Talk:2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 25 July 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Following on the heels of "Benghazi gate" (and numerous other "gates" that kind of fizzled & died), here comes "DNC Email gate", courtesy of Wiki Leaks. (Really, guys? Who's going to read some 20,000 emails, real or not, the same people who didn't read the 30,000 or 50,000 emails turned over by Mrs. Clinton? And those we knew were real.) I actually did read the one on the proposed fake craigslist job posting mentioned in paragraph four. Whether they posted it or not, it's such good satire that it ought to be read widely: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7665. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this talk thread, I must say that we should avoid using sources that WE IN WIKIPEDIA cite as government-owned news sources. This means RT and Sputniknews are NOT AT ALL valid news sources. Using those sources denigrates Wikipedia's value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.179.50 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I hadn't noticed that two of the references were Russia Today, a television news program funded entirely by the Russian government, and Sputnik, one of the programs on RT. They are not reliable sources and definitely not unbiased sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my most recent edit description: There's no reason to believe the information in these particular articles is not factual. And even if we assume these publishers tend to be biased, that's not justification for their complete removal. Please see WP:BIASED. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person who removed the citation but I'm also of the opinion that it needs to be removed. An article in a government publication that doesn't even say who wrote and/or edited it in a government publication? SPJ Code of Ethics says that journalists should take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some reliable sources on the reliability of Russia Today (RT): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/08/russia-today-western-cynics-lap-up-putins-tv-poison; http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/vladimir-putins-empire-of-lies/; https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today?utm_term=.wv9MjG5WVo#.rfVXMJQnr2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article

This page contains information that considered to be confidential and should be deleted to avoid Trump being elected.--153.126.207.47 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can point out which information is in the article is confidential then it won't be deleted (at least not for the reasons mention). Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. FallingGravity (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most hilarious comment I've seen on a Wikipedia talkpage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.100.46.68 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your remark is in violation of Wikipedia rule "Always be respectful" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Rules_of_Polite_Discourse. While this Wiki page does not not contain any confidential information, the confidential and sensitive information of private individuals whose information was stolen by criminals and published online by WikiLeaks does. I'm sure that none of the victimized individuals are laughing. I'm also sure that other criminals downloaded the entire email correspondence immediately and got busy mining it for purposes of identity theft. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The articles 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Democratic National Committee cyber attacks were created within 10 minutes apart, and appear to be both on the same topic: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's computer system and the subsequent leaking of emails to Wikileaks. One should be merged into the other or else there will continue to be parallel articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be merged - one is a "how it was done" the other is "what was revealed". These are two pretty different topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.104.234 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no support in the press that these two incidents are related. These are two separate incidents because it has not been determined what or who the actual source is for the Wiki-Leaks emails and so on. These are not parallel articles, and they are not the same article. The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks are a totally different subject if you read the article. Also, this came out in the press over a month ago. The Wikileaks scandal broke only days ago. Also, the loner "Guccifer 2.0" has not been confirmed to be the hacker responsible for the DNC cyber attack and most likely he is not. Experts at the cybersecurity firm noticed this has Russian intelligence all over it. "Guccifer 2.0" is most likely trying to make a name and so on. Also, it is not very likely that he is the WikiLeaks source. Lastly, it is doubtful the WikiLeaks source will ever be known because WikiLeaks does not reveal this information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section on "Guccifer 2.0" in the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks article is probably inappropriate and is WP:UNDUE. Even the quotation in this section by the cybersecurity firm co-founder and expert discounts this alternate explanation, when says: "these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government's involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community".

Even CNN states "But the claims made by the "Guccifer 2.0" individual are viewed with a dose of skepticism by experts who have analyzed the events" [1]. In other words, claims made by "Guccifer 2.0" related to the DNC hack and even his connection to WikiLeaks in this matter are heavily exaggerated. Also, there is no evidence that ""Guccifer 2.0" is any kind of smoke screen for the Russian intelligence community and this is merely supposition. So, also based on the above in my comment - merging these article is not appropriate.

There is thus far no connection between the DNC cyber attacks by Russian intelligence and the WikiLeaks email release. In any case, if the Defense One article [2] is making a connection then it is pure supposition because the main stream press maintains skeptiscm prevails by experts involved in analysis pertaining to "Guccifer 2.0". In other words, "Guccifer 2.0" appears to be lying. Only conspiracy theories connect "Guccifer 2.0" with any of this. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. This article deals with the ramifications of the leak, not how the theft was done or by whom or what their reasons may have been. See also remarks below on Guccifer 2.0. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schultz immediate "employment" by HRC campaign relevant in "Reactions" ?

From the HRC campaign site: " I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states."

Considering it's a virtually immediate lateral move to the campaign implicated in the scandal, this seems relevant, and in essence, the HRC campaign reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.132.26 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is very relevant since it got a lot of reactions and is a very strange move by HRC. OBD4 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. First, it was the Clinton campaign's official response. Second, it has been widely covered as associated with the story. Third, it is relevant to the most covered item in the story (that DNC helped Clinton). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on Latinos

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Several other emails depicted the DNC's categorical targeting of Hispanic voters. One such email referred to Hispanics as "brand loyal consumers," and listed a series of objectives as to how to "own Hispanic loyalty."^[1] In another email, a DNC official appeared to describe Hispanic voter outreach as "taco bowl engagement."^[2]

References

^ "Wikileaks: This Is What the DNC Really Thinks About Latinos". Independent Sentinel. July 23, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
^ "Disturbing DNC emails call Hispanic outreach "taco bowl engagement"". Valley News Live. July 24, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.

The first sentence needs a better citation since the current one just cites a couple tweets. The second sentence needs more coverage from reliable sources to verify that "taco bowl engagement" actually refers to Latino outreach, as signaled by the word "appears". (I suspect it actually refers to a tweet sent by Trump on Cinco de Mayo, but that's currently WP:OR.) Thus, I think this content can be re-added once we get better references and more coverage. FallingGravity (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removed poorly sourced material

I've removed some poorly sourced (sputnik news, daily caller) material from the article. Per the discretionary sanctions restrictions which apply to all articles related to the 2016 US elections, please do not restore without firm consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today (RT) IMO also needs to be removed - see my above remarks plus citations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with those sources? Do Wikipedia have some list over which sources are trustworthy? In a case like this I'm not sure any news media is trustworthy. The emails made it clear that some news medias are very much biased. OBD4 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Caller News Organization is in the White House Press rotation. I would humbly suggest that if they are good enough for the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guccifer 2.0

I keep complaining about our HR using email to send confidential and sensitive information, and our IT guy keeps claiming that our servers cannot be hacked except maybe by the cyber division of a few countries' intelligence services, and at any rate not by your average criminal hacker or criminal group. The only info on "Guccifer 2.0" seems to be a Wordpress website claiming that he is who he claims to be and that he has done what he claims to have done. Is there any confirmation for any of this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of individual stolen emails

Propose deletion of this sentence + citation: It also reveals that White House officials vetoed Ariana Grande from performing at the White House because of the July 2015 doughnut-licking incident. So what? Good for them. Would she be welcome in your home? Yuck and double yuck. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's relevant and should be retained. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in this scandal that information is irrelevant. Maybe it's worth mentioning in an article about that woman but not here.OBD4 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the leak

Mook suggests Russians leaked DNC emails to help Trump; it also tells that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort dismissed Mook’s comments on Sunday, telling ABC’s “This Week” that it was “pure obfuscation on the part of the Clinton campaign.”. This can be significant because as noted here, this is probably for the first time when Russia so openly attempts to affect results of elections in US (here is Russian source about the same). My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current Tag

I've added the current tag to the page. I had done so before, and it was removed. It seems very much to fit as a current event with several edits. Please discuss here if you believe it's unreasonable so that I can understand. q (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-Importance?

Why is this article rated Low-importance? "Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article." I would rather rate it High, right now, and maybe Mid in ten years when the news value is gone. OBD4 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on High Importance. It has been the top story on Google News most of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been the top story on Google News most of the day" is not a sign of significance. If this affects American politics as much as Watergate or the Iran-Contra, we can reconsider '''tAD''' (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought public interest in an item would be a sign of its political significance. Given that the public chooses politicians I would have thought the public's opinions were relevant. Also, I don't understand your position. If you are suggesting we wait 30 years to see how this affected the election, that seems wrong for two reasons. First, it's impractical. Second, even if it is right, why should the default be to use a "low importance" rating? That is, why use "low importance" until 30 years of history proves otherwise? Why not use current interest levels given that interest is, almost by definition, power in a democracy?

[1] "Wikileaks: This Is What the DNC Really Thinks About Latinos". Independent Sentinel. July 23, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.

[2] "Disturbing DNC emails call Hispanic outreach "taco bowl engagement"". Valley News Live. July 24, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 21:42, 25 July 2016 edit JJBers (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,218 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:51, 25 July 2016 edit undo 199.192.40.100 (talk) →‎Low-Importance? Next edit →
Line 100:		Line 100:

	:"It has been the top story on Google News most of the day" is not a sign of significance. If this ''affects'' American politics as much as Watergate or the Iran-Contra, we can reconsider [[User:The Almightey Drill\|'''tAD''']] ([[User talk:The Almightey Drill\|talk]]) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)		:"It has been the top story on Google News most of the day" is not a sign of significance. If this ''affects'' American politics as much as Watergate or the Iran-Contra, we can reconsider [[User:The Almightey Drill\|'''tAD''']] ([[User talk:The Almightey Drill\|talk]]) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
			: I would have thought public interest in an item would be a sign of its political significance. Given that the public chooses politicians I would have thought the public's opinions were relevant. Also, I don't understand your position. If you are suggesting we wait 30 years to see how this affected the election, that seems wrong for two reasons. First, it's impractical. Second, even if it is right, why should the default be to use a "low importance" rating? That is, why use "low importance" until 30 years of history proves otherwise? Why not use current interest levels given that interest is, almost by definition, power in a democracy?