Misplaced Pages

Lots of SPAs and IP editors

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

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

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

New proposed content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blumenthal emails

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

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

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

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

References

1. Gowdy, Trey (7 October 2015). "Letter from Gowdy to Elijah E. Cummings, October 7 2015" (PDF). Letter. House Benghazi Committee. pp. 10–13. Retrieved 29 November 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ Gowdy, Trey (7 October 2015). "Letter from Gowdy to Elijah E. Cummings, October 7 2015" (PDF). Letter. House Benghazi Committee. pp. 10–13. Retrieved 29 November 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polls

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

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

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

White House response

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

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

My what? If you haven't anything useful to say about the pointless edit I highlighted above, maybe you shouldn't have wasted your time commenting. Perhaps you should go back to filing BS 3RR reports or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is pointless. The text I reverted is necessary to prevent this article being skewed in favor of a certain viewpoint, because including Obama's response without the conflicting viewpoint is an attempt to imply a conclusion. I've reverted the section back to the status quo version since it seems to be in dispute. Also please refrain from ad hominem attacks.--Mouse001 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Broadly, the consensus version states Obama's opinion on the matter. The (restored) text and citations show limited visibility and oversight of the matter, and the resulting FBI response. ce explicitly welcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a consensus version. It was inserted a couple months ago by a now-banned editor who also expressed a desire to load the article with derogatory information in the interest of neutrality — trying to tilt the article one way or another is more or less the definition of POV editing. That was largely but not completely reverted two days later. Of all people, the US President would have both information and a relevant opinion on the matter. If so we can include his statement; if not, it is pointless to include his statement and then include sources to discredit it. We generally should avoid stuff that is there just to bolster or discredit propositions made by third party commentators that are not involved in the event. The relevance of this content, if any, is not that the President isn't in a position to know but that the President apparently angered FBI personnel by breaking a tradition of Presidents not commenting on law enforcement investigations. Is that significant enough to include in the article? That's the question, I think. It is in fact a part of the overall chain of events that make up the controversy, but a tangential one. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this at all. Besides, the salient point here is that it says the FBI hasn't concluded anything and Obama hasn't been told of these non conclusions. It's totally meaningless drivel that's received virtually zero coverage in the mainstream media. Once again, this is POV pushing to "prevent this article being skewed in favor of a certain viewpoint" as the SPA says above, which is the same rationale Fox News uses to excuse their unabashed support for the GOP. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It was in this article for months, so I would say that it is a consensus version.

Wikidemon, It is not accurate to assume that the President would have "both information and a relevant opinion on the matter", because, according to the head of the FBI, he was not briefed on the investigation, and FBI officials have said they haven't reached a conclusion. So the relevance of this content is indeed that the President isn't in a position to know, but I think that a President's statement is notable enough for inclusion.

The FBI response is certainly not meaningless drivel, because they are directly involved in the event and the President's comments imply a conclusion without justification. Numerous reliable sources have covered this.--Mouse001 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

He's the freaking president in charge of the entire executive branch, of course he's qualified to speak, at least as much as the head of the FBI who reports to him. If the President weren't in a position to know we wouldn't have his statement either. The FBI is not involved or not in whether the President has an opinion or whether his opinion is of due weight to include in the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The President expressed his opinion and this content gives supporting context. To the extent the President's statements in the interview are relevant (they are in my view), so are the facts around the basis for that opinion and resulting FBI blowback. They are a pair. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The facts around the basis for his opinion are that he's the President. If we were to start doing pro and con statements from third parties every time the President or anyone else weighs in on a subject regarding whether he knows what he's talking about, we would get mired in sourcing issues that are the subject of editorial discretion here on the talk page. That's just not an encyclopedic treatment of things, and not how sources are vetted. If the President, his awareness, and his statement, are part of the controversy itself, then further context might be warranted. Only that last one is true here, that the President's talking out of turn drew blowback from the FBI Director. That would support a statement that the President was criticized for commenting about an ongoing investigation, not that he wouldn't have known and not that the FBI director boasted about being apolitical (an odd boast to make when criticizing a President on matters of state). - Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true that we shouldn't do pro and con statements from a third party every time the President weighs a subject, but the FBI is directly involved with what the president said and the controversy itself. That supports a statement that the President was criticized for commenting on an ongoing investigation because he implied some sort of conclusion that was not reached. The FBI should also have a relevant opinion on the matter. There is nothing odd with speaking about being apolitical when there are allegations of politicization being involved.--Mouse001 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment from the president and the response from an FBI official are simply not significant enough for inclusion. It's received very little coverage in the media, and nothing at all after a day or so had passed. It has no impact on the controversy itself, so it isn't (and has never been) appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Significance is not measured by the amount of media coverage, and impact on the controversy does not determine if it is appropriate for inclusion. Obama is a notable figure for this commentary and Clinton worked directly under him, so I don't see any reason to exclude it.--Mouse001 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I would've thought this was obvious. This article is about Hillary Clinton's emails, not insignificant disagreements between Obama and the FBI in a story that vanished from the mainstream media after 24 hours. But I guess if you are a trying to push and anti Obama/Clinton agenda, this might seem significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not merely an "insignificant disagreement" between Obama and the FBI. The President weighed in on the controversy, which itself is notable and significant enough for inclusion. UW Dawgs and WikiDemon have also said that it is relevant. The context from the FBI is warranted as well, because as UW Dawgs said they are a pair.--Mouse001 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your agenda is questionable in many ways, but I will not comment on it, and I will not respond to comments about mine either.--Mouse001 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. I'm not even a US citizen, so I don't have a horse in this race. The President makes comments about a great many things, most of which a reported and then forgotten, just like in this case. There's been no development of the story or additional coverage in the mainstream media, so it has vanished into the obscurity it deserved. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The things that are included in a Misplaced Pages article are not given weight solely by the amount of media coverage. There are numerous reasons to include the White House response as it has much relevance and notability to this topic. 1) Obama is the president 2) Hillary was secretary of state and handled her emails under Obama 3) Obama heads the executive branch and has certain "expert" qualifications to speak on its behalf--Mouse001 (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Republican response

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

UFOs

Wait, what? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The truth is out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)