Content deleted Content added
→Classified Emails: - again... |
|||
Line 399:
:::You seem to have left out the sentence following the first quote there, which reads the "''State Department disputes that the emails were classified at that time''". Taking a line from a reliable source and presenting it as if it was an incontrovertible fact while omitting the counterpoint that notes there is another point-of-view on the matter is stretching the [[WP:NOTSUICIDE|Assume-Good-Faith-o'-Meter]]. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 22:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
:::: It is an incontrovertible fact: The IG's found classified information in her emails. That's not say that the State Department's claim that the information wasn't classified at the time it was sent shouldn't be added as well. However, we should probably then also mention the fact that many reliable sources have reported that at least some of the classified information was classified by default, without needing to be labeled as such.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Here's [http://nypost.com/2015/09/05/another-week-of-embarrassing-shoes-dropping-for-hillary/ an example].[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Despite that tropes found in your favorite cNCIS/CSI/Homeland crime prodecural drama, what is and what is not classified is not a simple either/or black/white matter. See [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email], particularly the comments of Mr. John Kirby of the State Department. If a source states that there is another opinion on a matter, then it is by definition ''not'' an "incontrovertible fact". I would suggest that you not misrepresent sources going forward. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
| |||