Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Email controversy / classified content

Some editors keep reverting [1][2][3][4][5][6] in a summary of the Hillary Clinton email controversy originally added by one of them[7] in the heat of an edit war in the section, that I believe is misleading, ignores the weight of the sources, and contradicts the child article on the topic. Flatly saying that "it was subsequently discovered" misrepresents the single source cited here, and most of the others on the topic. What happened (per the sources and the article on the topic) was that some information on the server, which was not marked classified at the time, was later designated as classified, and various groups have opined and explained about what that means, including discussions of "spillage" of classified information, information that is supposedly "classified at birth" whether marked as such or not, and "overclassification" of material as classified that should not be. Plus political infighting, rumors, speculation, analysis. It is best to simply summarize that questions arose over whether there was classified information and leave it at that. 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." I don't see how anyone could reasonably oppose giving the fuller description that actually explains the situation. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now zero question that there was classified information on the server. phrasing that as "questions arose" is misleading to the extreme. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is misleading to describe it as designated later as classified. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, the two previous editors must have some fundamental disagreement with the article that this summary apparently contradicts. The content wasn't marked classified at the time, but some was later designated as such by government agencies because of the nature of its content. What part of that is misleading, or untrue, or unsourced? If you're going to say that somebody had classified information they shouldn't, don't you think it's misleading to say that nobody determined it was classified until after the fact? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards."[8] I think this may sum up some of what is disagreed upon. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon's revision seems to imply that government agencies retroactively classified all of the emails in question, which is false because much of the emails were already "born" classified (classified at the time they were sent or received) due to their contents. And it is misleading to state that "Questions were raised" about "whether Clinton passed information through her mail server that was classified at the time," because at this point there is no question that the server had classified information. It may not have been "marked classified" but that is entirely different than "classified information".--ICat Master (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the classification was retroactive, what else would you claim? Lots of gotcha stuff there. This "born classified" thing, if relevant, needs to be explained, not just asserted without explanation. Anyway, this is all quite silly. Any encyclopedic treatment of the material would try to explain to the reader what's actually going on, not just assert something. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is that some emails had classified information at the time they were sent/received, that's part of what makes this controversy a big deal and that fact is supported in the email controversy section.--ICat Master (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and reverting — this editor is a likely sock, so no point discussing. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon so, in a situation in which at least 4 editors disagree with you, nobody has spoken up in your favor, and which you personally have been edit warring, you will fix things by reverting one more time. Got it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The first order of business is to do something about the sockpuppeting, which comes in the way of any orderly editing. That doesn't concern you? I have not edit warred, and it appears that three editors support the short version and three have attempted a more complete explanation — unsuccessfully due to edit warring by the sock account. Once we deal with that we can talk about why we would want to deliberately withhold context from the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think there is sufficient evidence, then WP:SPI is over there. Prior to that point repeatedly calling someone a sock is a personal attack. We should not withhold context, but presenting things as "questions" when it is irrefutable that the server contained classified material, some of it was "born" classified, and even if unmarked it is the explicit duty of the secretary to identify content which should be classified and she signed a document directly to that effect [9]. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is still no evidence whatsoever that anything was marked as classified before passing through Hillary Clinton's email server. The AP story that came out yesterday, and regurgitated by hundreds of outlets per sharing agreements, has been widely derided by other sources who say the AP misrepresented what actually was said. Vox has a good article that explains this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the NDA signed by Clinton, unmarked, and never-been-marked information can still be classified, and it was her job to identify,report, and protect it. If she was incapable of identifying it, that is either negligence or incompetence of the highest order. Had she been using the government servers as she should have been, it would not have been an issue. She made a deliberate decision to use private unsecured servers. If I order people to deliver gasoline and place it next to my camp fire, when it explodes, its my fault, not the person who sent the gasoline. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My motivation, whatever that may be, should have no bearing on the strength of my arguments. I don't see any good reason why Wikidemon says "no point discussing." It is true that nothing that went through Clinton's server has been "marked classified". However, that does NOT mean that "classified information", which includes foreign government information, did not go through her server. There are numerous reliable sources and prominent public officials that support this.ICat Master (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what arguments you two are making. You cannot have these non-neutral repetitions of speculation in the article unless you have cast iron sourcing to back it up. Unless and until a preponderance of reliable sources specifically state born classified material passed through Clinton's server and was marked as such, you cannot have the Wikipedia article say it did. A single AP source repeated by multiple outlets that carry AP articles is not sufficient. This is a classic example of a WP:BLPVIO, and as such it can be reverted without discussion per WP:3RRBLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not basing my arguments on a single AP source that is repeated by multiple outlets. Here are just a few of the other sources that confirm my statements: [1][2][3][4]ICat Master (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The source that is used for the disputed content also frequently mentions the "classified information" found on her server as well as the subsequent FBI inquiry, and with the consensus I don't see any BLP violation with it at all.--ICat Master (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the four sources you list, none are definitive. Reuters "suggests" material may have been classified, based on their understanding of the rules. The National Review is a conservative opinion rag and can safely be ignored as not a reliable source. The first NYT link says only that some material was "top secret", but doesn't indicate whether or not it was marked as such. The second NYT link says the emails were not marked as classified. As I've said before, there is no evidence any of the material passing through Clinton's email server was marked as classified, and until that fact changes it would be a clear violation of WP:BLP to suggest otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so hung up on it needing it to be "marked" or "unmarked." This seems to be a red herring. Reliable sources state it as classified, this should be enough for us to note that finding. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ism schism. I am not disputing whether the emails were "marked" classified. I would suggest re-reading the above posts with this in mind.--ICat Master (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's SF312 that authorizes her to see classified info specifically says " As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information" so indeed, the unmarked gambit is moot. Neutrality does not mean "use the Clinton PR talking points".Gaijin42 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New York Times today: The State Department revealed for the first time on Friday that information considered “top secret” was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The agency also announced that it would not release 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified material. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any point discussing this further until we deal with the socking. At that point we can discuss how best to summarize the broader subject treated in the child article. I'll go ahead and ask for some admin help. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Raquel Baranow. This has been a constructive discussion. Now that we have reached consensus, we can engage in improving the article further. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we have not reached a consensus at all. You cannot have a consensus to violate WP:BLP. Apart from in right-wing opinion sources, there are zero sources saying Clinton (or her staffers) knowingly allowed classified information of any kind to pass through her private email server. If it turns out none of the material was classified until after it passed through her server, which we won't know until the investigation is complete, then the "scandal" will have been a fuss over nothing. Until we know the facts, we cannot report the speculation as fact. Wikipedia demands higher standards for biographies of living persons, and rightly so. Right now, some of you are trying to push dubious material into the article, and that is unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you recognize we as not discussing whether or not anyone "knowingly allowed" anything. We are talking about classified information. Reliable sources state that the emails included this. This is now clear based on reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. The reliable sources use language like "suggest classified material" and "said to be top secret", as opposed to stating explicitly. That's because the investigation is incomplete. We are getting ahead of ourselves falling into the trap of relying on shoddy journalism. This is a BLP, and we must conform to higher standards. The matter is slightly different at the Hillary Clinton email controversy article because there we have room to explore the intricacies of the matter with all its nuances. Here, we must be brief and focus only on summarizing the other article and sticking to what we absolutely know to be true and confirmed. I'm finding it very difficult to assume this desire by certain editors to shoehorn this sketchy, unconfirmed speculation into the article is a good faith attempt to improve the article, and not a bad faith attempt to discredit a leading presidential candidate in the run up to an election. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The RS clearly say that the emails contained classified info. This is now clear if you read the RS. [10] [11]. If you have any RS that say this is incorrect, please share. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. I don't know how I can say this any clearer than I already have. Neither of the two sources (or any others presented) state whether or not the material was classified/secret at the time they passed through the server. While this may be true, this has yet to be determined. This is a nuanced, difficult-to-explain-to-the-layman problem. As such, it is beyond stupid to try to explain it in a biography of Hillary Clinton's entire life, because going into that level of detail would fall foul of WP:WEIGHT, and shoving it in without explanation would, as I said before, be a violation of WP:BLP. There is an entire fucking article in which to go deeply into the weeds about all this. Obviously this situation can change in the future, and if that happens we can certainly revisit the issue. But right now, it is a clear violation of the BLP policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be complex and important enough that an RfC would be a good way to make sure which ever decision is made has a solid consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The text you are edit warring against ALSO doesn't say it was classified at the time, so we are already following the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The most natural reading of the short wording is that it was classified at the time, and I agree with SCJessey that this is a problem since it may be misinforming the reader. Simplicity is not always compatible with accuracy and here I think weighing accuracy over simplicity is warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the reliable sources in the subject say that classified information was found on the server and we are supposed to write what reliable sources say. In any case, we are not misleading the reader because there WAS classified information on the server at the time it was sent or received (even though it wasn't "marked classified") and there are a many reliable sources and prominent public officials that agree.--ICat Master (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is very simple. When any of the information was made classified is beyond this discussion. We are simply proving to you, by offering you RS, that clearly show that classified info was in these emails. If you disagree - the least you could do is offer your RS that back your statement. So far you have shown none and just continue to harp on red herrings. If you have any RS that back up your claims - please share. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the salient fact classified material passed through Clinton's server. The issue is that stating that without proper context will give the impression Clinton has done something wrong, when nothing of the kind has been established. But in order to go into the minutiae of the matter to give that proper context, we would have to violate WP:UNDUE. It would be far better to explore this in the aforementioned sub article. Scjessey (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

classified material passed through Clinton's server - that would be an excellent WP:SUMMARY then, since you do not dispute that fact. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate, misleading, and POV, but we'll deal with this later. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

After consulting another editor, I have decided to back off my BLPVIO claim; however, I maintain we cannot say classified material passed through Clinton's server without also acknowledging that no evidence has been presented to suggest she was aware this happened, and no evidence has been presented that this classified material was marked as classified when it passed through. Anything less than that is arguably defamatory to the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon A few comments on your latest changes : Multiple agencies have identified classified information. This is self-evident by Clinton's own statements that this scandal is an "intra-agency dispute". In particular, The IC-IG has identified classified emails as well. Saying this is exclusively state findings is wrong. The "unclear" wording is from Scjessey. Regarding marked, while your statement is true, Clinton's classified authorization specifically mentions her duty to protect unmarked classified information. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Er.... there's nothing "unclear" about the wording I put in. And the conclusions you are drawing here can't be reproduced in the article without resorting to synthesis. And for fuck's sake, we can take the time to get all our facts right before putting it into the article, instead of bitching, moaning and edit warring. There's no urgency. This is a biography of Clinton's life, written from a historical perspective. You're trying to shove stuff in from yesterday, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey I was not commenting about your wording, I was (slightly mis-)quoting you. It was not clear if any material had been marked classified... See Wikidemon's edit summary that changed your wording. [12] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the change Wikidemon made. The State Department did indeed say that, and the source says it too. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your text said "it was not clear if any material...". Wikidemon's edit summary said "it does not mention a lack of clarity". My talk page comment said "the unclear wording was Scjessy's". Your reply said "there's nothing unclear about the wording I put in". And the circle continues. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at. I didn't follow. Sorry, my bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding clarity, a statement in the article that something is "not clear" implies a perspective — not clear to whom? — typically a statement by the source on the state of its own knowledge. That's usually a voicing problem. Regarding the designation of material as classified, the source offered (the Political piece) that supports the mention of 1,200 documents retroactively designated as classified is from the state department and no other agency. If you wanted to generalize you would have to summarize multiple sources — they don't individually say that inspections found any new material, classified or not; each one talks about one agency or another applying (or arguing against) a classified designation after the fact, or arguing after the fact that the information was classified, with respect to documents already disclosed. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There are some problems with the current version of the paragraph. While the Clinton camp has said everything was retroactively classified, others have disputed this saying many emails were classified at the time they were sent or received, citing U.S. rules and the non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton. This needs to be included, it is not appropriate to simply assert that the emails were "retroactively deemed classified by the State Department."--ICat Master (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the Fox News source cited for the paragraph says: While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law. The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They were later (the source uses the phrase "retroactively") designated / marked as classified. There is a different concept informally called "born classified" which means material that should be considered classified whether it is marked classified or not. This is a settled issue and none of the sources are disputing it. It's not a matter of anybody's camp. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cookstoves

That note about cookstoves somehow breaks fluency because it is talked about severe politics and after that cookstoves are being mentioned (it should be fit somehow in a better place/way). --Obsuser (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthing? --Obsuser (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. It's in a paragraph that talks about an expanded role in global economic issues, a process reform to better define departmental objectives, leading through "civilian power", and empowering women throughout the world. The advocating of cookstoves fits right in with those things. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"...without congressional authorization"

User:Anythingyouwant added that phrase, "without congressional authorization," to this sentence in the lead: advocated the U.S. military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization. It strikes me as awfully POV to call attention to the lack of congressional authorization in the lead; do we put it in the lead every time an administration does something without congressional authorization (which has been happening a lot in the past 10 or 15 years)? That lack is mentioned and sourced in the "Second half of term" section, which is enough; there is no need to add it to the lead. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The last 10 or 15 years? In 2001 there was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. In 2002 there was the Iraq Resolution. I'm not aware of any invasions since then that lacked congressional authorization. The cited sources indicate that Clinton's position was quite controversial. If the lead says she gave a graduation speech at Wellesley, maybe it's appropriate to also include a mere three words to indicate that she successfully advocated a war without congressional authorization.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks POV to me too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a comment with no rationale is POV. I have subtracted more words from the Hillary Clinton lead today than I have added. Is the added material correct, or not? Is it as notable as other material in the lead? It should go without saying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is correct is irrelevant, the POV consists in the cherry picking of facts that happen to be political talking points, and which are only relevant within a particular set of political optics which they presuppose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Correctly following the sources is very relevant. But you're right if you meant that it is not sufficient. My feeling is that the the lead contains vast amounts of puffery, and putting in three words regarding war and peace should give readers a little bit of relief from the puffery (e.g. she "used social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad" is three times as long as the words about war and peace at issue here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The War Powers Resolution does not require congressional approval for short term military engagements only notification, so why is it relevant to include it? Which sources insist on pointing out the trivial fact that, and what is their POV? Puffery can be removed without inserting oppositional talking points.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

People who are discussed in the cited sources disagree with your personal opinion. That's why it was a big story. Reliable sources wouldn't have covered it if everyone thought a mere notification would suffice, and HRC was glad to provide notification. My own personal view (not that it matters) is that the military action in Libya was not brief, nor defensive in nature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Which personal opinion? That puffery can be removed without adding "counter-POV"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that War Powers Resolution did not require congressional approval for this Libyan war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be factual and an accurate description. I don't see how it's POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not expressed any such opinion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an additional grammatical reason to remove the "without congressional approval", namely that the way it is currently written suggests that Clinton needed congressional approval in order to advocate a military intervention. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources say she did not obtain authorization. They also quote her as saying "we don’t need congressional authorization". In the interests of flexibility and compromise, I would have no objection to saying "without congressional approval" in the lead, but both are correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think probably some better examples of "puffery" in the lead would be the reference to Clinton being one of the "Top 100 Lawyers in America", the claim that she traveled to more countries than any other Sec of State, and that she "encouraged empowerment of women".CFredkin (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Those three quotes are definitely puffery, and I would be perfectly happy with removing them; they certainly do not belong in the lead. And they are no excuse for putting in unnecessary negative stuff as counter-POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral; that does not mean tit-for-tat POV as a kind of "balance". Remove ALL the POV stuff. And that includes this cherry-picked factoid. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Clinton did not seek authorization for the Libyan war belongs in any balanced lead of this BLP. It was not inserted as part of any tit-for-tat, but rather because this was a historic and controversial decision on her part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not, for two reasons: it's of undue weight, and stated in that way it's misleading. The sentence summarizing her involvement as Secretary of State reads "As Secretary of State in the Obama administration from January 2009 to February 2013, Clinton was at the forefront of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring and advocated the U.S. military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization." The first half (forefront of US response to Arab Spring)" may or may not be important enough to put in the lede, let's accept that it is. The second half, "and advocated U.S. military intervention" — is a single response in a single country, and not something she did but something she advocated for. Obama was the president who gave the orders, not Clinton. For reference the issue is given a single sentence in his biographical article, and no mention in the lede: Some Representatives[307] questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath. Regarding being misleading, saying "without congressional authorization" raises more questions than it answers, and suggests without saying that it is somehow wrong or surprising. Legally speaking Clinton didn't need Congressional authorization, nor did she not need Congressional authorization. The matter has not been adjudicated, and it seems pretty unlikely that the courts would step in. Rather, this is a political matter having to do with presidential powers, and of course the usual partisan wrangling. As such, for Wikipedia to wade in on the subject it would have to explain what it is about not getting Congressional authorization is relevant, namely that it was [apparently?] somewhat unusual and non-customary, and drew criticism. That detail of explanation is fine for the body, but I seriously doubt it is so significant biographically that it belongs in the lede. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (reply to Anythingyouwant) - Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. No authorization was necessary, merely notification. This is a GOP talking point designed to add to the ludicrously false assertion that Obama is some kind of tyrant. And even if approval was necessary, that would be a matter for Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton. I've gone ahead and removed this, and would've done so earlier had I noticed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You might aim for a semblance of neutrality. Clinton's position was that only notification was required, and that no authorization was required. Others took a different view, as the six cited sources amply prove. It's not our business to take sides about who was (or is) correct. The fact is that Congress did not give its approval, unlike the 2001 AUMF or the 2002 AUMF. There was no Libya AUMF, no congressional approval of the Libya intervention, and that's completely undisputed and indisputable. Had she sought one --- regardless of whether it was legally required --- Congress was poised to reject it, per the sources. This is about who was responsible and who was not responsible, and it appears that not even three words are permitted in the lead about it. Not surprising, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

because this was a historic and controversial decision on her part. This was certainly not her "decision". She advocated for it, and after the president made the decision, she carried it out as policy. That kind of "decision" is way above the pay grade of a secretary of state, or a secretary of defense, or any other cabinet member. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

One could take the position that Obama was her boss so she wasn't really responsible for anything. But, per this Wikipedia article, "Clinton's shift in favor of military intervention aligned her with Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and National Security Council figure Samantha Power and was a key turning point in overcoming internal administration opposition from Defense Secretary Gates, security advisor Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan in gaining the backing for, and Arab and U.N. approval of, the 2011 military intervention in Libya."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

and the matter is dealt with in the body of the text, as it should be. Your insistence on trying to single out this one issue, on which she was only one of the advocates and not the final decision maker, for inclusion in the lead is inappropriate. And your recent addition - "believing that congressional authorization was unnecessary" - is even worse, with its weasel-word "believing" as if to imply "but we know she was wrong". Please do not try to re-insert this material into the lead without getting consensus first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that any phrasing at all would be faulted for one reason or another. She was obviously a prime mover behind the invasion and behind the decision to go ahead with it despite having no congressional approval. I give up. This article is not neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Not neutral," because people object to putting a cherry-picked fact, which is already present in the text, also into the lead? "Not neutral", even though you easily got consensus to remove three pieces of puffery from the lead? You have a funny definition of "neutral". --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not cherry-picked and it is not puffery.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: regarding this reinsertion in the article body, you really need a stronger source than you have to imply that Clinton was involved in a conscious decision to go past the 60-day limit of the War Powers Resolution. The only mention of HRC in your NYT story is at the end and is used to indicate the U.S. was still active in the engagement. And if you look at where that statement is from, it's a press session at a joint appearance with the British Foreign Secretary in London, and what she said is in answer to a British questioner whose premise is that the U.S. pulled back early in the campaign (remember "leading from behind"?) and hence the conflict is dragging on. Nowhere in that joint appearance and its questions does U.S. Congressional authority ever come up. Now if you can find something that says there was a debate in the Obama administration regarding the 60-day limit coming up, and HRC was on the side of ignoring it, fine, go with that. But otherwise this is too tenuous to include here.

I would also comment that you seem to have some kind of rosy view of Congress's role in these matters – please note that the administration has asked for an AUMF against in the war against ISIL and Congress won't come up with one, partly because it can't agree on how expansive or restrictive the authorization should be and partly because a lot of members would rather not be faced with a tough vote that could come back to haunt them. Can you image the reaction if a president said, well, ISIL is really terrible and a threat to us all but we're not going to do anything against them until Congress gets its act together? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

For those following this discussion, the material at issue is the following:

“

Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying 25% of sorties, though the Justice Department had previously said that such a lengthy action required congressional authorization.[1]

”

[1] "Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act", New York Times, by Charlie Savage (May 25, 2011).
I'll say more in a few minutes, but it appears that WTR does not object to the material prior to the word "though". Moreover, the citations that I previously provided document that Clinton went to Congress in March and made very clear that no request for authorization would be forthcoming, period. I'm on the road right now, but wanted to give this preliminary answer. The May material provides the strongest argument by her opponents as to the legality of the war, and therefore omitting it in this BLP would water down the matter considerably. It would seem like she testified to Congress in March, and then proceeded to use "convening power" along with love and kisses, instead of bombs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Politico, "Clinton told lawmakers that...Obama has no plans to seek an endorsement from Congress, attendees told POLITICO."
Per Talking Points Memo, "Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a 60-day time limit on any military action."
Per CNN, "legislators said Clinton told them the administration acted within the requirements of the War Powers Act and needed no congressional authorization for further decisions on the mission."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are all from the beginning. What you want is something about the 60 days debate. Best I've found so far is this Charlie Savage NYT story from June 2011 which says that there was a debate and one side of lawyers won out over the other, and one of the prevailing lawyers was Harold Koh, the State Department legal advisor (a familiar name to anyone who's read about U.S. policy on drone strikes). Still doesn't mention Hillary by name, but I think you could fairly say the State Department argued for going past the 60-day limit. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that ref is better then fine by me, but I just quoted TPM regarding "60-day time limit", and just quoted CNN regarding "further decisions on the mission".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you now have three long, detailed sentences in this article on this matter. There are two problems with this: first, you have only presented one side of the story; and second, it's all undue weight. I'll focus on the second, since it renders much of the first moot.

There are eight different biographically-oriented retrospective pieces, published towards or at the end of her tenure, that are used as sources in this article:

Calabresi, Massimo (November 7, 2011). "Hillary Clinton and the Rise of Smart Power". Time.
Crowley, Michael (January 14, 2014). "Hillary Clinton's Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test". Time.
Combe, Rachael (April 5, 2012). "At the Pinnacle of Hillary Clinton's Career". Elle.
Parnass, Sarah; Hughes, Dana (December 23, 2012). "Departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Leaves Behind a Legacy of Firsts". ABC News.
Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times.
Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker.
Myers, Steven Lee (July 1, 2012). "Last Tour of the Rock-Star Diplomat". The New York Times Magazine.
Gordon, Michael R.; Landler, Mark (February 3, 2013). "Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose". The New York Times.

I checked and none of these even mention the issue of the Congressional authorization for the Libyan intervention. Several of them discuss HRC's diplomatic actions in the intervention, and most of them discuss Benghazi, but they never get into the Congressional aspect.

There are two books that give biographically-oriented accounts of HRC's time as secretary:

Ghattas, Kim (2013). The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power.
Allen, Jonathan; Parnes, Amie (2014). HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.

The first does not mention the issue of the Congressional authorization for the Libyan intervention at all. The second has one brief semi-allusion, on page 221, where it says that one advantage of the "leading from behind" approach towards the Libya action was not having to ask Congress for large sums of money that would result in putting American troops in danger. So that is sort of an implicit argument that Congressional authorization was not necessary.

So there's a reason why this topic was never added to this article in the last five years until you became interested in it – it's because HRC-related sources generally don't mention it.

Now let's look at one book that does mention it, that you previously introduced as a source for this: Charlie Savage's 2015 book Power Wars. He did the most reporting of anyone in the press on this matter. Chapter 12 concerns the Congressional authorization issue in general, with pages 635–649 of that discussing it with respect to the Libyan intervention. He describes a number of factors that your presentation omits, such as about Congressional anger over unrelated issues and general dysfunction at the time meaning it was unlikely they would act in time to doing any good in Libya; Obama turning back on his own campaign rhetoric; the Libyan campaign dragging on longer than initially expected; reasonable arguments both ways on to what level air strikes and drone strikes should count as actions of war under the resolution; various precedents, including in the Kosovo actions in 1999; splits between Boehner (who thought the whole War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional in the first place) and his caucus on this issue; House dysfunction in bringing forward different motions against the continued Libyan involvement; and so forth. In other words, it's a lot more complicated situation than the rather black-and-white one you present (lawless Clinton and State Department go rogue).

But to get back to the undue weight aspect: in the 15 pages where Savage discusses this debate and the actions people in the administration and in Congress took, HRC is only mentioned once (page 639). That's her April 2011 statement before Congress that the Libyan action did not need Congressional authorization, but that the administration would welcome it if a resolution was passed. Koh is mentioned several times (643 and on) regarding the 60-day-limit debate. But that's it. A case could be made for not including any of this at all in this article, that's how little exposure it's gotten in HRC-focused accounts. But I've boiled it down to one sentence, that just describes HRC's statement before Congress and Koh's stance as the limit approached. The rest can be dealt with a bit more in Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State but most of the discussion belongs in War Powers Resolution and US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya. There is already material on this in both places, but it merits some expansion and presentation of both sides of the arguments involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say the arguments of both sides should be presented. Yet, you have just deleted from this BLP that the State Department's legal analysis was opposed, not just by the Justice Department in 1980, but much more significantly by the Justice Department serving in 2011, and by the State Department serving in 2011. All wiped clean. Your edit makes it sound like the administration was unanimously supporting Koh and Clinton on this issue, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Presumably, if the tomes you cite are authoritative, then you won't mind if I delete the hundreds of other sources cited in this BLP's footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose that we go in the opposite direction, and note every instance where Clinton acted in any way without congressional authorization. For example, the lede could be changed to say:

A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, without congressional authorization, where she became the first student commencement speaker, without congressional authorization. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973, without congressional authorization. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975, without congressional authorization. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, without congressional authorization, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, without congressional authorization, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979, without congressional authorization. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, without congressional authorization, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations, without congressional authorization.

This would resolve any concern about whether there was congressional authorization for any of these acts. bd2412 T 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't view war as a laughing matter. But that's just me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Then your view is irrelevant to this article. The Secretary of State does not command troops or order bombings. The article you're looking for is Barack Obama. bd2412 T 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, so Hillary was just following orders when she vigorously pushed for an attack on Libya, and vigorously pushed for keeping Congress out of the decision. Can we please stick to a serious discussion about the present BLP's contents, instead of joking? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If so, then her orders were from a much higher authority. bd2412 T 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the original research added by Anythingyouwant. Use of the word "though" creates a false narrative. Furthermore, JURIST isn't really an acceptable reliable source to justify a "though", since all it does is note dissenting views. Besides, as has already been discussed this article is about Hillary Clinton, and the legal view came from her State Department. The views of other departments are not for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we need to provide a "presentation of both sides of the arguments involved" as WTR said above. Or we could pretend that every decision that the article subject has made, and every other action she has taken, has been unopposed. That's my view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see this discussion hit Godwin's Law and various other low marks before the next time I looked at WP. Jeez. I've briefly tweaked the passage to indicate that the State Dept legal stance over the 60-day limit prevailed over others in an internal administration debate. Most of my comments about presenting the other side were directed towards Anythingyouwant's changes to other articles concerning this issue – for example, War Powers Resolution#Libya intervention in 2011 is currently a mess, both in terms of jumbled chronology (the second paragraph seems to be unaware of the existence of the first paragraph) and incomplete presentation of factors involved (nothing about Congressional dysfunction at the time just for starters). Here, as I said above, that concern is mostly rendered moot by the undue weight consideration. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said at your user talk page prior to your most recent comment here, I have no objection to your modification of the article text, but I do feel the Seattle Times footnote was quite useful because the book by Savage is not fully online.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

Has she released the transcripts of her secret Goldman Sachs speeches? I think I read she earned over 600k for them. Should this info be included here or at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016? I can't tell if she gave those speeches before she started running, or once her campaign had officially begun. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What is "secret" about them? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not on youtube and the transcripts are not in the public domain either. The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Names of Hillary Clinton

I have gone ahead and moved the draft of Names of Hillary Clinton into mainspace. I propose eliminating the lengthy footnote here on her name, and just pointing to the new article. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. I can't believe this exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:BD2412: Are you sure this would pass AFD? We don't have an article about Barack Obama and his other names...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Although I think the article is fairly useless cruft, reading through the sources used, I think it probably would survive AFD. Multiple RS writing articles exclusively about her name and its changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

We haven't had a dozen move requests over the course of eight years disputing the name of Barack Obama either. Moreover, the specific topic of the names used by Hillary Clinton at different stages of her life and career has been the subject of numerous reports by reliable sources, so obviously this is of interest to enough people to motivate news sources to write about. At the same time, it's a bit tangential to belong in the name article (where about half the information contained in the breakout article is currently squeezed into one fat footnote). I am, therefore, reasonably sure that this would pass an AfD. bd2412 T 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As an upside of this article existing, it could be used to remove some of the cruft related to which names she used when that are scattered throughout this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is largely the point. bd2412 T 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The question then is how to link. Just a see also? Or is one of the bits in this article representative enough that we can massage it into a hyperlinked sentence? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait for the AfD to run its course before doing anything. After that, I would just replace n.b. 1 and 2 with a link to the article, since it covers everything in those footnotes, and more on the subject. bd2412 T 05:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Email Controversy

This section isn't even close to being NPOV. It mentions Powell and Rice without providing any information regarding the number and classification level of the emails on their personal accounts. It doesn't mention that the State Department has begun their own investigation into whether classified info was handled improperly. It doesn't mention that some of the information on Clinton's server was so classified that it will never be released publicly. It doesn't mention that she signed a non-disclosure agreement at the beginning of her tenure in which she assumed responsibility for handling classified information properly. I'm tagging accordingly.CFredkin (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed both the tag and the Powell / Rice mention that raises an objection here. Tags should be used sparingly on high importance articles, only after a good faith effort to discuss and resolve a dispute (among other things). The material itself is out of place. There's a fair POV concern, but also it's undue weight and disjoint. So what if prior secretaries of state had their own email issues that were not controversies? There is no claim that the fact that it happened or that it was "revealed" has anything to do with the unfolding of the controversy here, it is more of a "he did it too" kind of rebuttal. So too is any nondisclosure agreement, that would be a minor argument some people have but not one of the main facts of the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on the Powell/Rice information that it is not appropriate for this section (although it does get a mention in the parent article). However, the NDA is not a minor argument. It is the document that gave Clinton her security clearance. It explicitly discusses marked and unmarked classified material, and outlines the protections and care the recipient must take. If she correctly followed those instructions is the very core of this controversy. and the "unmarked" bit is directly relevant to Clinton's argument that she never sent marked information. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18][19]Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Conveniently forgotten is the fact that few of these emails in question were sent by Clinton. Most were received. That is why we talk about material "passing through" her server, which is actually how Republicans prefer to describe it because it sounds much worse to say "thousands passed through her server" than "she sent a handful". Also, I should just point out some of those sources you just listed aren't reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

1) few is not none. 2) her job is to recognize and protect classified info. If someone else sent it to her, and was noticeably foreign info (as is alleged) she should know it is classified, and have taken steps to protect it and notify the proper agencies at that point. 3) by choosing to user her personal server exclusively, she virtually guaranteed the chances of this happening, vs staying on the state systems where it wouldn't have been an issue. You cant build your burn pit next to the gas depot and then complain that someone else delivered the gas. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please remember to cite RS for any opinions, interpretations, or conclusions here. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources are required for the article, not the talk page. There are numerous reliable sources listed above for the article content in question (That Clinton signed an NDA that specifically requires her to protect classified information including unmarked classified information). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the NDA part as being poorly sourced and of undue weight. Clinton's obligation to protect "born classified" material is if anything part of the overall analysis of whether her email account activities amounted to improper handling of classified material, not something where we can lay out a single factor of analysis like this. Everybody, apparently, signs a nondisclosure agreement, so this is not anything particular to Clinton. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

ABC, NBC, CNN, and Wapo (among many others) is poorly sourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Sourcing involves a few things. Among other things, you are mentioning the names of news organizations, not describing the sources. For another, to be sourced, a piece of content also has to reflect what the source actually says, and the source has to say it is pertinent to the subject. Only one of your three sources did that, and that looks like speculative analysis to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"what the source actually says". Here you go.

abc (stephenopolous) "You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference"
wapo : Refers to ABC, but expands significantly "s the saga has dragged on, Clinton’s terminology has become ever more nuanced. When she first discussed her private-email arrangement in detail last March, her staff distributed a Q&A that flatly stated that no classified material was sent or received by Clinton at her private email address. Now she says the emails were not marked classified [...]Clinton did sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, in which she pledged to safeguard classified information whether “marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications,"
fox (multiple discussions, refering to ABC interview, and Pompeo statement)
cnn "Clinton also argues the emails "did not contain any classified markings," a significantly more tenuous defense. As all government employees with security clearances are advised, classified information is not always marked. The standard classified information nondisclosure agreement, for example, defines classified information as "marked or unmarked classified information,""
nbc "Clinton insists she didn't send or receive information marked classified. But she signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that information can be classified regardless of whether it is "marked or unmarked."
WashTimes (napolitano) "She has repeatedly asserted that she neither sent nor received anything "marked classified" using her private email server [...] Clinton knows this because she signed an oath on Jan. 22, 2009, recognizing that state secrets retain their secrecy status whether "marked or unmarked" by any of the secrecy designations. She knows as well that, under the law, the secretary of state is charged with knowing state secrets when she comes upon them."

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, original research

Sources that she did in fact sign an agreement, but does not explain relevance or connection

That is Fox

Does not say she signed an agreement

Does not explain connection, speculative

Washington Times.

Please forgive my interspersing my comments. These are not strong sources, most inapplicable, the others speculative analysis into one among various issues that would form the basis of an analysis by relevant authorities as to misuse of classified information. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Un-interspersed. Your responses are in a word bullshit. If the standard you are imagining existed, this entire article (and indeed almost the entire wiki) would not be sufficiently sourced.

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means </InigoMontoya>. It is nothing of the sort. It is a respected (lefty!) source directly contrasting Clinton's argument to the agreement she signed. Original research applies against us, not reliable sources.
The entire article is about the relevance and connection. Heres another good bit "Finally, we come to Clinton’s excuse — that none of the emails were marked classified. This is a bit of a red herring. Anything marked classified could not be sent through an unclassified system — and officials are supposed to know enough about the sensitivity of communications to recognize material that could be considered classified under the executive order." or "Clinton said, “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.” But that’s only half of the story. Even without markings, officials are supposed to recognize that information passed through an unclassified system might be deemed as classified and should take steps to protect it."
Oh no fox! I was not aware of a "far left only" rule in wikipedia. Particularly when its saying the same thing as all the lefty sources.
You dispute that she signed the standard agreement that is being discussed in this article, and that the article is specifically contrasting to Clinton's argument about marked?
WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE You apparently want some context that does not exist. WP:WEIGHT says we go where the sources go, and this is where they go.
Again, a left leaning sources only rule I missed somewhere?Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Weak sources, relevance / weight problem

Some editors want to add this latest news cycle: The State Department said the emails were not marked classified when sent, but Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement which stated that classified material may be "marked or unmarked". (emphasis added).

This is cited to three sources: first, a cnn opinion piece[20] that says "all government employees with security clearances" are advised that classified information is not always marked, describing "the standard [NDA]". It makes no assertion that Clinton signed anything, or what she was advised. The second, a Washington Post piece, notes that Clinton did sign an NDA including a statement to that effect, and then goes into a long analysis and speculation regarding how the State Department retroactively classifies material, sends information over non-secure government servers, and some inter-agency squabbling over related practices. The third, an NBC analysis piece, is the only one that makes the connection directly, saying that Clinton "insists" she didn't send or receive any information on her personal account that was marked classified, but that she signed the NDA.
I have no doubt that these four facts are sourceable: that she signed an NDA, that the NDA advised that information may be classified even if not marked, that Clinton did not send or receive any information marked classified on her server, and that some of the information was later marked classified. Only a few connect all of these facts — to do so here would be WP:SYN, and in fact the journalists doing so are engaging in their own synthesis, something that is not against policy rules to include here, but puts the journalists in the role of analysis as opposed to reporters. In doing so, most of the journalists (but not all) also point out some other pertinent details: (1) that there is considerable dispute and room for interpretation between agencies about what information should be retroactively deemed classified, as well as a widely acknowledged problem with over-classification, (2) that it is very common in FOIA release cases that agencies retroactively designate material as classified only at the time of its public release, and apparently common that material previously handled as unclassified is declared to be classified so as not to release it, and (3) that all officials with secret clearance sign similar agreements.
The comment that an official signed an NDA could be made in any discussion of somebody handling material as unclassified that is later designated classified — there is nothing here unique to Clinton or this controversy, so treating it as a relevant fact instead of background context is wrong. If we're going to add the background context, whether it's the question of it being marked at the time, or who signed an NDA, or what it means to retroactively designate information as classified, and so on, we should either give the whole context or point to it, not include just a few parts of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Its sourced to perhaps a dozen sources. That 3 particular sources were used in the article is due to WP:OVERCITE. Take your pick among the sources if you think another is better. Your second point is well taken, and we should discuss those issues throughout the section/article (and perhaps the lead of the controversy article), but it those points do not contradict the NDA. Multiple sources have written about the contradiction between Clinton's statements and the NDA. few/none have mentioned your issues in the context of that contradiction. WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. On the 3rd point, while your fact is true (everyone signs this) that cuts against your argument. Everyone signs this - eg, it is the standard practice to protect classified material includes unmarked classified material.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Of those sources, discounting the Fox News and especially Washington Times (and surely, discounting other sources that blend news and advocacy on behalf of the Democratic team), there may be another source or two. If we hunt, there are probably some more, maybe dozens? That's rather scant as compared to the tens of thousands of sources (likely, I haven't counted) that cover the controversy overall, or nearly anything else that appears here on Clinton's bio page. I am inclined to agree, if you can see it in my wall of text, that mentioning "not marked classified" without also mentioning "born classified" is incomplete context. There are several other pieces of context, none of which are particular to Clinton. The issue that everybody signs an NDA is a small piece of that. So is the fact that many other government officials have done the same as Clinton. The context of over-classifying things and inter-agency squabbling and disagreement about what is and is not classified is another piece. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon, and editors should get consensus here before adding this. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

DD2K, Wikidemon and I worked out a consensus version on the main article. I have copied that version into the WP:SUMMARY here. sorry about the revert, I was confused about which article I was looking at and thought you had removed the consensus version. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)