Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Recent Politico edit

This recent edit in original form appears to have cause a ruckus with ongoing blankings, rvts, and a few CEs for good measure. With a quick review of the Polico article, here are the gaps in my view:

1. The attribution to Politico alone without mention of a single anonymous source appears to be misleading. Not sure why Politco is called out at all, unless they are notable for breaking this as a major story that is repeated elsewhere. Don't believe this is the case.
2. The "the two emails contained top secret information was 'based on a flawed process'" piece involves confunsion and misunderstanding around the dating of one of the two emails, not both. And there are four emails in total. CE needed, imo.
3. "and intelligence agencies concluded the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets." as a blanket asertion appears to be at odds with article's direct quote on point from a named spokesman, that "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing" which is omitted. Needs more precision and balance, imo.

Cheers UW Dawgs (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The reporting by Politico has been picked up by dozens of mainstream media sources (examples: [1], [2], [3] and even [4]), all of which credit Politico specifically with the reporting, so it is entirely appropriate to document the matter in this way. The reporting refers to the emails documented earlier in the paragraph. The story does indeed quote Hale saying "the review is ongoing," but this is followed immediately by: "However, the source said State Department officials had already received instructions from intelligence officials that they need not use the strictest standards for handling the two emails in dispute – meaning that they aren’t highly classified." That essentially negates Hale's comment. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate as I had originally written it. Other sources actually go even further, suggesting it completely exonerates Clinton; however, I chose to go with the less controversial view found in Politico. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"less controversial", so your selecting what is more relevant source based on your own criteria? WP:NOR "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is full of "according to person x" or "according to news source y" sourced analysis, reporting, opinions, etc. The Politico piece appears to be at least as relevant, and probably more relevant, than most other random experts or publications because it goes to the heart of issues about which we quote other sources. If other sources are picking up and repeating the Politico material, that is evidence they take it seriously. It's definitely important to include for now; later developments might lead to emphasizing or discounting it, or in fact, most any of the "according to x" content in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

re 1. An editor has now included language around the anonymous source.

re 2. The current article text states:

Politico reported that an unnamed source stated that the initial determination that the two emails contained top secret information was "based on a flawed process,"

The citation says:

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top-secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said. "The initial determination was based on a flawed process," the source said. "There was an intelligence product people thought [one of the emails] was based on, but that actually postdated the email in question."

re 3. The current text says:

and "after a review, intelligence agencies concluded the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said."

The citation says:

A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said.

with similar agency ambiguity, rather than finality, raised elsewhere in the article. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of just moaning about it and slapping all manner of tags on it, why not propose an alternative here so we can discuss it? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-added the tag, as the apparent misstatement in #2 is not addressed by recent edits. Politico says the "flawed process" involves one email, whereas the paragraph's context involves two emails. While the current version is improved, it still appears to be misleading. re #3 and WP:NEUTRAL, a named spokesman contradictions much of the anon source. Those statements are wholly ignored at present. We should not cherry-pick from the article. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I second Scjessey's comment — I don't see a dispute, nobody is disputing you. The question is, what alternate language would you propose? Only if we can't agree on an alternate version is there a dispute, and even so, why plaster that notice on the article? It hasn't generated one drop of conversation so far, and it seems unlikely to do so. FWIW, all of this preliminary analysis and conjecture, comments from experts, spokespeople positions, etc., will likely become obsolte in a few months when different groups make their final determinations. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No one has yet explicitly agreed or disagreed with the substance of #2. Politico says one email was involved in the "flawed process," whereas we originally stated (incorrectly, in my reading) "two emails" and now imply both emails by the preceding paragraph. #3 "intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not contain highly classified information" is refuted by Hale, "no such determination and the review is ongoing." No idea or opinion on which is right WP:NOR, but it lacks WP:NEUTRALITY as currently presented. Appreciate a clear response as to whether there is agreement or disagreement on #2 and #3, here. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm confused about which email is which regarding #2. If you can sort it out, I'd appreciate that. I do agree after reviewing #3 more carefully that it is a contradiction. An unnamed — not anonymous — source "familiar with the situation" according to Politico says that a number of things happened within Clapper's office, and Clapper's spokesperson denies it. It only gets more complicated from there. I think we should say something very brief that doesn't give a whole lot of credence or prominence to the source for now, rather than doing it as a claim / denial format. The parties in question, the Source and Clapper's office, are presumably nonpartisan and not direct participants in the controversy. If they finish their review and announce any findings, or if they bow out and say they're not responsible for reviewing such things, either way, that would be in the final version of the article, not speculation and tidbits about things they are not ready to announce. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The article appears to be an anon unnamed source saying a determination was made, but not yet publicly revealed. Fine. It also quotes a named spokesman, who may be unaware of a (possible) non-public determination, who partially refutes the source. Fine. In the end we have two parties in disagreement about information which will inevitably become public, but only reference content from one side. Not very neutral. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix the POV here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy&diff=693039981&oldid=693022497

Edit by 68.106 was done by me, sorry, I didn't notice I wasn't logged in.--Mouse001 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I'm on the fence here about removing the Politico story about "flawed process". What Politico reported seems significant, if true. But few mainstream sources have picked this up and there is no new news following up on it, which is what you would expect if it pans out. If it becomes something significant, surely other sources will report on this sooner or later. If not, it could be a false alarm. Just as there is trivial news of the day on what Clinton did wrong, there is trivial news of the day purporting to exonerate her. I'm not 100% sure I agree with removing it, but it's a fair suggestion. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

At this moment, it appears all of the content has been removed, which doesn't appear to have been Mouse001's intent per earlier edit and comment. The relevant edit immediately prior was an improvement to the language, in my view. I have no objection this remaining removed, or being restored and fixed per the original issues and inaccuracy as called out above. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. I was at first in favor of keeping it, but after discussion, reviewing the source in more detail, and the passage of time it looks like this story doesn't really have any legs as they say. So I'm fine either way too. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That was my original intent, I tried to remove the text (2:17 29 November), but my removal was reverted so I attempted to alter the text instead. Because my modification was reverted "per existing consensus", I yet again removed the disputed text, on the grounds of existing consensus (there was no consensus for inclusion in the first place).--Mouse001 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New proposed content

Politico report on FBI probe

An editor appears to want to add this material, having done so 3 times in the last 24 hours.[5][6][7] I've tried to condense it (and also left a note on their talk page about editing process), but now that we're apparently at BRDRDR, I don't want to join an edit war on this so let's see what consensus there may be for inclusion.

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

I have a few issues with this.

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

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

The editor is simply tit-for-tat edit warring now without any good faith attempt to discuss, explain, etc.[8] I've left a second caution on their talk page. Is anyone following this who could weigh in? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've tried, and tried discussing that here, but the editor who added it in the first place keeps reverting to their preferred version without discussion — five times now.[9] - Wikidemon (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just given it a go, but the whole section needs reviewing and rewriting, in my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

With no objections, I'm going to attempt again to fix it within the next several hours. However, if the editor in question attempts to add the disputed (low quality, badly worded, POV, etc.) non-consensus content again without discussion, for the sixth time or so, this becomes a behavioral issue and we're at AN/I. The only way to work on an article like this is through collaboration among the editors. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Done[10]. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, mostly to eliminate the mid-sentence refs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag

I've tagged this article based on this removal of well-sourced and notable information regarding the sequence of events related to the discovery of Clinton's use of a personal email server, the fact that the server contained classified information, and that the FBI has begun an investigation into the situation.CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the material as it is relevant. The mention in the lede should be such that does not portray malfeasance. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the server did not contain classified information at the time. The material was deemed classified at a much later date, actually when they started reviewing it for release. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss rather than reverting a BRD edit. The material in the lede did not fairly summarize the content of the article. The article itself discusses at great length the nature of classified information as it relates to Clinton's server. It does not boldly assert that Clinton sent or received classified information. The material proposed for the "background" section is not background at all, it is a redundant statement of information contained in other sections. The background section is to describe what actually happened with Clinton and her server, as a way of setting the stage for the sections describing how it was discovered, investigated, and turned into a controversy. In the first case, material was added about how the State Department came upon the emails in the course of the Benghazi investigation or FOIA lawsuits, which is not background, and in the second case, about Clinton's statements after her use of the server came to light, which is also not background. There are sections for those things. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the status of classified information.... some of the information (e.g. some information related to foreign governments) was classified by default. It did not need to be labeled as such.CFredkin (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree in reducing the background section. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what your previous post relates to...CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also the lead is currently inaccurate. It's not "possible" that there was classified information on Clinton's email server. It's a fact that there was. In fact, there was classified information on her email server, at a couple of firms involved in backing up her email server, and on a memory stick that at one point was in the possession of Clinton's lawyer.CFredkin (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The material was not classified when it was added to the server. It deemed to be classified at the time they started clearing the release of emails. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, half the article relates to the question of classification. It's misleading to sum it up in the lede by calling it classified. Thus, this edit is unsupported.[11] The possibility of it being classified or not is subjective to the FBI probe, not intended as Wikipedia's conclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few very reliable sources that disagree with you both regarding whether the information was classified: 1, 2, 3, 4... The FBI "probe" is focused on whether the classified material was handled inappropriately.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's not what this article says. The lede is supposed to summarize the sourced content of the article, not contradict it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The current version of the article does indeed reflect this:

"When Clinton's use of a private email server for government business became public, she initially stated that it had not been used to store any classified information. Based on a request from the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees, the inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community reviewed Clinton's emails and discovered a number that should have been marked as "secret" but were not. In addition, a number of Clinton's emails that were subsequently released to the public had classified information redacted, as the classification was changed at a later date.[4] Also, according to Reuters, a number of emails included classified information, relating for example to foreign governments, which is automatically considered classified regardless of whether it is marked as such.[15] At that point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began a probe into how classified information was handled."

CFredkin (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's disputed content, likely to be removed. Regardless, the discussion of the Reuters analysis that is in the proper place is one piece of content relative to a long section on the question of classified information. It would be misleading to summarize that section by simply saying there was classified information on the server. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The number and quality of sources stating that there was classified information on Clinton's server is so overwhelming, that any statements otherwise can reasonably classified as WP:FRINGE (and should be assigned a corresponding amount of space in the article). Reliable sources repeatedly state that some of the classified information that was on Clinton's server was not labeled as classified, some of it became classified after it was sent/received, and some of it was classified at birth (and Clinton should have known it was classified). This is reflected in the content I posted above, which is currently in the article. How exactly is the statement currently in the lead that references this misleading?CFredkin (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just said at least 3 times why it is misleading. It says in Wikipedia's voice that the information was classified, whereas the sourced information in the body of the article goes into considerable depth, nearly 1,500 words, to say something very different. "Some of the emails were later deemed classified by government officials. Questions were raised about whether Clinton passed information … that was classified at the time…" And that's just the first 40 words. Further, whereas the status as potentially classified material is a significant part of the controversy, the FBI probe, to date, is a minor issue not worthy of including in the lede. It might or might not be significant, depending on any outcome and fallout. For what it's worth, the source that you are claiming as "overwhelming" is simply an independent "examination" by unnamed journalists at Reuters saying that material "appeared" to be classified at birth, a term of art, and something that per the article the State Department disputed, and others said was a "stretch.". - Wikidemon (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Reuters investigation was referenced many times (some of which I mentioned above) by other sources in their own reporting. I see other content in the article which supports it. I don't see anything which refutes it. The references you included in your last post have nothing to do with information that was classified by default.CFredkin (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think that "The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis", as reported in the Reuters piece, is a refutation of Reuter's analysis — you need to read the sources more closely. The Reuters article doesn't report that the information was classified, it is an analysis, full of "appears", "suggests", "if so", and "according to" caveats. The other sources that were proposed didn't do their own reporting. They simply reported that Reuters said something. This isn't an arguable question. The article does not assert that the information was classified. Therefore the lead cannot either. There's nothing there to refute. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Reuters article says: "The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not." That seems pretty definitive to me.CFredkin (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, and to do the material justice, it can't be included in the lede. That is why is best to leave what we have now there, and defer to the context in the section. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the previous post was directed to. Speaking for myself, I'm fine with how the lead is worded currently.CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and improving the organization by more clearly sorting things into descriptions of the server, expert opinion, benghazi panel, etc. That does involve eliminating the redundancy again. Also, based on the sources and the above discussion, while it's not fair to say in the lede that the FBI was investigating classified information on the server, it is a broader and more apropos statement to say in the lede that a significant issue in the controversy is the claim that classified information was improperly handled. The FBI probe is just one aspect of it, and not the overriding one for now, so that can be left to the article body. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored some of the content which has been supported by multiple editors here.CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC) The other changes look good to me. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please self-revert. Do you have any justification on earth for adding it back? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We're doing readers a dis-service by breaking up the chronology of events and burying them among the commentary. The version of the lead that I restored is not my preferred version, but one that I can live with and that seems to be acceptable to Cwobeel as well.CFredkin (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So you want to cherry pick a few things different people saiid to add to an early section of the article describing the "background"? That makes no sense. It's also poorly written, redundant, and doesn't match the sources. I'll take the second of the paragraphs here.

• When Clinton's use of a private email server for government business became public, she initially stated that it had not been used to store any classified information. <-- a non-sequitur, nothing in the section has so far described classified information. This statement is a duplicate of material repeated later in the article

• If you're concerned about redundancy here, perhaps the later reference should be removed. As I said above, we're doing our readers a service by breaking up the chronology of events and obscuring them by burying them in commentary.CFredkin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you actually arguing that Clinton's statements about classified material should be removed from the section on Clinton's statements about classified material, in favor of dropping them here in the section on how the controversy arose? That's just poor organization. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Based on a request from the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees, the inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community reviewed Clinton's emails and discovered a number that should have been marked as "secret" but were not <-- appears to be inaccurate duplicate of material described later in the article, in the "Official statements" section, and has since been contradicted by later events

• How is this inaccurate? Pls provide a source to substantiate. Also, see response above.CFredkin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no source that some of the emails should have been marked as secret but were not, and no source that the inspectors general "discovered" such a thing. Rather, the source says that one inspector general "judged" one email to contain classified material, and "concluded" that four more should have been marked secret. The Times poses those as his own conclusion, not a fact that he discovered. Language is important here, because as the article makes clear, others disagree, and in fact the intelligence community seems to have backtracked on this now.[12] This material belongs in the appropriate section. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, a number of Clinton's emails that were subsequently released to the public had classified information redacted, as the classification was changed at a later date. <-- we need a source for this

• Here's the text from the source already provided: "Mr. McCullough then looked at a sample of 40 more messages and found four that he concluded contained information that should have been marked “secret.” In last month’s court-ordered State Department release of an additional 2,200 pages of emails, 64 passages from 37 messages were blacked out because they were judged too sensitive to be released. Officials said hundreds more messages from the full archive might contain classified information."CFredkin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That source is dated now. Regardless, the source does not say that it had classified information redacted, it says that information "judged too sensitive to be released" was redacted. If worthy of inclusion, it belongs in the section describing this event. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, according to Reuters, a number of emails included classified information, relating for example to foreign governments, which is automatically considered classified regardless of whether it is marked as such. <-- no, that is not what Reuters said. This Reuters examination is discussed more fully and accurately in a later section, "Journalists and experts"
• At that point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began a probe into how classified information was handled. <-- at what point? This is a non-sequitur, and a misleading statement.

• I believe the statement is accurate, but I'm open to suggestions if not. Also, if there's redundancy, I think it should be addressed elsewhere, as stated above.CFredkin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an entire section on the FBI investigation, that's where the FBI investigation material belongs. The FBI began a probe regarding whether there was any mishandling of classified information, not whether information known to be classified was mishandled. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If there were anything to work with here I could work with it. But it's redundant, out of place, and weaker than the material already in the article on the subject, so it has to go. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Reuters content was recently removed with an edit comment to the effect that it has been debunked. I'm not sure what that's all about....CFredkin (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It should have been removed because it was redundant, out of place, and inaccurate. Regarding the comment about debunking, that's a strong statement about this.[13] Reporting that Reuters, or an inspector general, or any particular person opined that the information is classified is no more than reporting on somebody opining. These things get obsolete in a hurry as new facts emerge. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Politico article refers to 2 documents in an initial batch that was reviewed by an inspector general. It has nothing to do with the Reuters analysis.CFredkin (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your issues with the disputed content seem to fall into 2 categories: claims of redundancy and concerns about the verbiage. My response is that the former isn't a valid excuse for breaking up the content and burying it in commentary in order to obfuscate the sequence of events. Regarding the latter, I'm open to proposals to modify the language....03:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No "excuse" needed — you're the one proposing to add new content, or rather, redundant restatements of content already there.. Redundancy is absolutely an objection. When the same thing is said twice in an article, in a different way with different sources and tone, the article is murky and self-contradictory. Writing good articles is not burying or obfuscating anything, it is a simple matter of decent writing, as we have a WP:COMPETENCE standard around here. There are two fundamental ways to organize articles about ongoing things, thematically or chronologically. The chronological approach failed here, as evidenced by the terrible state of the article a month or two ago, due to the nature of the event with multiple parties doing different things on overlapping timelines (FOIA lawsuits, benghazi committee, FBI, State Department, Inspectors General, etc.) and also because of the breathless WP:RECENT tendency of editors following the issue to add the news of the day, sporadically, without cleaning up stale news reports. I don't think one could reasonably argue that the primary organization should be primary here, thus it must be thematic. Any chronological short summary belongs in the lede. Trying to shoehorn hand-picked examples from one section to another just not going to work. This should be obvious. Why add a redundant statement about Clinton's response to the issue of classified material to a section other than the one about Clinton's response to the issue of classified material? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The organizational structure you're proposing makes it difficult for a reader to determine the sequence of events in the controversy. Instead it buries individual aspects of the controversy in commentary and opinion. Please take a look at Fort Lee lane closure scandal as an example. The events of the controversy are summarized relatively briefly at the beginning of the article, so the reader can see what happened, before launching into commentary on different aspects.CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact a majority of editors agree this should not be included, yet again CFredkin has reverted it back in. The edit summary I provided more than explains why this isn't necessary. CFredkin should self-revert and bow to the obvious consensus against inclusion, since the burden on demonstrating why something is necessary always falls on the editor who seeks inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Can you please state here your rationale for why it shouldn't be included? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to. Perfectly adequate rationale has already been exhaustively stated by both Wikidemon and Cwobeel which I concur with. Since the three of us are against inclusion, and you are the sole editor arguing otherwise, it would seem your repeated reversions are wholly inappropriate and against consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't read Cwobeel's comments in this section as being supportive of your position.CFredkin (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My bad. This thread is very complicated. Nevertheless, twice as many editors argue against inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My read of the commentary here indicates that the views at this point are split with Cwobeel being more aligned with my position. Also, you still haven't posted any rationale for your opposition here.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

All this stuff is included. Cwobeel supports inclusion, as do I — they at first restored this proposed verbiage, thinking it was actually new material, but later changed their mind, saying "I would agree in reducing the background section." If they wish to opine on it, they can. Meanwhile, you're just edit warring in support of redundant article organization, thinking that somehow adding a mini-lede here in the middle of the article is restoring neutral content. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That is the same point I made in my edit summary earlier. It's been superseded by new material elsewhere, rendering this old stuff redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. However I still see a split consensus at this point.CFredkin (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only you — unless you count the sock brigade[14] and others not participating in discussion. The ratio of discussion participation to reversion here is woefully low. New changes ought to have an affirmative consensus for, not a consensus to against. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my sock. Also, once again, my read of the thread above indicates that Cwobeel is for inclusion.CFredkin (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a fairly trivial issue, not worth an RfC or an edit war. As long as it can stay neutral and we include it in a subsection I would grudgingly change my vote to abstain. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

the content should be included. There have been multiple notable voices stating that some material may be classified from the very beginning, without being so marked. Perhaps those opinions are wrong (or some say they are wrong). We should update with those other voices, but this POV is certainly notable, and part of the overall evolution of the incident. It should not be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what this discussion concerns? The content is included in the article either way - see the subsection titled Question of classified information in emails, everything is already there. The question is whether a few pieces of that verbiage should be added a second or third time right here — like I said, too minor of an issue to get into a tiff over. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. This is beyond ridiculous. The same thing is in the article twice. As far as I can tell, it is for no other reason that to make the reader see the word "classified" as often as possible. It's hard to see this as anything other than outrageous POV-pushing. Here's the sentence these "editors" keep adding:

Examination of a number of emails by Reuters appeared to suggest that some of these emails contained information that was "classified from the start." The State Department "disputed Reuters' analysis" but declined to elaborate.

And here's the same thing, only better covered, just a few paragraphs later:

An August 2015 review by Reuters of a set of released emails found "at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails," that include what the State Department identifies as "foreign government information," defined by the U.S. government as "any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts." Although unmarked, Reuters' examination appeared to suggest that these emails "were classified from the start." J. William Leonard, a former director of the NARA Information Security Oversight Office, said that such information is "born classified" and that "If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession."[79] According to Reuters, the standard U.S. government nondisclosure agreement "warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form." The State Department "disputed Reuters' analysis" but declined to elaborate.

It simply isn't logical to have this lesser quality version in the article as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not a sock. I was previously editing as an IP (68........, the other numbers changed sometimes), until I decided to make an account. As CFredkin stated, removing this obfuscates the sequence of events. I see no reason why this can't be included in a background, given the significance of the incident, and then expanded upon later in the article.--Mouse001 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see a reason why this can't be included. Because it's stupid to have the same thing twice, only in a more stupid, ill-conceived way. That's why. Better to delete that whole section than have this retarded approach. Either way, you should not have reverted it without first discussing the matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is no consensus for removal. It seems the section containing the disputed content provides a somewhat brief background of the controversy and the chronology of it to the reader. That's why the content you are disputing is not written about extensively in that section but later in the article. Other notable things, like the FBI probe, are mentioned in that section and also emphasized upon elsewhere. --Mouse001 (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(bangs head) It's always amateur hour on Wikipedia so I shouldn't complain. The goal here is to explain the subject as revealed by the sources to an interested reader at large. It really doesn't make any difference exactly how we do that, people, as long as we can be civil to each other and get a good article out of this, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. Everything that was in it receives better treatment later in the article. Basically it was one part that was hard to cite, and another that belonged elsewhere so there was little point in keeping any of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the section. There's no consensus for its removal.CFredkin (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for inclusion, CFredkin, and the burden falls upon those who wish to add contentious material to seek consensus for it. This tag-team edit warring must stop. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies over consensus, we will need to begin formal proceedings. Perhaps an RfC to begin with. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Following some edit warring (6-8RR between all the editors) and inability to resolve through informal discussion I've created an RfC, below. I didn't think this would have been necessary but that's the best way to deal with these things. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comments on inclusion of miscellaneous items

collapsing for now pending further discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question To solve an editing dispute,[15] I'm putting this up for wider discussion. Should this article include the following material, and if so, where? Clinton initially says no classified info on server Charles McCullough says in letter that information should have been marked classified and handled as such Some emails later redacted and designated classified Reuters concludes "classified from the start", State Department disputes FBI began a probe These are deliberately shortened because the question is over where to put this content, not the wording. The sections below are meant to help organize discussion, not intended to be binary yes/no or a !vote, please feel free to place and express your opinion however you see fit. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Exclude entirely Include, only in proposed early section after initial awareness Include, only in respective sections dealing with each subject (status quo) Include, both in early section and respective subject sections (proposed change) Other

General discussion

This RfC is poorly put together. Is the question whether the diff presented is OK? If so, then yes. I think the edit shown in the diff is fine. I'm not sure what the argument would be against including the content in question. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is the one asked in the RfC — you seem to be answering a different one. If your position is simply that the content should be included, that aligns with that of all other editors to date, and supports all but the first enumerated option. The dispute is over where and how many times, not what. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon, Your question seems to be constructed in order to generate the outcome you desire. As I understand it, your main point in this dispute is that most of the content being disputed appears elsewhere in the article. You've constructed your question to highlight that fact (and in my opinion made it overly complicated). In his response, NickCT refers to the "diff" being ok. That renders moot your distinction about the "content" in the diff potentially being redundant. In order to generate an outcome that will actually be useful, I request that you re-form the RfC. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC) If we can't agree on neutral language for the RfC, we'll have to run another RfC in parallel with my preferred language.CFredkin (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I think a neutral way to phrase the RfC would be to include the content of the diff and then indicate that there are 2 opposing points of view with respect to the disputed content:

• It's redundant with content later in the article.
• It provides a summary of events for readers at the beginning of the article.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we're not going to run two RfCs. The question is phrased fairly and completely neutrally. It does not argue in favor of one position or another, or argue that it is about redundancy or otherwise comment on the content — that's up to people commenting. The problem with posing it as yes/no to the proposed edit is that it omits a third proposal that has been made, to include it earlier instead of in later sections, and because many of the commentators to date misunderstand the issue when it is presented that way, mistakenly thinking it is a question of including the content or not. The problem with your proposed categories is that they both propose opinions and ask people to agree with them or not, rather than letting people explain for themselves why they support one outcome or another. There is plenty of room to argue any position or comment one might have on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If the other party in the dispute doesn't think the RfC is constructed neutrally, then it's not. No one thus far has advocated the "third proposal" you've included here. Also, you've already had initial feedback from a 3rd party indicating that the RfC is poorly constructed. This is my last request for you to restructure the RfC.CFredkin (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In order: not true, not true, and the person was misguided by the absurdity of the proposal, not the RfC about it. Please participate in good faith in dispute resolution if you wish to gain consensus for disputed content, and don't threaten to initiate a dispute about dispute resolution. Given that this one hasn't started yet, alternate dispute resolution means include WP:DRN, WP:3O, and probably as a last resort, WP:RFM. Those ones all require that the parties agree to respect outcome, and would be in place of and not in addition to an RfC. The advantage of an RfC is that it is binding on editors whether they participate or not. Frankly, I'm game for anything and I don't see why this needs to be a dispute at all, see my above comments that I can live with the change as proposed even if I don't much like it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after re-reading the article, I remove my objection to deleting this particular content from the beginning of the article. I think it should stay in, but I'm not going to argue about it.CFredkin (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC) If you want to continue running the RfC, you can delete or hat my contributions to the discussion here.CFredkin (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that this RfC is no longer necessary, given the removal of the text now has fairly broad support. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: - I'm still a little confused what the objection to the text in question is. I think I'm with CFredkin here. I think it should stay in, but I'm not going to argue it. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - That was one of the problems with the way Wikidemon setup the RfC. I explained it earlier in the content discussion, but essentially the problem here is that all the salient points of the disputed paragraph are already in the article in the Journalists and experts section. The objection here is that the material is being unnecessarily duplicated, presumably to get the word "classified" into the article as many times as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: - Thanks for the explanation. After glancing again, I agree. Looks like duplication. NickCT (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of SPAs and IP editors

In the past few days we've gotten a spate of accounts with odd edit histories making similar edits. I'm posting here as a notice. This seems to be par for the course on politics-related articles in election years. Batten down the hatches, all, and don't take any flame bait. There are a number of implications for editing process. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Election year"... it's still 2015! We're almost a full calendar year away from the presidential election! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's like a school year, it doesn't start in January. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

New proposed content

Our latest SPA is proposing some content that, in my opinion, is highly POV, unnecessary, and seriously misrepresents the sources.[16] Among other issues, quoting rote denials of events by spokespeople is generally unhelpful except in a few special cases. Long quotes in general are disfavored where the source summarizes the substance of what was said. Also, it seriously mischaracterizes the New York Times piece on Podliska's unlawful termination lawsuit agains the Benghazi Committee. I tried to condense and bring the material in line with the tone of the sources but the SPA insists on their version.[17] Accordingly, I have reverted to the stable article text pending any consensus for change. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of that stuff is unrelated to this article. It belongs in United States House Select Committee on Benghazi, if anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. I think the current version lacks balance/neutraility as it only focuses on the alleged politicization of the Benghazi Committee and fails to mention any opposing viewpoints.--Mouse001 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is great, but what you are trying to do isn't neutrality, but false equivalence. The politicization by Republicans mentioned in the article is specifically to do with Hillary Clinton and her emails, whereas the stuff you were trying to shoehorn in is not. We aren't seeking balance, and nor should we, because that is not the same as neutrality at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! For one, McCarthy's initial comments about the Benghazi committee deserve more weight than his later damage control efforts to walk them back. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

---

User:Mouse001: You keep removing well-sourced material from this article. The Grayson quote is properly attributed, helps explain why he took the action of filing the complaint, and is an illustration of a widely held view. Please read carefully Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

In your short time here you've had similar run-ins. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the policies and guidelines. Neutrality^talk 22:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Blumenthal emails

My edit below, was reverted twice. It was in the section on Republican responses. I believe it belongs there.

I'm also thinking of writing a new section for the article on the Blumenthal emails. Lots of new information in the October 7th letter by Representative Gowdy to Elijah Cummings. Half of the emails before the Bengazi terrorist attack were between Blumenthal and Clinton regarding Blumenthal's business dealings. (See reference below)

Gowdy, in a letter to Committee member, Elijah E. Cummings said the motive for Blumenthal's concern over Libya was business deals, money.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References

As I said in my edit summary removing the materials,[18] it is not properly sourced. Sourcing a partisan political statement, in this case a letter by a political operative, to the statement itself does not support any of the content in the letter, only that it was written. Without due third party sourcing, that too is subject to challenge and removal on weight, sourcing, and BLP grounds if contentious. Unfortunately, one of our regular edit war participants has restored the disputed material, and thrown a gratuitous accusation of bad faith[19] — I gave them a final warning on their talk page for that.[20] That's a threshold matter, and it is simply not fit to include without sourcing. If you get past that threshold, other editors have argued that the subject of this article is a controversy over the existence of a private email server and accusations of improper handling of classified material, not a suitable nexus with the content of the emails to use this article as a WP:COATRACK of Clinton-related matters that her political opponents have chosen to publicize. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This article reads like PR for Hillary Clinton. As stated in my edit that was removed: Half the emails were from Blumenthal. Nowhere in this article is Ambassador Stevens mentioned. The whole reason for the email controversy was investigation into Stevens' death. Way to set the agenda for the article, Wikidemon!

In a letter from Gowdy to Elijah Cummings, Gowdy says, nearly half of Secretary Clinton's entire email correspondence regarding Benghazi and Libya before the terrorist attacks, which killed Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, was with Clinton's "de facto political advisor," Sidney Blumenthal.

In the emails, Blumenthal pushed for a no-fly zone in Libya. Clinton pitched the idea to the U.N. Security Council and when a no-fly zone was established, he pushed for arming the rebels and overthrowing "Q" (Qathafi). He cited Obama's declining approval in the polls and thought a war victory in Libya would help Obama get reelected and make Clinton appear presidential.

Meanwhile, Blumenthal "brokered" business deals with Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA operative, and Cody Shearer, a Clinton friend to profit after Qaddafi was deposed. Clinton may not have had any knowledge of these business deals until she received an email from Blumenthal on July 14, 2011, which articulated a deal with Osprey Global Solutions headed by former General David L. Grange to provide field medical help, military training and logistics to the rebels. Clinton acknowledged the emails and forwarded them to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's deputy chief of staff and foreign policy adviser.

References

Wish I was better at Wikilawyering :( Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I should add: Nowhere under the heading "Subpoenas for Department Testimony" is subpoenas mentioned. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you find this article to "reads like PR for Hillary Clinton", and so your proposed action is to add PR from Trey Gowdy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's called "balance". This article is POV, garbage. It's one of the reasons I hate editing on WP. Spend a lot of time to make an article better only to have my efforts deleted over hypocritical wikilawyering. Let's get some outside opinions. This article looks like it's locked down my Hillary's PR team. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLE and WP:WPDNNY for good measure. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet the Clinton campaign would rather this article not exist, if they cared about what happens on Wikipedia. False equivalencies and "he said, she said" journalism aren't "balance". Breathlessly reporting every accusation and refutation does not make for an encyclopedic entry. Any specific requests on how to integrate information will be considered for consensus on a case-by-case basis, but a Gowdy letter to Cummings (or vice-versa) doesn't cut it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I took a little break and read about Primary sources (as well as the previous Talk pages, WP:BATTLE and WP:WPDNNY and yes I was feeling stressed, which is why I took a break) and found another source (Politico) that says pretty-much what I did. I also noticed that there was a section on Blumenthal's emails (entitled "Sidney Blumenthal memos") that was removed in August, here with this comment by Wikidemon: rm entire section is irrelevant. If this turns out to have gone anywhere we can source it and perhaps restore this stuff. I believe it has gone somewhere. The Daily Kos says one of the Blumenthal emails had the name of a CIA officer on it and that is classified information. The Kos calls it a "smoking gun" and says "Hillary is in real trouble".

I also think, as suggested in previous Talk pages, that there should be a section on the content of the emails. I think many readers who come to this page want a quick summary of the emails. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This amounted to nothing. Two months after this was "revealed" by Gowdy, there has been zero fallout and almost no coverage whatsoever. The Daily Kos writer thought it was "real trouble" for Clinton, and it turned out to be no trouble at all. This is why Wikipedia avoids recentism, because once time has passed and a story has matured, the significance of it can be properly assessed. In this case, it turned out to have no impact at all, and is thus not significant enough a thing to be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, that Daily Kos "article" you shared is a diary, which can be posted by anybody who registers for an account. That one appears to be written by a Sanders partisan. Why you thought that would be considered a reliable source, I do not know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Polls

I deleted the polling information as premature, and irrelevant to both the section it was in (responses and analysis) and to the subject of the article. There are polls about every issue and event in politics, and every political controversy and tactic. There would have to be some reason why binary yes / no public opinion reports on questions put to them by pollsters would be relevant to a subject. In this case, polls would only be relevant if they actually become part of the political issue or affect election strategies or outcomes, and even there we would have to be very careful about how to use them, not compile a scattershot list of polls of the day. Unfortunately, my edit was reverted[21] without any reason given, only a ridiculous accusation of bad faith (per my comment in the above section, I've warned the editor about that). - Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, remove. Both point-in-time polls are not encyclopedic in their original form. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

White House response

I have no idea of the point of this edit by Mouse001. It basically says the FBI hasn't concluded anything yet and Obama isn't told about the conclusions they haven't had. Why the hell would anybody care? How is this in any conceivable way important? Why doesn't Wikipedia have a simple, one-button system for nuking SPAs from orbit? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:ACDS. Your violent tone is unwelcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Republican response

Why is the Republican response still outdated. Lots of important information in this October 8th responce from the committee including classified information (the name of an alleged CIA officer)? I'll work on a revision later. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)