Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Clinton jokes about email controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Henry: It’s a simple question.

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

There's more -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The major header for this section is inappropriate

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

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

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

Ed Snowden comments

Possible addition. I thought Snowden was a Democrat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline?

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

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

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

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

Exactly what is illegal?

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

The official Wikipedia policy is that we can't know what the law is, we can only link to reliable sources that debate what the law is. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04 (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Recipients with government email addresses

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

Is there a point here? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Sending or receiving classified information

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

Hello 2601:600:8500:B2D9:459:5F68:2141:3B04. You have not been clear about what you are proposing. The lede already states Clinton said she did not send or receive material (email) that was marked classified. Where did the “blaming other people” come from? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the "Classified information in emails" section of the article for more information, but basically Clinton herself switched from saying they were not classified to saying that they were not marked classified after the July 24 release from the State and IC IGs that said they found classified material on her server. Her own website currently says "No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them." Weaselfie (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

When she mentioned 'marked' classified, she also said "that's how you know it's classified, because it's marked that way." She was saying the system was working, and therefore she didn't send or receive classified information on that server. (The article's lede/lead has since been corrected to reflect her remarks.) 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton/Petraeus emails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official statements

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

Something's missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dropping polling numbers and Joe Biden in the lead

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

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

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

References

There are several points being made here.

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

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

The verb tense in the intro to this comment highlights the problem — "is causing". Per WP:NOT#NEWS it's not up to a Wikipedia article to chart the daily level of success of every partisan campaign to discredit a political candidate. We should be writing the article today for future readers, not people interested in following the sport of the contest. All of those sources are either speculations presented as analysis, or they are covering other people's speculations. Poll numbers fluctuate widely for lots of reasons and are only indirectly tied to people's actual opinions or political outcomes, much less the substance of political events. When you put today's poll numbers in the lede it gives a false sense of permanence, finality, and significance to them. The fallout of this controversy, if there is one, will play out in political actions, not polling numbers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly change the tense to "caused". Regardless of what happens in the future, this HAPPENED. The sources directly tie her drop in numbers due to this issue. More importantly is the fact that as a cause of this issue is that is the whole Biden issue. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your concern is good, but clearly this is not a general practice. See Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image and George_W._Bush#Job_approval where changes in poll numbers in response to news events and political activities are covered. I'm sure it would be trivial to come up with dozens of similar examples. The bigger issue is do the sources make the linkage of the server issue to the poll results. Its a reasonable assumption, but one we cannot make ourselves, we have to have the RS do that for us. I have not read the sources, so I don't know the answer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the sources explicitly make this claim. I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise. I didn't read this article but have been reading the news for quite a while and was somewhat surprised that this wasn't mentioned here. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Throughout the encyclopedia there's a tendency to overuse polling numbers. It's a known problem in bio articles and on politics-related subjects. Editors often have to clean that up as they become stale or where they don't belong. The fact that lots of sources do so doesn't make the material encyclopedic. Lots of sources report on the temperature and how much it rained yesterday, but NOT#NEWS is there for a reason. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So what about the concern amongst her campaign supporters and Biden's exploration? Direct cause and effect.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Such an obstreperous response does not address the issue at hand.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The material you refer to is already in that article, where it belongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A "Response by Democrats" section to the body of the article seems appropriate then, which then can be referenced in the lead. Thank you for your assistance.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you can be WP:BOLD and make such edit. Just please follow WP:BRD once you do that. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And I will use appropriate remedies the first time someone says "it doesn't belong here" without any justification. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to read also WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP while you are at it. It will avoid disputed down the line. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You might consider a refresher with WP:ICANTHEARYOU Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just get started doing the work. Your participation is most welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

What is this article about? The email controversy? From the abundant amount of sources out there they feel this issue has caused something to happen. You are questioning the relevancy. I'm not proposing any detailed analysis of the polls, just a brief mention. We mention her campaign and that her opponents are using this issue against her. The sources also state that her supporters are concerned how this will affect her campaign. What if this issue eventually sinks her? Would we add that? What if she survives? I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just stating that what the sources have already happened as a direct cause of this issue. Gaijin24 asked if the sources make the linkage. They have. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Polls are something that campaigns can use to measure, test, and predict some things (and advocacy groups use to promote agendas, and newspapers use to sell copy, etc). Newspapers, in punditry / cheap copy mode about polls, are generally not very good sources. To the extent that the controversy affects how the campaign is run, or who comes out on top, then it is certainly relevant. Clinton's or the party's response, potentially, would go in the section describing their actions. By analogy, this story[1] suggests that residents of Moscow are eating more ice cream because of rising thermometers. But if the story has any truth to it, they're eating more ice cream because it's hot out, and they think ice cream is a good way to feel better about it. So it is with polls, they're a crude ephemeral yardstick that analysts combine with other measurements to predict votes, donations, news coverage, whatever motivations politicians. . - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to tread lightly here. At a minimum this article is a close cousin to a BLP. RS’s are not always reliable. There’s a big difference between presenting facts and presenting speculation. We certainly don’t need to slant the article towards a bunch of political talking heads. IMHO “drafting Biden” would definitely be out and “poll declines” is pure conjecture. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Homophobic content of the e-mails

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

Lead section

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

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

It's not accurate though. The non-specificity of the current version works better because it doesn't need to take into account the fact that most (if not all) of the sensitive material was retroactively classified, after the emails were sent. Your version fails to take this into account, so it makes the "controversy" look worse than it actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not supported by the sources in this article or the text in the article itself that the material was "retroactively classified after the emails were sent." The non-specificity of the lead actually just makes this controversy look less than what it actually is. Note that I left Clinton's POV untouched in my version.--68.2.68.203 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. No evidence has yet shown material was marked classified at the time the emails were sent, but your version of the text would imply otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And how exactly does my version imply that there is evidence that shows the emails were marked classified at the time they were sent?--68.2.68.203 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Bush White House email controversy

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

It is not relevant to this article other than the words "controversy" and "email". It is only a subterfuge to divert attention elsewhere. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:SEEALSO also says:

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

Underline emphasis is mine. Seems like a classic WP:OSE. I read WP:SEEALSO more narrowly than the (unsigned) OP. Ford doesn't "Ford Motor Company#See also" link to Chevy, despite vast similarities, but both do coexist such as in Category:Car manufacturers of the United States. Because the players are entirely different, I see this pair as unrelated in terms of "See also:," even though some of the general themes may be shared. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These controversies both have to do with the use of emails by government officials. Hence, they're related, and the Bush White House controversy article merits a link in the "See also" section. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I forgot my signature. I've fixed that. Yes, controversies that surround the use of non-government email accounts and servers by government officials are related and valid. WP:OSE is more like, "well they do it this way on that page, so we have to do it the same way here". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a common misconception on Wikipedia. Two things having something in common does not make them related. There would have to be some kind of relationship between them: one was part of the other, they both involved the same people or chain of events, etc. "See also" is not used to create categories and lists of things. That would be an article ("history of email controversies"), a category (category: email controversies), or in some cases even a template. But unless the Bush events are of a nature that they would be included in a fully-complete version of this article, they aren't something to see in order to understand this particular subject.. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, the Bush email article would be linked in the body and a "see also" would be redundant. "Two things having something in common" is one of the main reasons to use a "See also", as WP:SEEALSO says that "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." These two are more than tangentially related. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Muboshgu here. There are several common themes between the two instances, and it would be (in my opinion) silly to ignore them. Multiple news outlets (examples include this and this) have compared this "controversy" to the Bush controversy of 2007, so if we are going to remove this "see also" link, it would have to be in lieu of coverage of these comparisons. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with both Muboshgu and Scjessey here, if it is relevant then it can be worked into the body, perhaps in a background discussion that the use of private email accounts by top officials including President Bush (unsecured servers too?) for government business has historical precedent, and controversies have arisen over this before. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

THIS IS AN EDIT WAR:

org Xb2u7Zjzc32

rvt1 Professor JR

rvt2 Muboshgu

rvt3 Wikidemon

rvt4 Cwobeel

rvt5 UW Dawgs

rvt6 SuperCarnivore591

rvt7 Professor JR

rvt8 Muboshgu

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

• I support the see also link. It improves the encyclopedia by giving readers a link to related material.- MrX 02:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• comment Earlier Wikidemon warned about unintended consequences of WP:SEEALSO. The discussion seems to revolve around tangentially related topics and whether controversial emails in one article have some relation to controversial emails in another article. What if, under NPOV, an editor wanted to link Whitewater controversy - that would relate by the nature of, being a controversy, and the same subject HRC. White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Lewinsky scandal, and others could also be considered using the same logic. Of course there will be cries of POV, et al, but the same arguments used to include Bush White House email controversy would apply. Something about the goose and the gander here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Those other "scandals" aren't about governmental emails. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• So what. They’re about "controversies". Why would "emails" be the exclusive relationship? Using your own logic – controversies here controversies there. Cheers, Grahamboat (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Bush White House email controversy#See also links to Watergate tapes. If we are to bend WP:SEEALSO's 'relevant' to mean 'similar,' we should expect the logical and obvious extension.

Ford doesn't link to Chevrolet. Blue doesn't link to Red and Yellow. Hexagon doesn't link to Heptagon. Lots of similarity, but little relevance. List articles and categories exist for these purposes.

Also, cheers to the WP:BRD fans. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bush White House email page shouldn't have "Watergate" in the see also section, as that's stretching "relevant" past its extremes. I'm taking it out. The other Hillary "scandals" are only "relevant" in that the Republicans have been trying to tear her down for over 20 years. Bush White House emails and Obama White House emails are similar enough to merit the "See also". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your statement “Republicans have been trying to tear her down for over 20 years” reveals that you are not capable of separating your personal views from Wikipedia editing and ignores the caution WP:NOTBLOG at the top of this page. Perhaps a timeout would be useful. Regarding "See also" Bush White House emails: Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with them just as the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the Hillary Clinton email controversy. On the other hand, the other Hillary Clinton controversies are connected in that they are tangentially related controversies to the same person. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Grahamboat, my personal opinions on Hillary and these controversies, which don't make it into my article editing, have nothing to do with the fact that the Hillary and Bush email articles are related, and that the Travelgate/Filegate/whateverelsegate articles aren't, aside from Republicans trying to smear her. Scjessey is right, that this has to be included in either of the two ways. The "See also" is easier, but I'm fine with a section making the comparison if that's what consensus moves to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Third request: How is Bush White House email controversy relevant (not similar) to Hillary Clinton email controversy? UW Dawgs (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant because multiple mainstream media sources have brought up their similarities and discussed comparisons. They have done this both as editorial, and as the reporting of comments made by notable persons. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet to date, no one has added any of them with citations. Please do so. No thematic objection, here. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You’ve presented nothing new here – just a rehash of your prior points. You use, IMHO, rather weak source examples as I pointed out above, to show some sort of relationship. And yet, you insist that other Clinton controversies cannot be used because (?), well you really don’t say why other than only email controversies can be compared to other email controversies – but multiple mainstream media sources have brought up the other controversies similarities and discussed comparisons here and here and here and here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all moot until there's a proposal, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I don’t understand your “drawing comparisons” examples. #1 “more” a Chicago Tribune piece mentions that Clinton, herself, criticized George W. Bush's Administration’s “secret White House email accounts”. It also makes a comparison to Whitewater. #2 “than” a Huffington Post Blog that asks a hypothetical question “what if Dick Chaney deleted 30,000 emails. #3 “enough” a MSNBC video where Bob Woodward says the Clinton email controversy reminds him of the Nixon Tapes. #4 “sources” a NBC News story that only talks about who did and did not send private emails. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A group of editors wants to add Bush White House email controversy to the see also section. They maintain that this is both relevant and related for various reasons. Another group of editors does not see this relationship with some believing it tends to slant the article to POV. To keep the article neutral and balanced I have added other Clinton controversies using the same logic and rational. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I pretty much agree with what you've done here, although I'm not sure how "Travelgate" fits in with this list. Since this list comprises mostly of Republican-manufactured controversies, why not throw in Benghazi for good measure? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

The current version of this seems fine to me.- MrX 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Edits to the summary

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

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

WP:NOTSEEALSO, no redundant article links

WP:NOTSEEALSO states

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

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

Juan Williams comparison

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

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

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

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

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

Your changes make sense to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Williams' claim about there being less coverage for the Bush controversy than the Clinton controversy is by itself a tangential point that is either marginal or too unimportant to include, and the Tampa Bay paper's fact check that his statement of the magnitude of the difference was "hyperbole" and "mostly false" is an especially pointless piece of journalistic navel-gazing. It certainly was less of a scandal for Bush than Clinton, even if not exponentially so. A bare assertion that Clinton was treated more harshly than Bush sounds like political score-keeping, not an encyclopedic treatment. If that's the depth of the comparison then I don't think the material belongs here at all, either as sourced content or a "see also link". Any comparison is meaningful only if there's some context as to why, and if it educates the reader somehow about this particular scandal. Is it because times were somewhat less polarized, the opposition wasn't in control of a congressional committee investigation, Bush wasn't running for office at the time, the public was less aware of email issues, email security is more of an issue, Bush's actions were not as egregious as Clinton's, something changed about the media coverage of scandals? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record I did not add the William’s statement or the source – that was SuperCarnivore591 here. My personal opinion is that neither the See also nor the Comparisons and media coverage sections are needed. I do not think we need to resort to citation tags – better to handle on TALK. Regarding the Bush comparison I do not support it but accept it as a way to reach a compromise. The versions by Wikidemon | here and | here are fine with me. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FBI Seizes Four Servers From State Department

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

If you are keen to see this in the article, please do the research yourself and present your findings here. Don't bother with "Accuracy in Media" because it isn't a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi 72.181.59.82 I see you are new here so Welcome! Wikipedia does not have page moderators – anyone can edit, including you. If you are interested I suggest you sign up for a user name – it’s free and easy to do. Regarding the FBI seizing four severers the story is somewhat questionable. It did appear on Fox but not In the NYT. It is based on two people “familiar” with the probe who wish to remain anonymous. The source does appear in the Huma Abedin article but IMHO it is too speculative to use here. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidental, but if Accuracy in Media is reporting the same thing as other sources that are deemed reliable, then Accuracy in Media is accurate on this particular topic, which influences the probability it's accurate on other topics. If only sources which were 100% reliable were included on Wikipedia, very few Wikipedia articles would have references. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:1D29:BF38:2704:A54A (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no way in a million years "Accuracy in Media" would be acceptable as a reliable source, even if it was to verify something else. Something some guy scrawled on the wall of a bathroom cubicle would be more reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in mainstream media

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

Security of government servers

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

First two months in office

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS

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

LOL agreed, but that ship has sailed. It's already ridiculously overlong and full of minutiae nobody cares about. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, we should make efforts to trim it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes it takes time to pick out the true WP:RECENTISM bits that don't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Merge

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

Sorry, but I don't agree with the merge. Republicans are awfully keen to conflate these two separate issues, but I don't think Wikipedia should. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. They are related and have some overlap, but are not one and the same. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This article has a clear and distinct scope. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This certainly has notability, and differs sufficiently from the Benghazi committee article. The two article should be related via mentions of each other where appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Hardly a "made up controversy" (?!) with an ongoing FBI investigation, resulting from two Inspectors General investigations. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. There are some similarities, but also many differences as listed above. Grahamboat (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Observe opposition (which I agree with). This is likely a WP:SNOW issue because the controversy has notability independent of the Benghazi panel that spawned it. However, at some point, it would be appropriate to place this subject in that context because it is a creature of the politics of that panel. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

@Cwobeel: You have garnered no support for this: please remove the merge tag from the article. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but the current status quo is unacceptable. This "controversy" is directly related to the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi, but as it stands, neither this article or that article make the connection between them, resulting in a nor NPOV presentation of both subjects. So, for now and until the issues are resolved the tag would remain to attract other editors to the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton UN image usage in summary

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

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

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

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

Has been fixed. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not. You just changed the video thumbnail to a frame that has nothing to do with this article. That is moronic, and WP:POINTY - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a silly thing to be edit warring over. That being said, I don't think the image of her from the U.N. should be used when the video is on the page. Why not use a different recent photo to lead the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thant makes sense. There are literally hundreds of images in Commons. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many to choose from taken her tenure as Secretary of State, the timeframe this article covers (in terms of when she was using her own email server). Why not diversify images? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to engage Professor JR who is the one playing silly games. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In commons:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_in_2012
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_in_2013
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_in_2014

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

or we can wait till Thursday and upload one of photos or screenshots from the CSPAN coverage of her testimony... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton server

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