Wikipedia

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy/Archive 6

< Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Gaijin42 in topic security logs attribution
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Revision of "Question of use of private server for government business" section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made some significant changes to this section but tried my best to keep all the information there. I don't think I added or removed anything controversial, but just in case here's my reasoning for the changes I did make:

  • Dean may have meant to say this, but the citation given was to a Politifact article where he said a tremendous number of other officials had used private servers, which Politifact rated "mostly false" (they used private accounts). Since the information was already there and attributable to Merrill, I just removed Dean instead of trying to contort myself accurately representing what Dean said while also accurately representing the facts.
  • Neither Dean nor Merrill mentioned Powell, but I felt it was important to keep, so I dropped their attribution of the information and added a sentence to properly attribute it.
  • According to the NPR article, the concession of legality was by generic "watchdog groups", not Wonderlich.

Weaselfie (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

revised lead

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Wikidemon I am mostly ok with your revised lead as far as the NDA issue is concerned, however I have a few issues with the lead as a summary of the overall controversy.

  • Many (as per another editor objection as well), We should put whatever the most recent number is (1300+ currrently?)
  • not sure that the "others" portion is needed, but I won't put up a hard fight over it.
  • No mention of the SAP emails
  • retroactive - While certainly these emails were retroactively marked, that is not the same thing as the information being retroactively marked. We should not be presenting the Clinton/State POV as an established fact.
    • You mention "born classified" without saying that there are any allegations/arguments that any of the information was actually born classified.
      • that the IG has explicitly said that the content of the emails "were classified when they were sent and are classified now",
      • as well as skipping the reuters/Leonard analysis of the classification stamps that (according to that analysis) mean the information was classified at the time it was sent. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've revised the lede[1] per your suggestions above. I think I hit all of them save the SAP mention. Could you please refresh my memory there? The mention of SAP in the article is a little confusing. As written, the lede does distinguish between the rest of the 1,300+ emails (mostly "confidential", though that is not stated) and the 22 top secret ones. Instead of attributing the analysis to Reuters specifically, I simply said that there were allegations (we could call it "analysis" or something else) that it was born classified. Going over who made the allegations and what their argument is seems like too much detail for the lede, that's explained in the body. Also, it's more than one party making those allegations, so listing a single party tends to understate them. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon Thank you for your changes. I agree that we can get away with some weasel in the lead to consolidate the opinions of multiple parties which are later covered in the body.
The SAP (Special access program) emails are the ones "above top secret" as alleged by IG McCullocgh. (primary source : [2]) They are mentioned briefly in the "official statements" section, but here are some relevant cites (may not be the ones used in the article) [3][4][5][6]
Clinton proxies (who to my understanding have not actually seen the emails in question) have argued that the classified info may be newspaper stories about drone strikes, but others in the intel community have disputed that. (this tit-tat is probably too much for the lead, but could certainly go in the body in the relevant spot)
Are there citations in particular that you think should be used for the lead content as a whole (so that this content can by synchronized into the relevant sections of the HC and HCpc2106 articles). I was somewhat considering converting this lead into a template so that the relevant summaries in the other articles would always be in sync, but that would require putting citations throughout the lead (which is allowed but not mandatory in WP:LEADCITE Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Off the top of my head I have no preference as to sources, but best keep them authoritative, mainstream, informative, and if offering any analysis it should be from a respected individual and not just a well-known source. Although ledes usually don't have cites, per WP:IAR we shouldn't let style guidelines get in the way of serving the reader, and that suggests a consistent treatment across articles. Is a template a good idea? It's fairly unusual to use those for substantive prose content. Sometimes if you just try to cut and paste a summary across articles the denizens of one article may differ from those of another, and you get duplicative talk page discussions. Your call. Thanks for directing this conversation towards the civil and productive! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding SAP, if the claim is made by a government authority, then definitely we should mention SAP-containing emails if a higher category than the 22 top secret ones. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the template, I swear I just saw one of the candidates' or election articles using that technique for one of the WP:SUMMARY sections, but in a quick scan of the likely suspects, I can't find it. It is certainly rare, but in this case, roughly the same content is in at least 3 articles? (HC, HCec, HCpc2016), so it seems like having it once would save trouble. To the contrary of your argument, I would think it might cut down on duplicative discussions, because there would be only one actual place to edit the text.
I will work on some text to integrate the SAP emails later today. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Slight nit with the current lede text but I didn't want change it yet in case I was mistaken. Has Clinton or her campaign actually claimed that previous secretaries of state used private email servers and not just accounts? Weaselfie (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of emails

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Surely there is a better way to document this than having to constantly update the number of emails? And really, does it really matter whether it was 1,000 emails or 2,000 emails? Can anyone come up with a better way to do this? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the sources are putting out the number, so per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE it seems like we should to. Its simple, straightfoward, and takes out all WP:OR and editorializing issues
The problem with qualitative statements, is that it is horribly imprecise and subject to POV. Is "many, a lot" etc could equally as well apply to (relatively) very low numbers such as 100. Other qualitative statements that would correctly describe the situation go too deep into WP:SYNTH and WP:OR ("systematically/regularly/methodically received" etc)
Perhaps we could use percentages per WP:CALC but what would we use as the variables? The 30k she said were work related? If so that is ~6%, but I fear that goes too deep into the WP:OR category by deciding what the denominator is. Also it raises confusion, as the tranches themselves have been described in percent (See multiple recent stories saying most recent tranche had 15%) Also I'm not sure it avoids your "constant update" concern" as that number will itself continue to change.
We are nearing the end of the release cycle. By super tuesday or so all of the emails will have been processed and released. At that point both the number of emails will become stable, and perhaps there will become a real-world consensus of how to describe the number of emails. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. I was just grumbling because I hate any article that has a "currently" problem that needs constantly updating. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

major development : judge rules Clinton + aides to be questioned under oath regarding server

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

"A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013." https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

re "top aides", somewhere (the "background" section?) needs to explicitly callout the known usage of the server by her staff. From memory and quick search, this includes Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan (who doesn't appear to be even mentioned in current article version), etc with WP:RS. Believe at least Abedin's usage is already noted. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hold your horses. The section title incorrectly states "to be questioned" here and it isn't a "major development" either. It's simply another minor step in the ongoing process. The judge has only said these individuals should be questioned, but made no such order and issued no subpoenas. He did, however, order the State Department to meet with the right-wing Clinton-haters "Judicial Watch" to discuss plans for moving ahead with discovery. The Obama administration can appeal this, if they so wish. So at the moment, there is nothing at all to put into the article because nothing has happened. (Source with no annoying paywall) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Your hill source, and my original source (which the hill references) say "ruled". Yes, it could be appealed. Anything could be appealed. Until it is appealed, the ruling is the reality. Discovery(depositions in this case) is subject to perjury, so the "questioned under oath" bit is accurate. The subpoenas bit (by my reading) is referring to the currently unreleased "private" emails.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No. The only thing "ruled" here was the meeting between the State Department and Judicial Watch. Everything else was just commentary made by the judge that hinted at possible matters going forward. Furthermore, it is not in the discovery process yet. The meeting is only to discuss an upcoming discovery process. The salient point here is that there is nothing here that can be put into the article, at least not yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like a routine discovery order, hardly newsworthy and definitely not an encyclopedic event. These happen multiple times in any civil case and are neither unexpected nor do they reflect anything about the merits or potential outcome of the case. Calling testimony "under oath" is like a scare quote. It sounds bad, but all depositions, testimony, and filings are made under oath. What matters is what if anything comes of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not even an "order" yet. It is only talks about how to proceed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I will concede on this issue until something more concrete develops. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the most well-versed person when it comes to the structure of this article, and as such, I don't know exactly how I could help here, but here is another source that might be of use: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSMTZSAPEC2N0MQ10D - It says "ruled" / "ordered" in this article, but I'll probably leave this here for you to discuss. Dustin (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Reuters article isn't doing its own reporting. It is just repeating what the Washington Post said, which is slightly inaccurate. The only "order" part was telling the State Department and Judicial Watch to meet and discuss moving forward into discovery. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As I aid, I am willing to let this sit until something more concrete comes out, but you are mis-characterizing the ruling. The order is not for "discussions". The ruling is for "discovery", which in this case is "depositions under oath" The discussions are about how that discovery will occur. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

no evidence of hacking

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe this statement to be true, but I think we have a sourcing issue. That is sourced to Wired, from March 4, 2015.The information about hacking attempts was revealed int October 2015.Therefore, the Wired source could not have taken that information into account.

Does anyone know of a more recent statement that could be used to source the "no evidence of successful hacks" statement?

I will leave the statement as is, but will tag it for this issue Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blumenthal/guccifer issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Apparently, the email account of Blumenthal was hacked in 2013, by "Guccifer", which resulted in emails between Clinton and Blumenthal becoming public. I don't see how Guccifer could have obtained access to emails passing from Blumenthal to Clinton without also obtaining access to stuff from Clinton to Blumenthal. Whether any of the latter material was classified I do not know, but we should be careful about making blanket statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
While what you say is true, it does not really address the issue I am concerned about. The statement is more about hackers successfully accessing Clinton's server. If Clinton had used a state account as should should have, the informatoin would still have leaked from Blumenthal's server. If Blumenthal and Clinton were exchanging information they aught not to, that is an entirely separate issue. (although would be covered under a hypothetical allegation of Clinton sending classified info to Blumenthal) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
A "November 2009 e-mail was sent by Wilson to Blumenthal, who passed it on to Clinton. Most of Clinton’s reply to Blumenthal is redacted as classified."[7] There is evidence that Guccifer may have obtained this. So it might be clearer to say: "No evidence has emerged that clintonemail.com was ever successfully compromised, which is not to say that evidence of unauthorized disclosure and interception at the other end have not become public." Guccifer as well as Blumenthal, may have had unauthorized access.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a separate issue, and in any case your formulation would suffer from severe WP:SYNTH. Hypothetically classified emails that Clinton sent to her aides, or blumenthal, or any random person, or gave to her lawyer on a thumbdrive are certainly important and should be covered. but that is an issue for the classification section of the article, not the server security and hacking section. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Guccifer was a hacker who hacked information sent from the Clinton server, and Blumenthal also had unauthorized access to information sent from the Clinton server. If Clinton had used official state department server and email, I don't see how either would have occurred. Anyway, I'm just commenting here about this issue, so please do as you think appropriate. Does this Wikipedia article already say there is evidence that Clinton made classified information available to a hacker? I know that the "Initial awareness" section mentions Guccifer, but it does not seem to indicate that there's evidence Guccifer had access to confidential information sent from the Clinton server.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused by your argument. Guccifer hacked Blumenthal's server. If Clinton had used the state servers, but still sent the info to Blumenthal, Guccifer would still have gotten that content. One could argue that Clinton may have changed her behavior and not sent the email at all from state since it would be more likely to be noticed, but that is a counterfactual that gets pretty deep into the woods. Also, do we know that any of the emails sent TO blumenthal contained classified info? I see your link above. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am curious to know whether the reliable sources discuss whether Blumenthal had a security clearance, and whether it was lawful for any government official to send him classified information. Moreover, if sending Blumenthal classified information was not legal, do the reliable sources discuss whether the Clinton email server made it easier to send Blumenthal information that he was not supposed to receive? I do not know the answers, but I think these are reasonable questions raised by the sources I've already mentioned, and perhaps you're aware whether they are asked and/or answered by other reliable sources. In the mean time, I will look around, and maybe make some more article edits. Best, Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
He did not. Sending him classified info is definitely a problem. There are some sources that discuss this aspect. Use of the server may have made that more likely but such is conjecture unsourced AFAIK. However, this is not a hacking (of clinton's server) issue. Im going to split this section off. I think it has some worthwhile issues in it that are relevant to the article, but not relevant to my original question Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

This article is a POV minefield. For example this in the lede: Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her use of private messaging system software, and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements - Sure that is the case, but there are other experts, officials, and members of congress that make the opposite case, but their viewpoints not presented. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in places. The issue here is that the article is about the controversy, not about her emails (which are not a notable subject). Thus, various people opining about things, however biased their opinions, may be part of the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as Kevin Drum eloquently points out, "thousands of hours of investigation have turned up nothing. It was dumb, but there's no scandal, no national security threat, and no cabal of silence. Hillary Clinton has been required to make her entire email record public, something that's never happened before to a secretary of state, and still there's nothing. She's undergone hours of House questioning, and still nothing." This article exists purely because the right hates the Clintons. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey Yes, the DOJ, CIA, and FBI are obvious right wing stooges. @Cwobeel The paragraph you deleted explicitly included the Clinton response, so I am unsure how that doesn't include the alternate POV. Obviously the controversy is about these allegations. In order to introduce the topic one must mention the topic. (intentional tautology). For the purposes of the lead, you aren't going to get much of a response other than "Others disagree". However, One could reformulate the paragraph in question to say something like "Debate over if her use of..." which then directly implies there are two sides to the argument. I am going to restore the long standing text in the lead, but I will tweak it to adjust for better neutrality. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't delete anything at all. That was another editor. Secondly, the DOJ and FBI are acting on behalf of a judge who seems favorable to Judicial Watch. Not sure why you mention the CIA here. And this was Kevin Drum's point, not mine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
re your good-faith deletion of content from the lede that has been stable for 4 months (November 1), it has been reverted by one editor, and now updated to what I believe to be the prior stable version. Please continue to use Talk to discuss improvements. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Cwobeel raised a valid point regarding the neutrality of this bit. However, it is one that can be resolved via tweaking rather than deletion (WP:NPOV : As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.). Is there a reason you prefer this wording over my tweak? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Simply restored (my view of) the stable versions, pending consensus in Talk outcome. I think the stable version with "There is debate as to the propriety of various aspects of Secretary Clinton's arrangement. " does a nice job to soften and contexualize the next bits, broadly "proper" vs "improper." (ie, a controversy). The callout groups of folks holding the viewpoints appear to be accruately represented in the article. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

New York Post

I disagree with this revert, but would be glad to provide inline attribution to the reliable source, plus a quote in the footnote, like this:


Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think something in this area could be included, but it needs better sourcing than the NYPost, and needs to be worded very differently. The opening paragraph of the post article "The FBI is investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle “cut and pasted” material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private email address, former State Department security officials say." We can't then turn around and put in our article that it happened as a fact. Yes there is certainly classified info on her server. But we cannot say definitively that it came from SIPRnet. It could be from parallel reporting. However today's reuters article on "matching wording" certainly puts a copy and paste job by someone as being more and more likely. The post later in the article does say in their own voice that information was copied (as a fact). But I think the post is far too weak of a source for such an assertion, especially when they cite no evidence or other reports for that assertion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence that I suggested above explicitly says, "the FBI is investigating whether this was done by Secretary Clinton's inner circle." I will check around about the NY Post, but inline attribution to the NY Post seems like plenty to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the post is reliable enough for even the statement that it was as a fact copied by anyone. They don't cite any evidence, other reports, or quotes to support that assertion. There are other sources that propose the theory that such happened, but none that say it actually did happen. I think the post is promoting those theories into facts, and they aren't a reliable enough source to do that on their own without citing something as proof. Such a big development would be easily sourceable to dozens of high quality sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That being said, I think we could certainly include the theory that SIPRNet info was copied by someone, and include the investigation as to if that someone might be the aides. But it has to be worded as an attributed allegation, and I think there are better sources than the post we can use for that. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hacking attempts

Latest comment: 8 years ago80 comments8 people in discussion

Well, it seems I've started a minor kerfluffle. [8] A reminder to all that the third letter in WP:BRD is in fact the letter "D". It means that after I am Bold, and Wikidemon Reverts, we are actually supposed to Discuss. This is the place for that.CometEncke (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not much to discuss, really. Almost every server in the world suffers from some form of hacking attempt on a daily basis, and 99.9% of these are unsuccessful. From the limited media coverage this has garnered, it appears there were some unsuccessful attempts to hack Clinton's server. No evidence has been offered to suggest anything was taken/accessed either before or after the server had deployed security measures. So the story is "SOMETHING COULD OF HAPPENED, BUT DIDN'T!" Not very compelling, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This issue seems to have been raised by the sources in a single news cycle, then dismissed. The sources themselves are speculative and noncommittal, saying it is not clear whether there was anything non-routine. They are in turn drawn from a letter that was criticized as being selective and misleading, and anonymous sources that also said it was not clear. Hence my conclusion that this is not worth noting unless something comes of it. For what it's worth, the D is the third letter in WP:BRD. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


Yes every server in the world gets hacking attempts. most are unsuccessful. Most are also behind professional firewalls, secured by people who know what they are doing. not in someone's bathroom on residential internet hosting the secretary of states classified email. Regarding "limited media coverage". do we really need to count sources? I find several hundred at first glance. The issue has remained in the news cycle with multiple stories discussing the SECNAP report in 2016. Shall we find statements defending clinton through the article and start counting those sources as well? How long that bit of info stayed in the news cycle? how much coverage has the rice/powell issue gotten? How much has Palmieri's "drip drip drip" defense gotten? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
None of the above. It seems to be a minor blip, not significantly covered in substance as part of the overall issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
ScJessey, Is it really up to us to measure importance? It did make the Boston Globe.CometEncke (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
and newsweek, WSJ, ChicagoTrib, AP, Reuters, usatoday, politico, and many others Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
By "limited media coverage", I mean it was a 24-hour story. It turned out to be of little significant and we can safely say it plays no significant part in the email controversy this article is about. This basically falls under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge this content with some of the existing, on-point details within Hillary Clinton email controversy#Email server into a new section ("Security"?), avoiding WP:NOR. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Why? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Because while each individual element of security of the server has been limited in coverage, overall the security of the server has been in the news almost continually since the story broke with multiple in depth stories dedicated to the security aspect. This article is a chronological cluster right now and needs to get heavily refactored into something that actually lets the reader understand the topic.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes and yes. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: But if you are talking about "each individual element" having limited coverage, putting that together to form the narrative that "the security of the server has been in the news almost continually" would rather obviously be synthesis. Original research is a big no no on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition There are high level summary articles discussing the security issues and concerns. Then we have numerous concrete examples of people raising these concerns (such as the hacking report that is the topic of this section) It is not original research to place them together into a section. Such a rule would make every article on every topic WP:SYN. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to create a narrative by stringing things together here. We aren't trying to tell a story here. We are trying to report the facts in due weight. As I said before, the story is "SOMETHING COULD OF HAPPENED, BUT DIDN'T!" It's just not worth bothering with. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Putting multiple sentences together IS NOT OR. "the But didn't" part is WP:OR on your part. There are numerous hacking attempts documented. There was no monitoring for multiple months. Multiple security experts have repeatedly said its very likely there were successful hacking attempts. A successfull hacking attempt often would not leave evidence - especially while the server was unmonitored. There are many many sources discussing the security of the server (and in fact most of what I would want to talk about is already in the article and has been for some time, in the server section). You are attempting to supress widely reported, neutrally presented information based on your own POV and made up policy. Drop the WP:OWN stick. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gaijin42 Again with this bullshit WP:OWN accusation. You cannot possibly accuse me of "attempting to supress [sic] widely reported, neutrally presented information" when that information has neither been widely reported nor neutrally presented. There are precisely ZERO articles saying Clinton's server was hacked, which is why it was a 24 hour news fart that has already been forgotten by all by the most hardened of Wikipedia's POV pushers. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How many wikipedia editors have multiple real world articles written about them protecting a topic? You are making a strawman. Nobody is saying we should say her server was hacked. We are saying that there are multiple notable security experts who have commented on the possibility and likelihood of hacking attempts/success. We also have multiple documented instances of hacking attempts. THIS IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE AND HAS BEEN FOR MONTHS I have just broken it out into a section to make it easy to see. This additional very well documented hacking attempt belongs in that section. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But as I said, the "well documented hacking attempt" was forgotten after just 24 hours in the media and consigned to the dustbin of other moderately interesting things that don't warrant inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Re your deletion comment of "all these are from political opponents. Also, the National Review is not a reliable source.", while stipulating and extending the second point to hughhewitt.com, per D in WP:BRD please do expound re "political opponents" as being a valid criteria for prohibition of:
  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-won-iowas-_b_9137730.html Feb 02, 2016
  2. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266674-former-defense-secretary-says-clinton-server-may-have-been-compromised January 21, 2016
  3. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/michael-morrell-foreign-governments-have-hillarys-email-118007 05/15/15
rather than simply additional, supporting text about (your characterization of) these folks. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy precluding comment from "political opponents"[9] or requiring sourced content be covered for a minimum amount of time. If these policies exist or if you have policy-based reasons for removal, please provide them. D.Creish (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, there is. Many policies. Wikipedia articles aren't he-said / she-said battles between proponents and detractors of the article subject. Sources that attempt to be doing this tend to be considered less than reliable or relevant. The extent and timing of sources goes into WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT, and other things. Plus, as a matter of necessary editorial discretion, we have to separate the relevant issues from those not relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You're saying there are "many polices" which require we exclude comments solely because they're made by "political opponents"? Can you please link the specific section (and preferably sentence) because I can't find it in either policy.
I'd also appreciate if you self-reverted. You've removed content present in a stable version (as Gaijin42 explains above) while claiming consensus is necessary for its restoration. There may be a valid objections to the recent reorganization but the solution then is to revert to the last stable version, which will include the removed content. D.Creish (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Checking recent edits I don't see a stable version including this content. Could you point to that? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

the section was in the stable version, but I added that particular sentence yesterday. However, it is ludicrous to characterize the statements of the secretary of defense, director of the DIA, and

deputy directory of the CIA, all whom were appointed by Obama, and served at the same time Clinton and the events under discussion as "political opponent he said/she said". Such a definition means that anyone who says anything that Clinton disagrees with is a political opponent and can be excluded. The same POV is held by 3 different notable individuals, all whom are experts in security and foreign government hacking. Excluding 1 sentence that expresses their viewpoint and is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVed to them is a gross failure of WP:NPOV which requires presenting all notable points of view. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No. What you have here are three outspoken political opponents commenting on generalities, rather than specifics, of the possibility of something that might have happened but didn't. Also, you have failed to clarify your statement about WP:NPOV requiring all notable points of view to be represented with a key component: in the proper weight. The "it could've been hacked, but wasn't" story should not be in the article per WP:WEIGHT, let alone the views from political opponents about the thing that never happened as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Straw man, again. Gaijin42 isn't saying the server was hacked. Gaijin42 has offered text and citations that Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael T. Flynn (needs a better source), Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell believe the server was hacked by foreign governments. If "political opponents" is a relevant issue per both your article delete comment and the above talk comment, I'm confident that you will prove the your charge and cite any relevant policy prohibitions. Barring that, it is another straw man issue. Please critique Gaijin42's offered text and citations, per WP:BRD as you deleted the text. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
What they "believe" is irrelevant. No proof has been offered. No sources. So it's just puff from opponents. If we included everything said by opponents, this article would be 4 times as long. Incidentally, there is proof (and sources) saying the State Department's email system was hacked. So the emails were safer on Clinton's server than on the State Department's! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly in hacking where many successful hacks would leave no trace (especially on a poorly configured server that was not running proper detection software for months), and even if they did have evidence it probably would not get publicly revealed because that would itself be classified. This will be going to an RFC shortly. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd hold off a bit. Scjessey is trying to make a coherent defense of his deletion. There doesn't seem to be any other opposition. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Point-by-point. Why, specifically? Proof of their opinions was explicitly offered (in the text you deleted). False (you deleted the citations). "Puff" in your view, with "opponents" straw man ignored (please cite statement and policy prohibition, third request). Gaijin42 hasn't proposed inclusion of "everything said by opponents," just this text. Another irrelevant straw man. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Neither these, nor the other expert opinions and speculation belonged in the "background" section, which is supposed to be about what happened. It stuck out there. That's been fixed now, by giving the security and hacking concerns their own section. Now, there's a question of whether to expand that section, similar to the classified information section, to divide between the official account, journalists and experts, etc. If not, then it makes some sense to have a balanced discussion of what likely happened. I don't know what other sources are there, but people who are: (a) partisans, (2) have no direct connection to the event and are not part of the controversy, they're just people voicing their opinions, and (c) are speculating about what they think could have happened, and not part of an official investigation — are weak sources. A former political appointee who fights for one team or the other, no matter what level, will have a polarized perception of this. A credible security expert who is not also a politician / expert or known partisan would be a much better source. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasoned response.

  • First off, there are already neutral expert statements regarding the vulnerability of the server in that section. This statement just butresses those other statements from the defense/intelligence voice.
  • Indeed, contrary to Scjessy's assertion - there is no alternate POV. The statement that there has been no evidence of successfull hack, and the statement that successfull hacks were likely - do not contradict each other. That successful attacks were likely is the mainstream view. (indeed, I challenge anyone to find a source other than Clinton herself saying the opposite, that they think it was unlikely that any attacks were successful)
  • Describing 3 obama appointees who are criticizing a democrat as "partisan" seems like a stretch.
  • These were the heads of our main defense and intelligence agencies at the time of the known attacks. Also The "intra-agency dispute" over if information is classified or not, is with their agencies.
  • They are not part of the current investigation, but they are experts at knowing what foreign government hacking attempts look like, and what kind of attacks would likely be successful or not, and in particular what those attacks look like at the time when they were the officials in charge of their respective agencies and departments. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The Michael T. Flynn statement is insufficiently supported in my narrow view. Barring any on-point objections or copy edits from Scjessey as deleter, there is no one stating specific opposition to the text as offered. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs You think it is insufficently supported to pass WP:V that he made that statement? [10](convenience link)[11] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Some additional "likely hacked" statements

Agreed, the "AP Exclusive" has many on-point specifics. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Presume this matter to be resolved, as the deleting editor has moved on to other topics and is no longer responsive to ongoing discussion of their reasoning re deletion. Therefore in my view, restore per consensus. And they (and anyone else) can certainly raise any issues on Talk about the consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't "moved on" at all. I have offered solid rebuttals that have been ignored or mischaracterized. I continue to maintain there is no evidence hacking took place, and putting into the article that it was possible hacking could have taken place is absurd. I further object to the fact that the "experts" referenced are all political opponents of Hillary Clinton; therefore, their opinions (because that is what they are) are tainted by their desire to attack Clinton during the election season. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the apparent fact that the server was exposed to hacking, that there are reports that hacking of an unknown (undisclosed?) nature is known to have happened, that some experts speculate that hacking may have been successful because it is so commonplace but that there is no disclosure that a breach actually happened — are all fair to include, assuming we can find due sourcing, which there seems to be. There are multiple sources, so we should try to give preference for the most authoritative ones, those of the highest prominence, and those that have some direct involvement in the matter (including being part of the controversy). The concerns over the potential for successful hacking, whether it occurred or not, do seem to be part of the overall controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Incidentally, there is an interesting conversation going on about this here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Scjessey I am a bit confused by that last comment. You said you agreed with Wikidemon's comment, but that seems to contradict your comment just above that. (eg, I am reading Wikidemon's comment to support the disputed content, or at least some similar content) Have you been convinced? If not could you clarify what you are agreeing to. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've yet to see the sources I think are needed to implement Wikidemon's solution. I still think the combination of the existing sources (which are of dubious quality), and the hostility toward Clinton and the Obama administration of two of the individuals (Gates and Flynn) make this extremely problematic. I need to see better people being quoted in better sources before I agree. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Great, noted. You have thoroughly destroyed your straw man that hacking occurred (the edit which you removed, doesn't allege that it occurred and no one on Talk has claim this occurred). You have have repeatedly characterized these three as political opponents and with ill will. In multiple requests to cite this, you have not bothered to offer any evidence on-point, or provided any policy reason which precludes it if true. ie, another straw man. You also haven't bothered to establish that these statements are motivated by your new charge of "their desire to attack Clinton during the election season." As you're choosing to be non-responsive, failing to discuss the specific content which you removed in context to WP:BRD, and no one else is raising on-point objections to the text, the content can be re-added per consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The reliability of the source is seriously not an issue, unless you think they are so unreliable that they are making up quotes and fail WP:V. We are not putting any opinion/voice of the source in. In any case there are multiple sources available, sources which are used extensively throughout the wiki and even this very article. Gates' statement is also in huffpo, the hill, commentary mag, the week, etc. morell is available from hill, commentary, etc. Regarding hostility, again all 3 were Obama appointees. However, even if they were hostile per WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject"Gaijin42 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Noting this: Gaijin42 is correct in surmising that I support "…at least some similar content". I'm not rejecting these particular quotes or sources out of hand, but I think it bears a little thought which commentators to include, and if they are all opining as uninvolved observers where nobody has any specific knowledge of a successful hack we should note that fact. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The blanket WP:OWN veto followed by non-substantive BRD participation were a distraction towards improving the initial edit. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Again, you need to cut out this "ownership" claim you keep making, and you need to stop beating me with WP:BRD, which is just an essay. I still have serious concerns about putting the opinion of political opponents into the article, especially when they are merely speculating about a thing there is no proof of. If you can find more neutral opinions from better sources, I might be willing to move forward. So far, all I've seen is attacks on me and little substantive argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted, but there is no policy against opinions of political opponents, indeed there is a core policy (WP:NPOV specifically WP:BIASED) supporting inclusion. Beyond that it is merely your assertion that these are opponents. These are all 3 Obama appointees who are retired from politics, and not in any kind of race against Clinton. This is sourced, attributed, opinion by notable experts. The "intra-agency dispute" over classified material directly involves their agencies. That they happen to have the opinion that Clinton is in the wrong does not make them "opponents". Your concerns amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also at a rough glance you are somewhere in the 2-5 against 1 (1.5?) category here, plus the feedback from the OR noticeboard which nobody has raised red flags at. While I am happy to engage in productive collaboration if you think something can be improved, Consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This. In over ten replies in this section, you haven't quoted any of the material which you deleted or offered specific challenges the sources, instead focussing on wild allegations without supporting documentation and straw men. It's unclear if you even read the material, as some of your statements (24 hour news cycle) explicitly imply you have not (based on the range of article dates within the citations). So at this point I doubt anyone could accurately describe the nature of your objection(s), only that they are obviously present. If you're now interested in pivoting your opposition to include references to the actual material, please begin. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We still have serious issues with sourcing. First we have the conservative Michael Flynn being quoted by the extreme right wing opinion rag The Weekly Standard. Then we have conservative Robert Gates in another conservative opinion rag The Week. Then we have yet another conservative opinion rag, Commentary, for Michael Morrell. Was it not possible to find some reliable sources instead of these conservative opinion organs? These problems need to be fixed until this still-totally-unnecessary paragraph is ready for primetime. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the wikilawyering and edit warring. I've presented perfectly reasonable objections and you've ignored them in favor of bullying and tag teaming. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It is odd that you couldn't be troubled to make these points in 10+ earlier replies re the identical content. Suggest you tag with Template:Unreliable source inline, if that is your opinion. And we will discuss and improve. Another editor has appropriately reverted your latest blanking per clear, current consensus.UW Dawgs (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You have made numerous WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. You have yet to make a single policy based argument. And you have yet to reply to any of the responses to your objections. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's not a "clear current consensus" at all. Two editors against one, basically, with a couple of others on the fence or not caring. And I already made the points at the beginning. Why the fuck do I have to repeat myself just because you keep asking me the same questions? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's troubling that the two of you have again resorted to edit warring to win your arguments. I expected nothing less, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting Wikidemon and Bus stop. Yet, you freely admit that you are the only one who has taken a stand on your side? MrX Tryptofish TFD Darkfrog24Dmcq Since you guys weighed in on the OR issue, perhaps you would be willing to evaluate the content on other grounds? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Add 1 more to the include camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&curid=15612792&diff=706691204&oldid=706686439
I'm responding here because of the ping, but I otherwise do not want to get involved in this dispute, and am not watchlisting. As I said at NORN, and as I think I can confirm from a quick read of this discussion, I do not think that there is an issue with OR in the proposed material. But I think that it is reasonable to question whether the sources are only those who are opponents of Clinton (but didn't Gates also serve in the Obama administration?). Are there reliable sources who are pro-Clinton who also express this view of possible hacking, or are there opposing views? It may be appropriate to modify the wording to indicate who the three people are, and I think that Anythingyouwant's suggestion below, about including years, is a step in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Tryptofish pinging you because you said you are not watchlisting, but asked questions. All 3 served under obama, tho some also served previously under bush. There are numerous neutral sources that also raise this possibility (see the wired article in the previous sentences, etc), or the list of additional sources higher up in this talk thread which make the same arguments. These sources in particular are valuable because they are the intelligence and defense heads. To my knowledge, there is no source of any political stripe saying the opposite (that it is unlikely that there were successful hacks). There are sources that say thus far there has been no evidence released of successful hacks - a statement the section already includes. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The objecting editor has been repeatedly asked to provide basic documentation in support of their assertions of "political opponents," with "hostility toward Clinton and the Obama administration," and similar characterizations. That might be the case (don't know), but support for this viewpoint has never been forthcoming, just repetition of the allegations. I'd like to see it offered and vetted, before agreeing there is a bias/pov problem, or determining how it should be resolved (removal, caveats, counter opinions, etc) if it does exist. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Please continue to ping me if needed, but I decided to look more closely at the material. I think that the tagging for better sources is appropriate, and I think that you should look for comments by the three persons that have appeared in publications that are not self-identified as partisan conservative. Beyond that, I think the sentence is policy-compliant, and these three people are reasonable to cite as security experts and are not anti-Clinton partisans (and I no longer think you need to give their years in office). In the interest of precision of language, I would suggest changing were able to access the information to were capable of accessing the information. That way, we are not implying that it is a fact that the access actually took place. The three experts actually do seem to believe that it really did take place, granted, but since they are not in a position to know that it actually took place, I think that change in wording would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not sure that the years are necessary, but I do think it's probably better to include them whether necessary or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
TryptofishChanging the wording as you suggest would not be accurate though. They said likely accessed. Not likely capable of accessing. Though the broader statement certainly is inclusive of the narrow statement, their quotes are of the narrow statement. We could move the "no evidence" sentence closer, and add linking information "Although..." but that risks WP:SYNTH does it not?
Regarding sources, Do you have any in particular that you think should be improved? we have no control/choice over the originating sources. these 3 individuals chose to give interviews how and where they did. In all 3 cases I believe transcripts and video/audio are available (though the video might be hosted on youtube). in terms of secondary/tertiary sources, I listed quite a number of sources for these quotes in the OR noticeboard post. of the 3 speakers, some have more sources available, others have less. But in my mind, in this instance, the sourcing is not of great importance. We are not using the source for any attribution, or voice or opinion. Obviously there is a minimum level of reliability to pass WP:V, but past that, we are relying on the reputation of these men, who as you say are reasonable to cite as security experts and are not anti-Clinton partisans - the focus on reliability should be them, not the person who quoted them. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The "Michael Morel" portion is currently supported by politico.com and commentarymagazine.com. I think cm.com article suffers from WP:RS and is redundant to Politico. Remove? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree it is redundant. But until this becomes stable, I would prefer to leave it in to aid other editors in verifying the info and not mistakenly thinking it is only sourcable to isolated sites. In the long run, I would think we could reduce the cites though. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like some years inserted, and then would support inclusion, like this: "Michael T. Flynn who was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (1927-1932), Robert Gates who was Secretary of Defense (1912-1923), and Michael Morrell who was deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1962-1963) have said that it is likely that foreign governments were able to access the information on Clinton's server." An average reader could deduce from the date ranges who was president, and thus the degree of partisan slant that might be involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, but it would probably have to be considered WP:BLUE or something because I doubt we are going to find a source that covers both these statements, and their years of service together. (I do believe some of the sources for the quotes mention their service under obama and bush tho) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the sky is blue. Many infoboxes contain info that's not all in one source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another problem I have with this is that none of these people have any expert knowledge of email servers or internet security. It's unclear how their opinion on such a technical matter as hacking is even notable. Just because the people are notable, it doesn't necessarily follow that their opinions are notable. If someone can convince me that the opinions of these three conservatives on technical matters they are (at best) only vaguely familiar with are important, I will stop my nagging. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing that the leaders of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Secretary of Defense, are not knowledgeable on the hacking capabilities of foreign governments? Certainly I agree that they do not have the technical skills to do the hacking themselves or protect against the hacking themselves. But being well-informed about such issues would seem to be a core of their jobs. Other editors commenting above appear to agree. In any case, there is clear consensus now with you as the lone objecting voice. You may continue to nag as you wish, but if you actually want to effect change, focusing on gaining consensus for actionable proposals to improve the content (rather than nuking it from orbit) is likely to get you further. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I cannot see any comment (or source, for that matter) supporting the notion that "being well-informed about such issues would seem to be a core of their jobs." And this is a new objection I have raised, so saying I am the "lone voice" is unreasonable until others have had a chance to weigh in. There cannot be a "clear consensus" for a new point only just raised. This is just more of the bullying I spoke of earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Their qualifications are discussed above, and uninvolved neutral editors have specifically commented that they are reasonable to cite as security experts. There is a clear consensus for inclusion of the material at this time. If you are trying to change that consensus, that is certainly your right. But frankly, an argument that the heads of the CIA, DIA, and SecDef are not well informed regarding foreign government hacking capabilities is ludicrous bullshit. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. There's no reason to think any of these people would be familiar with the technicalities of hacking an email server. This is, at best, informed opinion by political opponents about a "possibility" that hasn't been proven. They would be aware hacking is possible, but they would not be aware of the specifics of Clinton's email server. Frankly, I'm astounded that nobody else has picked up on why this is such a controversial addition to the article. That said, I'm tired of arguing about it and I will let it drop. For now. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a possibility that the quoted statements are influenced to some extent by political affiliation, and our readers would be able to easily understand this point if we parenthetically include years of service. That approach, together with including any contrary statements by other former intelligence officials, would seem preferable to just deleting everything. Moreover, since this discussion is about possible hacking, I think it's important to stay consistent with the known hacking of email from the Clinton server at the receiving side.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware of any contrary statements? (from intel folks, or just security experts?) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but will do so later today. If there aren't any contrary statements then I propose not including any contrary statements (which would be difficult!), but including the parenthetical dates.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked around and didn't find statements from comparable experts that hacking was unlikely. On the contrary, I found more of the same, for example in this IBD article which is reprinted here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't found anything to the contrary either. Regarding that particular source, I think we should pass on it. The source will probably end up being a fight over if it is RS or not, and the individuals quoted are just repeating what we already have, and they are of much less notability and stature than who we are already using, so it doesn't seem like its worth the fight. There are 3 sources above tho see : "Some additional "likely hacked" statements", 2 AP, 1 WaPo which could also be used to butress the "likely hacked" opinion, but it might be overkill at this point. Really the next step would by trying to move to a WP:RS/AC type statement about "widely considered likely" but I don't think the sources we have are sufficient for that type of thing at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Powell and Rice emails

Latest comment: 8 years ago29 comments10 people in discussion

@Gaijin42: See WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If this information is included, it needs appropriate context. Rice received 10 emails. Clinton got over a thousand (so far) and used her personal server exclusively for state business. It is not apples to apples, and presenting it in that way is completely inappropriate, and is not faithful to the truth, nor the source being used. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Its widely reported in the media. Feel free to add.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
At a minimum, it should be moved from the lead to the comparisons section. MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" Gaijin42 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It should be added to the body but not deleted from the lead considering the lead is supposed to summarize the body.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You are both right and both wrong. There's no way this is appropriate for the article lede. Although it has been known for some time, the confirmation only came yesterday and the story has not matured enough for us to understand its significance. I have moved it to the appropriate section. And the number of classified emails is irrelevant. It is not for Wikipedia to imply 10 emails is a lesser "crime" than 100 emails or 1,000 emails. From a prosecutorial perspective, all that matters is whether or not classified material was knowingly sent/received. Thus far, it appears Powell, Rice and Clinton were unaware because the material was classified after it was sent. Finally, I would say the RfC below is beyond unnecessary and it should be closed as premature. This discussion has only been going on for a few hours, with few editors having a chance to contribute. RfC's are only of value in situations where a discussion has suffered from a protracted stalemate. Also, there was only two of you in the discussion, so a third opinion would've been more appropriate (though also premature). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Standing by itself, the observation that two prior secretaries of state also received (themselves or their staff) information on private email accounts that was later designated as classified is hardly worthy of inclusion in the article, much less the lede. Like ten thousand other factoids it is sourceable, but to be worth inclusion it has to relate to the subject here and be of some weight. The sources do not suggest how this fact contributed in any way to Clinton's controversy. It couldn't, nobody even knew about it. Did the fact that people learned it happened affect the course of the controversy in the few days since it was made public? Certainly not, and it is too early to claim it has some lasting impact. One could argue that even if the event is of no importance it sets the context, but if so, mentioning it without elaboration is misleading as to the context because it is a completely different situation than Clinton's. The article does describe that the practice of Secretaries of State and other high ranking executive officials keeping private email accounts, and inadvertently (or intentionally) discussing official business on non-government accounts, was common. In that context it might be worth mentioning that in at least two of those cases, Powell's and Rice's staffers, they were later deemed to have contained classified information — a claim that Powell at least vehemently denies at the moment FWIW. So I worked it into the footnote there.- Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon Are you seriously trying to say that something sourced to CNN, Wapo, NBC, and ABC is weakly sourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why people mention WP:OWN or feel the need to create RFCs when stonewalled...

The article currently reads "The State Department said the emails were not marked classified when sent". Multiple sources have contrasted this statement to the NDA signed by Clinton, which discusses protection of unmarked classified material. Should our article echo this contrast? (See sample diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy&diff=703989602&oldid=703958239)

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To answer your rhetorical question, to assume good faith people throwing out accusations like yours against fellow Wikipedians are probably too blind to their political prejudices to actually make a serious attempt to edit the encyclopedia in reasonable, neutral fashion. You also attempted to shoehorn this factoid into the Hillary Clinton main article. The proposed addition was poorly sourced, among other things. Two out of three didn't pass WP:V. You've thrown up a wall of additional sources and we can discuss those, save for the Fox News, Washington Times, and editorials. It's not a question of whether she did or did not sign an NDA, one or two of your three sources said she did. It's the relevance and weight issue. As I say above, the fact of an NDA is one among many pieces of information going to the analysis of whether classified information was mishandled. We shouldn't be playing legal analysts here, even if some of the media is trying to do that speculation in the daily news cycle. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is one piece. We discuss many pieces. In particular, we discuss clinton's piece arging that the emails in question were not marked. Excluding this one piece when discussed by so many sources is a npov and weight issue. Every source says she signed the NDA. We in fact can see the actual NDA she signed. MANY sources discuss the NDA, and contrast it to Clinton's argument. the WP:GAME of moving the goalposts and stonewalling is why things move to RFC. You are repeatedly making up wikipedia policies regarding consensus and reliable sources that DO NOT EXIST. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the Rice/Powell emails from the use of private servers (and accounts) for government business, since it didn't really speak to that, but added it to the question of classified information, which is where I think it fits, and added Podesta's statement about it to Clinton responses. Weaselfie (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Rice/Powell RFC

Closing per stable change to not be in lead. --Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Should the information regarding powell receiving 2 classified emails, and Rice's aides receiving 10 emails to their personal accounts be placed in the lead of this article

powell/rice Survey

  • no The actions of aides are not the actions of rice, and 2 emails is not at all equivalent to 1000+. This information is WP:UNDUE for the lead at this time. further, this article is about clinton, not rice and powell. Put it in the comparisons section where it is appropriate and can be fleshed out for the appropriate context. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • yes Widely covered by the media. Note the extremely biased and factually incorrect RfC wording.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - both WP:OFFTOPIC since it's not about Clintons emails, and not WP:WEIGHT since it's not common part of the topic. Just follow the cites and put it in due weight. The lead should mention big portions of this cover political motives and Benghazi mentioned, but this -- nah. At most a note down in "Comparixsons and media coverage" section 6.5. Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • See discussion above — this is not conducive to an RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • See discussion above - same view as Wikidemon here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - The information is directly related to Hillary's email controversy. Also, the RfC statement is poorly phrased without giving context of the emails. Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No Summoned by bot. Belongs in the article but not in the lead. Putting in lead would appear to over-weight that text. Agree that the question is not well-phrased for an RfC. Had I not been casually following this issue I would not be able to understand the question. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

powell/rice Threaded discussion

VictoriaGrayson In what way is the question factually incorrect? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Two of the messages were sent to Powell's personal account, and 10 were sent to personal accounts of Rice's senior aides, the letter said." [23] [24].Gaijin42 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, why is there an RfC on this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:OWN UW Dawgs (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree the RfC is totally unnecessary, and said so earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What the fuck does WP:OWN have to do with anything, UW Dawgs? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In light of the information being removed from the lead, and that being stable, I would be willing to call the RFC moot, but I believe policy prevents closing it early since there are multiple !votes on each side - however, If you wish to be WP:BOLD and close it (or convert into a local straw poll) I would not raise issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No such policy. Gaijin42, since you started it, you can withdraw it at any time. Because one editor's hobby seems to be asking other bureaucratic-minded editors to "officially" close nearly all RFCs, then I recommend marking it as closed with the blue {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates and/or a prominently marked "closing statement" if you don't want to risk having some inexperienced NAC making up a closing statement for you later. You all know what you've decided; IMO that means that you all are the editors best able to describe your consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I think i was mixing up RFC policy with WP:CLOSEAFD which says "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. ". Ill close this one later tonite. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lede

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

CFredkin the lede currently contains NO citations per WP:CITELEAD. It also (now) contains no mention that classified information was actually found (with the qualifications that regarding marking, born, etc) . How could that possibly be a neutral summary? The lead is supposed to comprise a mini-article on its own, do you seriously think that complete removal of that accurate? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the content with an edit, which I believe is more accurate.CFredkin (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon Hey thanks for unilaterally reverting without contributing to the discussion! I'm surprised by your edit summary since the language in question is almost identical to the language you yourself suggested If people must expand, then it should be phrased like the child article, that the information was later designated as classified, and questions arose as to whether it was classified at the time. [25] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cut it out, please. The lede has been in discussion for as long as there has been an article. The redundant orphan paragraph I just reverted from the lede[26] is hardly the same as the language from the section lede that I copied verbatim from here for the Hillary Clinton article mention,[27] nor warranted: the lede already contains a mention of the topic, arrived at through consensus process. At present that process is shut down here too due to socking.[28] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You have unilaterally shut down the consensus process? How grand to be in such a position of power. The lead contains no mention that classified information was found in THOUSANDS of emails. Certainly that is not a neutral presentation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, cut it out. If you're losing your cool to the point of making things personal you may need to take a break here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You are acting unilaterally. You have forum shopped your sock accusation around and thus far gotten zero support. Even if your accusation is true, it does not mean that "that process is shut down here". There are literally thousands of sources including now the state department itself, saying that hillary's email contained classified information. Yes, there are certainly questions about if they were marked, or if they needed to be marked, or if they were born classified, etc. not mentioning it at all is a gross failure of neutrality Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Misrepresenting the sources is bad enough — please don't misrepresent my efforts on the encyclopedia. You seem to want to enable the sock instead of doing anything about it. That's some piece of wikigaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If you think there is a sock - file a WP:SPI. making repeated accusations and saying that the process of consensus is stopped until the matter is resolved while not doing any action to resolve the accusation you are making is the gaming. YOU are making an accusation. The onus is on YOU to do something about it, not on me to carry your torch. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You'd rather make obstructionist process accusations to defend an obvious sock account than deal with it? That's a messed up position on what it means to work together on an article. How about piping down on the accusations and actually doing something to help the process? If a sock shows up and happens to favor my proposed edits I'd like to think you could expect the same integrity out of me — if it ever comes up, please feel to remind me and I'm not going to accuse you for trying to help. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Note to record. The editor was confirmed to be a sock, and indeffed — as obvious as it was, it took an entire month.[29]

Not to be a total pendant here, but it actually took 15 days. If you had filed the SPI when you first started making the accusations, it wouldn't have taken that long. 15 days is still fairly long, but the CU clerk and CU backlog is very long atm. If you file the SPI without asking for CU, it often goes faster, because they will sometimes DUCK block, which doesn't have to wait through the CU queue.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It was me who filed the SPI, and I did indeed file without asking for a CU. A clerk added a CU request just in the last couple of days. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

cooper & pagliano

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Our article (stable version, and my recent move version) attribute management of the server to both Justin Cooper, and Bryan Pagliano. Ive hunted up a few sources, but things aren't clear. It seems cooper registered the domain name, and was responsible for the SSL certs. Some reports also say he was responsible for the server itself in 2008. Other sources say Pagliano was responsible for the server once Clinton to the state job. Did management transfer? Was the responsibility split? This seems like a minor issue, but its a confusing bit I think we could clear up relatively easily. Also, the clarifications may be non-trivial as Pagliano took the 5th, so who was responsible for which actions may be important. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In light of Pagliano's immunity deal, these issues are likely to become more important. If anyone has insight or sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

security logs attribution

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidemon The NYT absolutely does attribute it that way.

  • headline : Security Logs of Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Are Said [who?] to Show No Evidence of Hacking
  • body : Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred.
  • and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reiterated Mr. Pagliano’s information on Thursday. “We’re not aware of any evidence whatsoever that the server was hacked,” said Brian Fallon, a campaign spokesman..
  • This attribution is repeated in other sources [30] Even though Russian-linked hackers attempted to gain access to Clinton's email account, Pagliano's told the FBI that nothing in the security logs suggest the emails were successfully hacked, a source confirmed to CBS. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy/Archive_6&oldid=1091622599"