi committee with respect to the FBI and Attorney General may become another chapter. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather than use her presidential opponent's comment, use a quote with inline citation that is verifiable in a RS, such as the comment by Rep. Jim Jordan on 07/06/16: [33] which states: Just last year a Navy reservist was prosecuted, fined and sentenced for moving classified information from a government device to a personal one. There was no intention to misuse it, but he violated protocol and was punished, as most regular Americans would be. Not so for Clinton. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

But that has no relevance to this case, because that's not what happened. And really, an op-ed from Jim Jordan, the leader of the Freedom Caucus? That doesn't pass WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comment to you above [34]. It does pass WP:RS. Furthermore, the statement refers to this case so it is relevant; however, I'm sure there are plenty of other sources and statements in numerous RS that can also be added to satisfy "questionable". ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A Jim Jordan op-ed is absolutely not a reliable source. His claim comparing this situation to the Navy reservist is not accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I disagree. Jim Jordan is a US Representative and is highly respected as such. It isn't about whether or not you agree with his politics. It's about citing what he said using an inline citation. Our job is to lay it all out for the reader to decide without whitewashing an article or adding undue weight to praise or criticize - that is where NPOV comes into play. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations in Lead

For some reason we have people removing any citations from the lead of the article. I am not sure why this is being done but it should stop. Currently the lead has virtually no citations and it definitely needs more. --DrCruse (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. The particular citation you wish to add is unnecessary, as it is easily verifiable and obvious from the cited body of the article that the FBI director called the email handling "extremely careless" and recommended that no charges be filed. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Yoshiman6464, User:Gaijin42, etc.: consider yourselves on notice for misrepresenting WP:LEADCITE, making false claims, e.g. "No citations are allowed in the Lead Header" and for removing appropriate citations from the lede. Further removal of citations in violation of WP:CITELEAD may be considered disruptive and may lead to administrative sanctions. If y'all still think the lede should be free of citations, we can have an RFC, but IMO, the matter is quite settled, since in an article like this one, anything uncited is likely to be challenged, and the guideline is quite clear. You should stop removing the citations, try to get the guideline changed, or be reported for disruption if you continue. I suggest use of named citations to minimize clutter. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The information mentioned in the lead header is already mentioned in the information below. I removed the citations because they are redundant. For example, in this edit, the information with the citations is mentioned already in the section "FBI Investigation". I am sorry that I did not clarify the information. To be quite honest, I misinterpreted the rules since most of the articles that are considered to be "good" lack citations in the Lead Section. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave a caution on Elvey's talk page. Best stick to content discussions here on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

Please remove this link in the See also bullet list: Guccifer 2.0. It is unrelated to this article. ManicMonday345 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

ManicMonday345 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Private email server

Most people with private email servers do not physically have their own servers. So if someone is "hired to maintain their private email server" does this mean that the Clinton's had their own physical server, or used a commercial one and hired someone to manage their account? If there was a physical server the issue of security would appear more serious than if a commercial server - with its own security systems - was used.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Originally, it was their own physical server, hosted in the Clinton home. Later that server was moved to a hosting environment but the server configuration and maintenance was still controlled and done by the Clinton's staff ResultingConstant (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentence arrangement open to misinterpretation

This sentence seems confusingly worded to me. Is "a small number" not known to be 3? Even if that figure is not well-documented enough to place in the introduction, it would avoid misinterpretation to put the clause currently in the middle of this sentence at the end.

"113 emails contained information which was classified at the time it was sent, though only a small number contained markings indicating they were classified, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret.""

Lynn Ami (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Lynn

For a source, the 86th citation in the article (about the House grilling Comey) provides the number 3, and the equivalent NYT article? makes clear that "improperly marked classified" would be an accurate description.

Lynn Ami (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a less misleading version. Probably too many details for the intro, but they could be included later in the 'Classified Information in Emails' section when it comes up again.

"113 emails contained information which was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret. Only a very small number of emails had classified markings: 3 emails contained (c) indicating classification in the body of the email but were not marked classified in the subject header. In at least two emails, these (c) markings were mistakes, according to the State Department."

Lynn Ami (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The quote I'm concerned with is in the third paragraph of the article's introduction, if that wasn't clear before.

Lynn Ami (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Does it usually take two days to reply to one of these? I can't help feeling ignored. Usually if the article weren't protected, this would be a simple and obvious fix. There is a clearly wrong sentence in the introduction of a high-profile, controversial article. Even if one were to accept the meaning the way it's written, 65+22 out of 113 is not "only a small number." If you read the transcript of Comey in front of Congress, the current presentation becomes even more unsupportable. Please stop misleading everyone who reads as far as the third paragraph of this article by making it sound as though there were 87 emails marked classified instead of 3 (questionable) ones.

Lynn Ami (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added reference links where mentioned. These two also explain the issue in detail: and particularly factcheck.org. Beyond that, it's been three days without response. If you are confused, discuss with me! If you think I'm wrong, cite your sources. If it's a matter of bias, I guess my next step should be a request for comments.

Lynn Ami (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Discussion on whether the Hillary Clinton email controversy page should accurately state the number of emails marked classified?

"113 emails contained information which was classified at the time it was sent, though only a small number contained markings indicating they were classified, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret.""

How can the above sentence from the intro be fixed, considering only 3 emails contained classified markings, and they may not even have been classified? http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/ I brought this issue up on the talk page under Sentence Arrangement (July 30), but I can't fix it myself because the article's edit-protected, and I can't figure out why there's been no response. Lynn Ami (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• How on earth is this a proper subject for an RfC? It's one user trying to make some sort of proposal, not fully explained, and not yet getting any serious discussion so far. Apparently the user doesn't have editing privileges for the article, in which case a protected edit request would be the way to go. I deleted this a day or so and am not going to edit war; apparently the editor has re-added it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing the RFC, but keeping as a talk section to discuss issue. My proposed wording. Removes the ambiguity that potentially 65/22 could be read as marked by reordering. Also marked the 3 as "could be classified" to leave some wiggle room for the fact that they weren't marked correctly, and may not have been classified.  : 113 emails contained information which was classified at the time it was sent including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret.", though only 3 contained markings indicating they could be classified.

Thanks for commenting! I would have been thrilled to know that a protected edit request was what I needed to do 4 days ago! My original suggestion was to put the middle clause at the end of the sentence and use the number 3; I like and support the above suggested version of the sentence! Lynn Ami (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclear sentence, last one in "Later responses by Clinton".

Hi,
Idk if it is the grammar, but the way the sentence is written makes it appear as if CLinton speaks of herself in the third person, in that quote. Perhaps it's just me ... but would a comma before "saying" clarify what the source says and what Clinton says?
T 85.166.162.8 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton spokesperson says that Clinton's deleted emails from her private server are a matter of "national security"

Given that Clinton has repeatedly said that none of her deleted emails from her private server were work related, it is highly notable that her spokesperson is now saying that these very same emails are a matter of "national security." This new information should be added to the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-hack-hillary-clinton/

71.182.249.83 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You need a source that makes that connection explicitly. BTW, while the term "national security" is used, it is not clear that the deleted emails contained matters of national security but that foreign interference in domestic politics is a threat to national security. TFD (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If it was just yoga conversations on a private server, then even if it was hacked by the Russians, it would not constitute "foreign interference in domestic politics." The only way that hacking of a private server by the Russians could constitute "foreign interference in domestic politics " would be if the server had work related emails on it. Therefore, Clinton's spokesperson has indeed admitted that the 30,000 deleted emails included work related emails. 71.182.242.126 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If the emails contained negative information unrelated to national security, its release could influece the election and hence be "foreign interference in domestic politics." Lots of political careers have been ended by sex and/or money scandals. Even use of politically incorrect language has hurt politicians (hymietown, macaca, pickaninny). TFD (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That's stretching the obvious implication of the campaign's statement to the edge of credulity, but I agree that unless an RS explicitly makes the link between "matter of national security" and the content of the emails being work-related, it shouldn't be in the article. So far all I've seen are sources implying or speculating on the connection. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See what Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy advisor, said, "This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue."[35] It is not "stretching the obvious implication" to say the campaign was claiming that release of the emails "could influence the election and hence be "foreign interference in domestic politics."" That is exactly what they said. It is the echo chamber that ignores the explanation and assumes it is an admission that the scrubbed emails contained matters of national security. Furthermore, Clinton's surrogates would have no way of knowing what was in those emails, so would be in no position to admit they contained classified material. TFD (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Jake Sullivan did indeed say that, but it was and is crazy to suggest that Trump "actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent". The server in question had been inactive and disassembled (or at least unconnected to the Internet) for over a year, and also all of the 33,000 deleted emails were not longer on it, and there was no conceivable way that Russia could gain access to them...unless they had had them for about a year, or knew who had them. So how can Trump have been encouraging espionage against Clinton? I also disagree with the statement above, "The only way that hacking of a private server by the Russians could constitute "foreign interference in domestic politics " would be if the server had work related emails on it. Therefore, Clinton's spokesperson has indeed admitted that the 30,000 deleted emails included work related emails." Hillary's supposedly deleted emails could have included her recipes, but they may also have contained 10,000+ emails concerning the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative), "pay for play", contributions by dictators, arms sales to ISIS, etc. This would be an amazing amount of blackmail material if it got into the hands of a foreign power, or even Wikileaks. My comment about arms sales to ISIS is not mere speculation: As of yesterday, this is precisely an item that was in the process of being leaked by Wikileaks. 174.25.29.187 (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Replace lead photo

The photo shown here is not a match to the article. It is the Benghazi hearings instead of the email controversy.

I suggest replacing the Benghazi one with the 'sunglasses photo' mentioned in the article and sometimes seen in articles about the topic.

Googling for 'sunglasses hillary' and site:.gov, finds a public-domain copy at here.

Does anyone have another email photo to suggest ? Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Top Secret Server requirements removed Dod 8510.1-M

The information on requirements of a top secret server including power filtering was removed stating it was original research. No in fact it states it in the DoD manual. There should be something about how different Clinton's server setup was from the required setup. Top secret is a pain in the butt. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/85101m_0700/p85101m.pdf --Bongey (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:OR would be comparing Clinton's setup to those rules. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)