Talk:James Clapper/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Blair or Gombert as previous DNI

Before reverting edits of Dennis Blair as the previous DNI to Director Clapper, please review the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence sight. You'll see that there have only been four confirmed Directors: Negroponte, McConnell, Blair, and now Clapper. Various other ODNI personnel have served as DNI or PDDNI during vacancies, however, they were "acting" on behalf of the DNI or a vacant DNI. Please discuss here before reverting any more edits. 71.180.5.197 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

William Oliver Baker Award

There is a section in the Intelligence and National Security Alliance article explaining a bit about this award. Perhaps the listing of his reciept of this award should be linked to this ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: False testimony to Congress

FormerNukeSubmariner's edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_R._Clapper&oldid=558784866) has a few problems. First the DNI cite moved to the end of the last sentence doesn't support the added sentence. In particular, it says nothing about Aggregate data, which refers to summary statistics replacing more specific datum, and it included a claim that the data acquired did not include subscriber information not a claim that no such correlations were subsequently made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.207.117 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"in the media" section should be moved further down

Have nothing against the section since it is a good idea and well referenced, but it shouldn't occupy the top portion of the article. people come to this article to inform themselves about functions and key facts on Clapper, not to first have to walk through an aggregate of his faux pas.

How about moving it to the end? --Wuerzele (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved it, but I'm still not happy with this section. He's DNI, not a rock star. Everything in this article is "in the media." The section looks like it was put there just to make Clapper look bad. He doesn't need any help looking bad, we should just put the info in the article and let the reader decide. I don't want to remove this material, but I'm not sure how else to incorporate it. Suggestions? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
ahh, didnt see your message until now, Kendall-K1- if you dont use my name on the page I wont get pinged. naah, I'd leave the 'in the media' section as is. agree w you that all is in the media, its a hodge-podge of snips. one could dissolve it by sticking the quotes in where they belong chronologically, but I think time will be the judge, sieve it out. right now so much small stuff is being added, because of the perjury focus - not all this will survive. agree that he's the DNI, and yet in some way he's in the limelight like a rock star (ha!). i read clapper's senate confirmation hearing transcript today, in which he prides himself on his "professional independence". There is only so much detail one can add to the page. whether clapper leaves sooner or later, one thing is sure: he will use the revolving door one last time to private industry. i think that is info that people will want to read and see wiki links on.- BTW I'd still cut the snowden reference at the end because I had put one in before you remember, up in the senate hearing section --Wuerzele (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll go along with that. The info itself isn't a problem, and I can't think of a better name for the section ("Stupid things he's said" would be too POV), so just leave it. I also removed the duplicate Snowden info. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

help for a job

dear James clapper My husband used to work with u at the DIA T kozora and wanted to work with u again email address caroltom5@verizon.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.115.83 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Admission and responses

This section is a bit of a mess. Now that it's no longer breaking news, I think it should be reorganized less along chronological lines and more on logical lines. Maybe a paragraph on admissions, another on denials and defenses, one on calls for his resignation or prosecution, etc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it in the public interest to reveal all US intelligence methods?

The general tone of comments about perjury seem to ignore the issue of protecting methods and information is a significant responsibility of the intelligence community. The answer no to are intelligence collections ongoing of millions of US citizens, and the framework of implied individual dossiers, answer would have been no. The reason it is no is there are not millions of records associated with individuals, rather there are millions of phone metadata records which are not people records, rather they are source and destination numbers and locations of tower source destination. The difficulty of identifying who the bad guys communicate with is paramount at a time when most use disposable phones, it may take many call records before an identity and location can be associated with an individual, hence the need for mountains of call records. These are records used by telecommunication providers to bill for service usage, they do not contain the actual call communication. Once there is a number of interest there are many rules and protections in place to represent the interest of the public. Now all of this is my understanding having worked on telecommunication systems and billing and knowing that the metadata does not have recorded call information other than numbers. Without this ability to connect dots, it would be impossible to prevent an understanding of who is communicating with whom. The bottom line is unless your phone is called by a terrorist, there is no record of you in the millions of metadata records. My point is when the head of the DNI says there are not millions of files on individuals he can honestly say NO, because even if you have billions of metadata records, there would be few of interest and even fewer individuals that they would trace to. I believe part of the work of the intelligence community is to protect their methods and that was the intention, not some big brother hidden conspiracy.128.229.4.2 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

I believe there is an error in the paragraph which refers to Jim Clapper's service after his retirement from the USAF in 1995. He did not serve as the civilian director of intelligence for US Forces Korea or The US Pacific Command. He occupied those positions as an active duty USAF general officer. That paragraph should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.145.76 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected the text to match the source. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Republican or Democrat?

Republican or Democrat? ---Dagme (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dem or Rep?

Dem or Rep should be in the intro. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG talk 05:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


James R. Clapper → James Clapper – Reliable sources usually forgo the middle initial: CNN, The Hill, Meet the Press, Reason Magazine, The Week and Associated Press. Notable exception: The Washington Post. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2017 (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.

Testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs, 2013

Why is he even out of jail? ---Dagme (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Source on poltical party?

Hello! I just was wondering if we had a source on Clapper's poltical party, it says he's a Democrat but I can't find any sources to back that up. Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePresident (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit

I have reverted this misleading edit, which falsely suggests that Clapper lied about wiretapping. As the reliable sources indicate, the news from September 2017 that the FISA Court issued a warrant for surveillance of Manafort in no way supports the bogus claim about Trump tower. See, e.g., recent articles in CNN, The Atlantic, Washington Post, and FactCheck.org. Neutralitytalk 03:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing it implies no wiretap occurred, which is WP:cherrypicking. Feel free to reword it so it doesn't suggest "Clapper lied" but notes the fact that Manafort was wiretapped.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You must not restore this material until there is consensus here, as this is a WP:BLP issue. The juxtaposition of the sentences certainly suggests that Clapper was incorrect, which is not true. The Manafort wiretap may have nothing at all to do with anything Clapper talked about. Read the sources I linked above, which explicitly make a few points:
  • CNN: "Trump and his former campaign chairman were still in contact. It's not known whether any of the conversations between the two men were picked up on the wiretap. While Manafort does have a residence in Trump Tower, it's not clear whether any FBI surveillance took place there. Is it possible Trump meant 'my phones' as a catchall for every phone line associated with a person at Trump Tower? If that's the case, why has neither Trump nor the White House made that clear before now as this allegation has festered? ... The Justice Department tapping Manafort's phone -- even at his residence at Trump Tower (which we don't know if they actually did) -- is not the same thing as Obama ordering Trump's 'wires tapped.' It's just not. Even if -- and that's a real "if" -- conversations between the two men were picked up in the wiretap on Manafort. It's also important to remember that the Justice Department has repeatedly made clear that they have zero -- ZERO -- evidence to back up Trump's claim that his wires were tapped during the 2016 campaign." Neutralitytalk 03:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • FactCheck.org: "We don’t know exactly when the alleged wiretapping of Manafort occurred. The CNN story said there were two instances when the FBI obtained a FISA warrant. The first was in 2014, before Manafort joined the Trump campaign. But CNN said that “it is unclear when the new warrant started.” Did it occur while Manafort was a member of the Trump campaign team? ... We don’t know."
  • Washinton Post fact check: "the Wall Street Journal reported that Manafort was placed under surveillance after he left the Trump campaign in the summer 2016, and that the surveillance did not involve listening to Manafort’s phone conversations in real-time. But even if there was real-time phone surveillance and Trump happened to be talking to Manafort, that still would not support Trump’s claims from March that Obama ordered a wiretapping of then-presidential candidate Trump’s phone in Trump Tower."
If you can come up with language and placement that is actually accurate and doesn't make a negative implication about a living person (Clapper), feel free to propose it. Otherwise this must stay out. Your cited source (this Mediaite column explicitly labeled "OPINION") is also not acceptable for content such as this. Neutralitytalk 03:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Transcript: "TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?

CLAPPER: Yes.

TODD: You would be told this?

CLAPPER: I would know that.

TODD: If there was a FISA court order–

CLAPPER: Yes.

TODD: –on something like this.

CLAPPER: Something like this, absolutely.

TODD: And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?

CLAPPER: I can deny it.

Since when is Mediaite not considered a good source? I already came up with the language but you removed it, twice. Why don't you suggest what would be acceptable to you?Terrorist96 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

First - Your Mediaite link is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not reliable for contentious statements of fact, and that goes triple for BLP claims.
Second - Clapper said "for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign." As the sources I quoted above make clear (do please read them), there is zero evidence that Clapper's statement was incorrect in any way.
(1) Manafort quite possibly was wiretapped only before and after he was affiliated with the campaign.
(2) There remains no evidence that Trump was ever the target of a FISA warrant.
(3) Clapper expressly said "I can’t speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government."
Neutralitytalk 03:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. However, Manafort being wiretapped is a fact though; we can agree on that. The sources say he was tapped both before and after the campaign. Please offer your suggestion for wording to show good faith, as it is relevant and not including it would be "lying by omission". Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Clapper's statement was about "wiretap activity mounted against ... the Trump campaign" that he oversaw as part of DNI. It's not about anything else. The fact that Manafort was separately wiretapped is 100% irrelevant, especially when there is no evidence that he was wiretapped during the campaign itself. The burden on you is to get sources that are reliable, show noteworthiness, and meet the requirements of proper weight. An opinion source on Mediaite isn't going to cut the mustard, and definitely not for this BLP. Neutralitytalk 04:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you just want me to work endlessly to come up with suggestions just so you can immediately shoot them down, which is why I asked what would be acceptable to you. But apparently you cannot enunciate that. I know this game and I'm not playing it. So much for good faith. And if it's 100% irrelevant then why is the Manafort wiretap claim mentioned in the lead of the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations article? To say it's 100% irrelevant is much different than saying it doesn't technically show Clapper's statement to be false (which I never made the claim that technically Clapper "lied").Terrorist96 (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality, Clapper's statement was clearly false, whether he was lying or simply had no knowledge of the FISA warrant (which seems highly unlikely). You are arguing that the wiretap was only directed at Manafort personally, rather than "the Trump campaign" per se, but this contradicts CNN's report on the matter, which makes clear that the wiretap was part of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia: "Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive. ...Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The CNN article that you link does not mention Clapper at all, so it is certainly not usable here. WP:SYNTH. Neutralitytalk 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on James Clapper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 18:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

– For consistency. All the officials from imagery intelligence community have middle initials in their names. In most of the sources (almost all) they are referred including their middle initial. Among many others, some examples are: Robert B. Murrett, Arthur C. Lundahl, John J. Hicks, Rutledge P. Hazzard, Robert M. Huffstutler, Frank J. Ruocco, Leo A. Hazlewood, Nancy E. Bone, Joanne O. Isham William K. James, and Philip W. Nuber. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: Currently, talkpage archives of Clapper are targeted at James R. Clapper. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A move request for James Clapper went the other way last year: #Requested move 8 March 2017. Dekimasuよ! 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, that appears to be the reason for archives being targeted at James R. Clapper. The move will be good for consistency, as well as precision. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any archives that are at Talk:James R. Clapper/Foo (although they are being overachieved and not listed in the archive box). Which did you mean? Dekimasuよ! 22:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on reasons offered. Whether other intelligence officials are referred to with their middle initial, full middle name, or neither is irrelevant to these two people. I will reconsider my vote if evidence specific to these two individually is offered that they are referred to with a middle initial. (Look at US presidents for an example - we have George W. Bush / Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan / George Washington, and John Quincy Adams.) SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    @SnowFire: Here are some results. Most of them refer to Clapper as James R. Clapper. @In ictu oculi: There are more books referring her as Joanne O. Isham, than Joanne Isham; including few non English books. search query. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody contests that sometimes Clapper is referred to with his middle initial. The question is what he is usually referred to as. The same GBooks search returns about as many hits on "James Clapper". It doesn't really appear either form predominates, but the previous RM indicated that most news agencies didn't use the middle initial. So... I stand by my oppose. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. US government official bios tend to insert middle initials. That doesn't mean it's the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inconsistency regarding number of children

I've never edited wikipedia before, so pardon me if I do not really know how to do it. I've decided to rather start a talk.

The article states that James Clapper has one child, and while listening to his book he mentioned his second child was born. This appeared inconsistent. I did a quick google search and found his bio on Lindsey Graham's .gov website, which also states that he has two children. So I just thought I'd point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KazimierasC (talk • contribs) 10:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Clapper/Archive_1&oldid=1040243662"