Talk:2016 Democratic National Committee email leak/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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." In another email, a DNC official appeared to describe Hispanic voter outreach as "taco bowl engagement."

References

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Strange? Seems like exactly the type of thing HRC would do. And, in fact, did do. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've marked it as mid-importance for some projects. I don't think we need to wait 30 years to mark it as High-Importance, but I think we should wait a little bit to find out. For reference, Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy is marked as Low- and Mid-importance and it has been in the news for more than a year. However, this article is also different from that one because it involves multiple people, so I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually got High-Importance. FallingGravity (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Contents of individual stolen emails

1. 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)
   • I think it's relevant and should be retained. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
     • I don't understand what its relevance is. The White House was considering having her perform at some function or other, were informed of her recorded misbehavior and changed their mind. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me, and that someone informed them by email and they responded by email - also no big deal. Former teen star who's no longer a teen behaving like a juvenile - nothing new there, either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for flagging this Space4Time3Continuum2x :) Good point about confirming. I went on an information quest. Then found two articles that do confirmed that "Guccifer 2.0" did what he claimed he did on his website. Those reputable sources are The Hill and Breitbart. The article reads "The new collection of documents was sent exclusively to The Hill". The hacker "Guccifer 2.0" provided The Hill with numerous documents and files covering political strategies. Including but not limited to correlating the banks that received bailout funds with Republican and Democratic donations. Details are in their linked article above. Francewhoa (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• All sources referring to "Guccifer 2.0", including the Fox News article you used, are dated July 18, 2016, and are based on the claims made by an individual or a group claiming to be an individual. Please look at the newer sources; quite a few of them are listed in this article. The experts and the newspapers seem to be in agreement now that Russian hacker groups were behind the breaches, whether the Russian government was behind them or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Just saw this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/26/dnc-email-leak-russian-hack-guccifer-2. You may also want to rewrite your Wikipedia article :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Media Coverage and Public Perception

The article keeps amassing more and more info on the contents of these stolen ‘’’private’’’ emails (last I heard, the DNC and the Democratic Party are not branches of the government so there is no Freedom of Information “right to know”) and so far none on what has and has not been covered in the media, particularly television, because it is not “juicy” and “sensational” enough. If you want to look up Anne Applebaum’s credentials as an expert and source, here’s where you can find her bio and bibliography: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/anne-applebaum. And here’s the link to the Legatum Institute’s Transitions Forum with the info on who they are and what they do: http://www.li.com/programmes/transitions-forum. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - Little confused by your comment. If we're presenting info on the contents of these e-mails, and that content hasn't been covered in the media, what are we using to verify that content? NickCT (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My impression is the opposite, that media focused more on who had hacked the servers than the leak. That is my impression. But the Russian conspiracy theories should absolutely be mentioned. Maybe need some lead in to the quote and some more quotes about that idea and the political struggle in media. I know there been people indirectly blaming Trump for conspiring with the Russians even.

But I am not with you on the fact that this is private thing. Rep and Dem are so dominating in US politics that you have to go through them, which makes this a matter of democracy. People really have the right to know. OBD4 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: - Assuming that the servers that were hacked are located in the states, hacking them and passing on the stolen material to third parties is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2701 and 2702), punishable by fine and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months, and that's why the FBI is investigating the break-in. Noone except the senders and recipients of the emails has the right to be presenting or quoting them, or commenting on them, including on this Wikipedia page. But I seem to be a minority of one here and wouldn't be able to stop it, so I won't even try. For what it's worth, to quote Anne Applebaum with whom I agree completely: They were " ... private emails, some of which are sarcastic or cynical, some of which seem to indicate that the DNC didn’t want to be subject to a hostile takeover by Bernie Sanders, but none of which seem to me remotely surprising: This is how people communicate when they are in the heat of a presidential race." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - Appreciate your comments here, but I think this falls under WP:UNCENSORED and WP:LEGAL. We're not really in the game of deciding what information is "legal". Only what information is verifiable and notable. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@OBD4:: - I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'm reevaluating my original assessment of where on the scale of "worst scandals" to put this cyber attack/publication: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Collection of emails redacted before publication?

• I find it somewhat curious that nobody has found any emails mentioning that staffers from the Sanders campaign mined the Clinton campaign's voter files for data, at least none that have been mentioned in the media so far: Gabriel Debenedetti and Annie Karni, Chaos in the Democratic presidential primary - Clinton accuses Sanders of theft and the underdog alleges sabotage. Dec 18, 2015, updated Dec 19, 2015 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/sanders-campaign-threatens-to-sue-dnc-216942)

That incident should have resulted in a considerable number of emails being exchanged between DNC staff and staff from both campaigns. Makes me think that the "collection of emails", to quote line 1 of the article, may have been redacted before person(s) unknown turned them over to WikiLeaks or by WikiLeaks before they put them online. Is there any mention on such emails in the media? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Assange has said that Wikileaks have more emails that they will publish soon. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2127589-julian-assange-wikileaks-will-release-a-lot-more-on-clinton-democrats/ OBD4 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

I put together a timeline of events surrounding the hack, the leak and the investigation into the leak along with attempts to attribute it to Russia and Guccifer 2.0. It has links to its sources which should be cited in the Wikipedia article, not the timeline itself (which might fit under external links, but meh). https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/25/timeline-of-the-dnc-and-akp-hacks-wikileaks-releases/ TheMikeBest (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Themikebest: I'm moving this over to Democratic National Committee cyber attacks because I think it fits better there. Also if you want, you can add an update with this article. FallingGravity (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wasn't judging the link based on the technical aspects, but on the scope of the events that it covered. This article covers events that happened in the last week. The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks article covers events from the last year and could benefit from information in this link, so I thought it fit best there. FallingGravity (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: I disagree. The timeline doesn't just cover the technical aspects of the hacking, including of who done it. That's just a minor part. Please undo the deletion of the external link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how we're going to come to an agreement. I'd like to ask User:Themikebest (as the apparent author of the timeline) or an uninvolved editor, which article they think the link belongs on. FallingGravity (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Themikebest: - While I was writing my comment on why I added the timeline as an external link, FallingGravity removed the link and added a post to this Talk page, so my edit got overwritten. This is it: I looked up the rules on external links and think it's OK, so I added it. "Judge Napolitano" - I assume you are referring to the former judge and current Fox News employee? So according to Fox on May 9 and Wikileaks on July 7 an alleged missing 20000 emails from Mrs. Clinton's private server ended up on the DNC's server, was were hacked by Russian hackers, and somehow ended up in Wikileaks' hands? Can't wait for more breaking news. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Correction - Napolitano is not a Fox employee, he's a contributor, apparently reporting the news as it doesn't happen. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right, it does belong over there better. The timeline I created deliberately kept away from the fallout of the hack and release (since that's much more complicated, VERY subjective and evolving much more quickly) so it probably belongs there more than it does here.TheMikeBest (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK. I know where to find it while we’re slugging it out down here in the leaking swamps. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone roll back Volunteer Mareks deletes? Lets discuss sources first.

I don't know how to do it, and I feel so many changes at the same time of sourced bits should be discussed before. He seems to argue that a lot of the sources is not reliable. Maybe we could find a consensus about that before? Even biased sources can be reliable. And in political articles like this no source is really unbiased. OBD4 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of what he removed should have been removed as overly-detailed, trivial, and poorly-sourced. Many of the sources are not reliable, for example breitbart.com, Daily Mail, and atlantablackstar.com. It look to me like someone went on a fishing expedition to find information that would shame the DNC. Encyclopedia articles should concisely cover a subject without exhaustive detail, unnecessary quotes, and scandal mongering. There are also living people implicated, like Jordan Kaplan and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, necessitating that we use impeccable sourcing. We certainly can't say that someone sent racist emails based on the reportage of the Daily Caller!- MrX 14:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Adding my 2 cents worth: Considering the above timeline, the unknown hackers had weeks to doctor the material they took. How does anyone know at this point what's real and what isn't? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not that the sources are biased. Wall St. Journal or Forbes or MSNBC are biased. But they are reliable. Non-reliable means something else than unbiased - it means the source is basically crap. That applies to the sources I removed. This is an encyclopedia, not some random internet forum, and this is a BLP article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with those sources that makes them unreliable? I can't say that any other source would be more reliable. If they can link to the emails they have as sources that should be enough. I tried to find news about the donors getting rewards, but couldn't find any other source than Daily caller. Even though I had read the mail myself and knew it was very much news worthy. OBD4 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

They do not have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" (WP:RS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to be concerned about some of the material User:Volunteer Marek is removing. Granted, a lot of it was (arguably) trivial stuff, but removing a reference to the NY Times because of "UNDUE"? Seriously? ^Falling_Gravity 23:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The content of the nytimes article is good Gravity, but I tend to agree on the edit or removal for tone issues, could use a rewrite. Shaded0 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can find additional reliable sources - not the crap that was there before (like this [3]) - and write it so that it reflects the sources properly, I don't have a problem with this going back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Three-way collusion?

I'm trying to untangle an instance of WP:Citation overkill in the following sentence:

The leaked emails and attachments suggested unethical collusion between the DNC, Hillary Clinton's campaign, and some mainstream media.

References

I think the problem with this sentence is that it tries to set up a three party "unethical collusion" between the DNC, Hillary's campaign, and the Mainstream Media. The behind-the-scenes relationship between the DNC and Hillary's campaign is mentioned elsewhere in this section, so reiterating it here adds overdue weight to the article. References #5 and #6 bring up the ethics of draft-sharing, but I think the actual incident should be recounted instead of referring to it in vague terms. FallingGravity (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just read this Rolling Stone article, which might warrant inclusion on this subject. It says:

“ What's patently obvious from these emails is that there was virtually no distinction between DNC and Clinton campaign officials when it came to the handling of this media problem. They were all on the same team, working in tandem to try to talk down the likes of Vogel and Emery. ”

This kind of nullifies one of my previous points regarding three-way collusion. Seems like it was HRC officials and DNC officials working together to challenge some media claims. However, it doesn't appear that the media was "colluding" with these officials as the media did not necessarily respond in ways that they would have liked. FallingGravity (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I just added this information to the article but Volunteer Marek removed it. I do not believe this Rolling Stone article is an editorial piece, but an independent source that analyzes the contents of the leak. ^Falling_Gravity 00:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

First, there's no HRC officials in any of the emails AFAIK. Second, this is indeed an opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable and low-quality sourcing

I have gone through the article and deleted a significant quantity of citations to very low-quality sources (and text relying on such sources): The Daily Caller, The Blaze, and Breitbart among them. These are not reliable sources, and their use is especially egregious when used to accuse individuals of wrongdoing. A separate but related issue is that many of these citations were redundant (see citation overkill) - if we have 1 or 2 reliable sources, such as the Washington Post, we do not need to tack on several additional lower-quality sources, such as the Washington Times).

@MrX: and @Volunteer Marek: have previously also removed these bad cites, correctly noting their unreliability, but @Francewhoa: has restored these low-quality sources several times. Francewhoa, feel free to bring up the sourcing issue on this talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard, but please do not restore these cites. Neutrality^talk 21:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've found several additional bad sources and removed them:

• I've taken out citations to "atlantablackstar.com" and "blackmattersus.com" — the reliability of these sources does not seem established to me. "Atlanticblackstar.com," according to its website, is a "narrative company" run by "entrepreneurs" (not an established news outlet), and it appears to solicit posts from the public. "Blackmattersus.com" seems obscure and specifically identifies as a "raw" news outlet with an "aim" of telling stories that "the mainstream media keep out-of-sight." I see zero evidence of the hallmarks of a reliable source, per our policy: "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."
• I've also taken out citations to Gawker and "Independentsentinel.com." Gawker is a well-known gossip tabloid (its editor has expressly acknowledged that the publication doesn't fact-check beforehand: " "We aim to get the truth over time. The verification model is post-publication rather than pre-publication"). As for "IndependentSentinel.com," it specifically identifies itself as a right-wing "independent blog," apparently run by a single individual that "battle[s] the corrupted mainstream media." Again, there is no evidence of the hallmarks of a reliable source, per our policy: "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."

Neutrality^talk 21:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these sources do not belong in any encyclopedic article, much less one which has to do with living person as much as this one does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Neutrality :) Thanks for the information about citation overkill. I learned something new. Moving forward I'll try to keep only 1 or 2 sources instead of too many. Also too many sources feels cluttered. Thanks also for the link to the documentation about reliable source. I just read it. I'll try to take that into consideration for future edits. Happy editing :) Francewhoa (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to database with stolen data

I removed the link to the Wikileaks database of stolen data ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not journalism in any manifestation, and therefore not protected by Freedom of the Press protections: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30943886. Reminder: Wikipedia's servers are located in the US. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

DNC plans to reward wealthy donors with Federal appointments, slots on Boards and Commissions

The fact that the emails revealed how donors was going to be rewarded with positions on boards is the bigger news here. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/ That must be in the article. I would say this is the worst political scandal in US history.

I think it also need to be a text about how this split the democrats.

Hopefully someone that is better than me at English could write it :) OBD4 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This will probably be included, but I think it's best to wait a little bit right now for it to enter the main press, outside of the few blog posts that I see now. Since the FBI is currently investigating the leak, I'm pretty sure we'll see wide coverage of anything illegal or scandalous. FallingGravity (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Worst scandal in US history"? Uh ... Watergate? [4]. Anyway, it's common knowledge that both parties reward their donors with positions, both paid and unpaid (the pay is probably chump change to them), and access to events like presidential receptions (the prestige factor). Ambassadorships are very popular! This is no secret and neither party has tried to keep it a secret - this is part of the fundraising process. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this must be a worse scandal than Watergate, but maybe it won't make as huge impact on the public, and it also depends how much proof can be found. I think the rewarding of donors is kind of a "well known secret". I doubt that any party admitted that anyone is rewarded for their donations. That would be seen as serious corruption in any other western county. But maybe USA is different, I don't know enough to say.:) OBD4 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Different systems. In many Western countries political parties are funded by membership fees, tax-deductible contributions, and matching government funds. In the US, it's all about fundraising. You may want to google Citizens United, for example. As for the worst scandals in US politics, here's a starter list: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/top-ten-political-scandals-20110926. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fundraising is fine, rewarding donors with positions is corruption. OBD4 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there is probably no hurry right now. I guess Bernie can't back out from his support of Hillary anyway. The possible reason to hurry would be because this is big news right now and a lot of people are looking for information. But that is just my reasoning, maybe Wiki have other goals. OBD4 (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The goal of this article isn't to convince Bernie to stop supporting Hillary. I think our goal right now should be to provide reliable information and avoid recentism. FallingGravity (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Also to avoid interpreting primary sources and to write neutrally and weigh all viewpoints? [5] The article is a bit lacking in these respects at the moment. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that "The possible reason to hurry would be because this is big news right now and a lot of people are looking for information." OBD4 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody :) I agreed that the exposed DNC plans to reward big donors with Federal appointments, slots on Boards and Commissions is one of the most significant leaked information. I also agree to wait a bit for the main press to cover that news. Guess what? The wait was short, LOL ;) As of yesterday July 25, 2016 that news has entered the main press. With articles from the well known and reputable Huffington Post, New York Times, and Breitbart. My vote go to include that information. I'll try to draft something for review. All wiki contributions are welcome :) Francewhoa (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Done I just added a paragraph about the DNC plans to reward wealthy donors with Federal appointments, slots on Boards and Commissions. As you know it was reported by three well know mass medias mentioned above. To be considerate of that sensitive information, I tried to balance that paragraph with a statement from a White House official. The paragraph starts with "An email dated April 20, 2016, by the DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan, appears to..." Your wiki contributions and feedbacks are welcome :) Francewhoa (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph probably needs to start with something broader that mentions the emails revealed how donations work. I like the paragraph from the NY Times:

“ But the leaked cache also included thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies. ”

I don't think we need the whole quote, but a reduced version of this version could help the paragraph. I think we'll also need some more subsections because the "Contents" section is getting unmanageable. I'll probably add these things myself if no one wants to, but I'm going to be busy for the next few days. FallingGravity (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

How lucky is the RNC that their email servers weren't hacked by the Russians? (Well, they probably were but for whatever reason :) the hackers didn't release their emails. Honi soit qui mal y pense.[6]) Meanwhile in his glitzy ersatz-Versailles at the top of Trump Tower, the Donald is having his faux lion’s mane coiffed, while elsewhere the Koch Bros., Adelsons, and Pickens of this world are signing million-dollar checks to finance this election year’s smear campaigns and swiftboatings, and Vlad the shirtless horseman is chuckling into his tea. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

With this kind of political bias, you really shouldn't be editing this article. Dv4701 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased? I have informed opinions, and - you're right - I shouldn't have vented my exasperation on this talk page. (That's what private - repeat: PRIVATE - emails are for. :) All my edits of Wikipedia articles are strictly factual, properly sourced, and worded neutrally in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. In my opinion, there is plenty of bias in the article, though, it's just not mine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi FallingGravity and all :) I suggest the following two paragraphs. Which are based on the reputable NY Times, Huffington Post, and a reporter from non-profit, nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C., the CRP. To protect privacy I replaced names with job titles. How does that sound? Any other edits suggestion?

---

According to Alec Goodwin, reporter from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit, nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C., “Email exchanges involving top officials at the Democratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House.” Boards such as NEA, NEH, President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History, and USPS. Goodwin adds that “The White House strongly denied any link between financial support for the party and appointments.” A leaked email dated April 20, 2016, by the DNC National Finance Director reads “this is the last call for boards and commissions; if you have someone, send to [the DNC Finance Chief] - full name, city, state, email and phone number.”

The New York Times reported: "the leaked cache also included thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."

---

Francewhoa (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Just noting that the content for 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak#Donor and financial information is largely duplicative of what was said two paragraphs before at 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak#Financial information. Are both needed? —Salton Finneger (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of extraneous material

I deleted a sentence about an alleged misuse of DNC funds by Mrs. Wasserman Schultz because neither the sentence nor the referenced source were connected with the hacked emails. I am considering another sentence on her for removal, as well, but waiting on opinions: "Shortly thereafter, she was given an honorary chair in the Hillary Clinton campaign's fifty-state strategy." What is its connection to the emails supposed to be? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Mr. Assange

The article is not be a platform for any of the actors in the events. No platform for voicin their opinions on their alleged foes or why he considers them to be their foes or why they done him wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tobby72:His stated motive for publication is that he wants to harm the candidate, and that is relevant to the article. His justification is that he thinks the candidate wronged him, and this is not a platform for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It provides some context and motive so I'm not totally opposed to including this. The article has other serious problem (non reliable sources all over the place).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: This is completely out of context. He wasn't doing it just for fun. Regarding to your edit, the NYT article says: "He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe. ... First, citing his “personal perspective,” Mr. Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him after WikiLeaks disseminated a quarter of a million diplomatic cables during her tenure as secretary of state." -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tobby72: I want to keep it for the reasons @Volunteer Marek: mentions, but I would rather have his own words than a quote of a summery of a quote. I will see if I can find that. OBD4 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this is the original interview with Preston and he never call her a "personal foe", just "a problem". So I think the text should be removed. It gives a false impression that Assange is motivated by a personal dislike of Clinton. Very unprofessional of NYT to write lies like that I must say. So is anyone against a removal of the text or have any other thoughts? OBD4 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a strong political motive here. See "Why Julian Assange Doesn’t Want Hillary Clinton to Be President", The Observer, 24 June 2016.

Assange wrote on WikiLeaks in February 2016: "Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more. I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States.” -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek:- I’m a bit confused now about what you meant. Do you suggest removing the entire paragraph or keeping it with my edit or reverting it back to its original version? See also replies to Tobby72 and OBD4 below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Tobby72: @OBD4: See also question for Volunteer Marek, above. What I meant to say and apparently didn’t is this: I changed the paragraph to reflect what the NY Times said in their lead-in, i.e., motive for publishing is harming the candidate’s campaign. Further down the article quotes him verbatim on his reasons for this motivation but in my opinion that’s not relevant for the article. I wasn’t too sure about the placement of the paragraph. It’s not really about media coverage or public perception but it doesn’t belong in Contents or Reactions either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: He never said that he was going to harm Hillarys chances, from what I can recall of that interview. I would prefer a removal of that text since the NYT source is incorrect, and find some other source, maybe the interview directly, to find their motivations. My guess is that they just wanted to get as much attention as possible on the leak and that's it. OBD4 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• @OBD4: - That's the problem with giving interviews - you can't control what the audience thinks about what is said and what journalists write about it. The NY Times is a reliable source and the author is a reputable journalist. I quoted his summation from the lead paragraph. Wikipedia rules say that editors are not supposed to "... analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." No original research Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reaction from Florida delegation & DNC

I suggest adding the following to the "Reactions" section. Which includes reputable sources. How does that sound? Francewhoa (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

---

On July 25, 2016 speaking before the Florida delegation in Philadelphia, Wasserman Schultz was "booed off stage". Shortly thereafter, it was announced that Wasserman Schultz had 'abruptly' cancelled plans to gavel open the DNC convention.

---

Hi Volunteer Marek :) Would you like to expend on your reasoning for removing the whole section about the Florida delegation's reaction to the email leak? Their reaction is related to the DNC, the email leak, and who gavel open the DNC convention. Francewhoa (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, see below. It's off topic. It's "related" only in the sense that it all has to do with the 2016 election. You would need strong strong strong support in sources which directly link the "boo-ing" and "gavel-ing" to the email leaks. And even then it's undue and WP:NOTNEWS. There was sporadic boo-ing through out this convention. Actually, having watched a few conventions in the past, there's always some boo-ing. Do you really think that in five years anyone will remember that "oh my god, do you remember how the Florida delegation boo-ed... what's her name... Doris... no, Dylan... no, Debbie, yeah Debbie, at the 2016 convention"? No. This is just some people trying to use Wikipedia articles as attack pages and gleefully grave-dancing on Debbie's resignation. That's not what Wikipedia articles are for and it's not encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders campaign

Paragraph on DNC Press Secretary Paustenbach's email: Long story about press secretary pitching an idea to DNC spokesman who nixed it, but as long as it's there let's get all the facts straight. Maybe move it to Reactions section? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I got the facts straight but this is a case of "they (newspapers) said that he (press secretary) said which maybe shows bias against". Having trouble sorting it out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

something something Obama phone call

This edit restores material which is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. It's not about the leaks. Yes, you can connect one dot to another dot to another dot to yet another dot and eventually get to the fact that supposedly, allegedly, maybe Obama had to call DWS to get her to resign but at that point you're well past WP:UNDUE. And also WP:BLP. Seriously, this grave-dancing on Debbie Wasserman Schultz really. Needs. To. Stop. As much as people dislike her, this is an encyclopedia and we don't make our articles into attack pages against people we don't like (indeed, the whole point of WP:BLP is to protect the articles of unpopular persons, since the ones that everyone loves anyway don't really need it).

So there's the BLP problem. Additionally, this article by virtue of being part of the American politics 2016 topic area is implicitly or explicitly (not sure if I get the distinction) under discretionary sanctions. This means you cannot restore controversial content unless you obtain firm consensus to do so on talk. This hasn't even been attempted, nevermind actually achieved. So please don't put this back until you actually make that effort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh great, here we go with the brand new WP:SPAs trying to provoke edit wars. Why isn't this article semi'd? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't Palmer2015 who reinserted the piece on DWS, it was user Kelly. Palmer2015 had added a half-sentence above it which got caught in the fray. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Article turning into platform for Assange press releases

This article (and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks) has turned into a platform for unfiltered press releases by Mr. Assange, a man who has been hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2011 to avoid extradition from the UK to Sweden on rape charges, and who is trying to propagate the idea that Hillary/Obama/Hillary/Hillary/Obama is at the root of his legal problems. A man whose former supporters (all of whom incidentally forfeited the bail they had posted for him to get released from UK custody when he fled into the embassy) are now very vocally and publically denouncing him (http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemima-khan-julian-assange-how-wikileaks-founder-alienated-his-allies). What is the proper way to handle this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake - unfiltered press releases were removed from this article, but are still present in the DNC cyber attacks article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for your theories about Assange. If his statements are picked up in the media (and they frequently are) they will be used in Wikipedia articles. -Darouet (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Guccifer-branded operation

as it is called by Thomas Rid in his Motherboard article, also keeps returning in the form of "a hacker named", "a hacker known as" etc. when the story of the lone Romanian hacker has been thoroughly debunked and the references on the debunking are still in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Inserting line below because I don't know where those references come from. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Arstechnica editor claim

I cannot seem to find it in the associated reference? Can find another link though 1)i remain skeptical and 2)media is shooting the messenger. But hey, they are helping all they can88.159.65.76 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Curly quotation marks

@MrX: I didn't even realize that I was using them. Now that I do: How do I insert straight ones, other than copy and paste? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x: If you're editing using the default text editor, then when you type " it will be a straight quote. Word processors can change straight quotes to curly quotes, and I'm not sure about VisualEditor. What editor are you using?- MrX 10:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the default text editor, but I often do drafts in Mac TextEdit, and that's where the problem was. I just never noticed that the system default was curly quotes. I copied the drafts into the Wikipedia text editor with the curly quotes. Mystery solved! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Responsibility section

Until a number of my recent edits almost all information on claims of responsibility for the attack appeared uniquely in the lead. This is inappropriate: the WP:LEAD should summarize article information, not present large amounts of information that does not appear elsewhere. I've created a section titled "responsibility" and attempted to summarize it with two sentences in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Darouet :) Good idea. I agree with grouping related information into the same section. Discussion is welcome :)

I suggest to add the following paragraph. With prominent NSA source & reputable media. Thanks to Neutrality who contributed to that draft.

---

In an interview on Aaron Klein's radio program on July 31, 2016, William Binney, a former National Security Agency (NSA) official who left the agency in 2001, said that the NSA has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired. In a subsequent Fox & Friends appearance, Binney speculated that "a disgruntled member of the U.S. intelligence community" was responsible for the attack. Binney is referring to the July 22, 2016 DNC email leak.

---

Francewhoa (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Why is content about Clinton's emails being floated here? Binney's speculation about the DNC hack may be worth mentioning iff it's picked up by several more reliable sources. - MrX 17:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Several reasons for not including paragragraph: Clinton's emails are WP:OFFTOPIC in this article. Mr. Binney resigned from NSA in 2001 and had his security clearance revoked in 2007, so he may not be entirely unbiased. Also he was merely "speculating", according to the source. As for the only source, Fox and Friends, Fox themselves say that the show is entertainment, not a news program: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/arts/television/fox-friends-finds-ratings-and-controversy.html?_r=0. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding U.S. intelligence community consensus

I have removed the sentence about US intelligence community believing that Russia was behind the attacks.

A reliable source states the following: "The intelligence community, the officials said, has not reached a conclusion about who passed the emails to WikiLeaks." and "“We have not drawn any evidentiary connection to any Russian intelligence service and WikiLeaks — none,” said one U.S. official."

This is from (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/is-there-a-russian-master-plan-to-install-trump-in-the-white-house-some-intelligence-officials-are-skeptical/2016/07/27/788accf8-5428-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html) --2600:8800:2180:1ED:112A:4885:D08B:174 (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You're misreading the Washington Post article, which explicitly agrees with the New York Times article:

Intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an issue under investigation, said there is little doubt that agents of the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee, and the White House was informed months ago of Moscow’s culpability.
What is at issue now is whether Russian officials directed the leak of DNC material to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks — a possibility that burst to the fore on the eve of the Democratic National Convention with the release of 20,000 DNC emails, many of them deeply embarrassing for party leaders.
The intelligence community, the officials said, has not reached a conclusion about who passed the emails to WikiLeaks.

So there is no doubt that the intelligence community has concluded that Russians were to blame for the cyberattack. What is unclear is whether they also leaked the materials to WikiLeaks . I've added content from the Post article to make the cyberattack vs. leak distinction clear. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the Wikileaks-Russia connection in the article. --2600:8800:2180:1ED:112A:4885:D08B:174 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for flagging! Neutrality^talk 02:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of response by Assange and Russian Government

It's been suggested that any comment from the two principal purported actors (the Russian government and Wikileaks) be entirely excluded from the article on WEIGHT grounds despite the significant coverage they received:

• NBC
• CNBC
• Politico
• Haaretz
• Yahoo
• Daily News
• Newsweek
• NY Times
• Fortune

I can find more if necessary. I don't see any grounds for removal per WEIGHT. D.Creish (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My objection was about repeating a sentence verbatim and adding excessive material attributed solely to a single person. I hope that the compromise edit I made will be deemed acceptable.- MrX 00:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The thrust of the article is that "The Russians" were responsible and Assange was/is aware. If that tone is to be maintained we can't simultaneously maintain that summarizing Assange's comments on the hack and security of the servers in two sentences is excessive. You've removed one of those two sentences. I'd support restoring it. D.Creish (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with D.Creish--2600:8800:2180:1ED:B46C:3A08:17A5:D5C2 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: WikiLeaks/Assange are actors in this drama, not reliable, third-party sources. They have said that 1) they do not know who their source is, and 2) if they did, they would not release the information, and that's covered in the article with source. Getting coverage in the news for opinion statements is part of the 15-minute news cycle, but it's inappropriate for WikiPedia (WP:NOTNEWS etc.). The sentence needs to be removed. Also, you're misinterpreting the preceding paragraph. It needs a little reformulating, but it references reliable, third-party, published sources. I don't understand the article to say that "the Russians" are responsible; that's not the same as "Russian intelligence services" or hacker groups associated with and/or funded by them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If we had an article Wolf Blitzer Russian Spy Controversy documenting allegations that Wolf Blitzer was a Russian spy I think it would be reasonable to expect to find Wolf Blitzter's response in that article. The claim here is Assange and Wikileaks, knowingly or not, acted as agents of Russian Intelligence. It's similarly reasonable to find Assange's response in this article. The idea that an article exclude statements reported in multiple, high-quality, 3rd party sources simply because the statements come from 1st party sources is not based in any policy I can find. Can you point me to the section of WP:RS that suggests it? D.Creish (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have difficulty accepting that we should include Assange's bare statement "DNC servers have been riddled with security holes for years and that many sets of documents from multiple sources are now in public hands" without any third party analysis. As far as I can see, this has been covered by one reliable source and one blog post hosted on a website that is only slightly more reliable than Breitbart.com. This falls short of WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

I agree with MrX. It is simply not true that "any comment from the two principal purported actors (the Russian government and Wikileaks)" is excluded from the article. We specifically report, in the current article as it stands now,

The Russian government said it had no involvement in the theft.[25] Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that there was no proof that Russia was behind the attack.

We give a whole other short paragraph to Assange's remarks under "Media coverage and public perception":

The New York Times reported that Julian Assange stated in an interview on British ITV on 12 June 2016, that he hoped that the publication of the emails would "... harm Hillary Clinton's chances to win the presidency..." and that he had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[5][64] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign..." [65]

This seems to me to be sufficient — we give these figures' stated positions (denials, motivations, etc.). If we want to include further related follow-up factual information (such as WikiLeaks' foray into DNC conspiracy theories), that would be fine. But I see no need for a lot more redundant text from the Russians and Assange, especially unverifiable and self-serving quotes. Neutrality^talk 15:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: @Neutrality: I created this section in response to the removal of the comments you quote above from the Russian government and Assange concerning the source of the leak, which I restored. Space4Time3Continuum2x seems to be arguing for removal of that text as well.

Regarding the coverage of Assange's comments on server vulnerability, you may be correct, I will investigate. D.Creish (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's believed that the Russian government is responsible for the leaks, then whether they are or aren't, it's only reasonable to include their denials or commentaries. And as for Assange, since his organization is responsible for some of the major leaks, and since he is quoted in the news every other day, it makes sense to include his well-publicized comments as well. Even if I thought he was lying through his teeth I'd want to know what he had to say, and apparently major media sources want to know too. -Darouet (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet:@D.Creish: My main objection to the quote was this: The one-sentence paragraph at the end of the Responsibilities section gives it prominence of placement, like the last word in the debate, i.e., the ultimate authority on the affair has spoken - case closed, but maybe I’m reading too much into it.

Also, "there is no proof" is a sound-bite without journalistic input or follow-up; it’s news like a two-headed chicken crossing the road is news. All the sources repeat a news agency report sent out by NBC on their interview of Assange in which he contradicts himself ("we don’t comment on who our sources are" - except when we say who they are not and when we are speculating about murder victims) and the investigators who presented forensic evidence that convinced a large number of reliable sources. What is he basing his evaluation of the presented evidence on, i.e., what are the investigators misinterpreting, etc.? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources: Last week John Oliver devoted his entire program to the current state of journalism: youtube Guardian. Bonus: Wolf Blitzer is mentioned, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Contents" section

Now that the hoopla and feeding frenzy seem to have subsided, it’s time for fact-checking and verification of sources.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's emails

Deletion of sentence because of non-issue. The original headline said: "Chaos At Nevada Democratic Convention; DNC Leaders Flee Building As Sanders Supporters Demand Recount". RealClear Politics didn’t get their facts straight (why let the facts get in the way of a good headline or storyline?), and, when the DNC demanded a retraction, they grudgingly and unapologetically complied by correcting the headline. It was the chair of the Executive Board of the Nevada State Democratic Party who left the building. While she is also one of 64 members of the DNC Executive Committee, she isn’t one of their leaders, and the convention was a state party and not a DNC affair. The Fox News source ref took it a step further by confusing the Nevada convention with the Democratic National Convention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Far from being a "non-issue", this issue was notable enough to be reported by a reliable source. While you personally may not find this information to be particularly notable, Fox News did. Masebrock (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As I see it the relevant questions are whether the original headline was inaccurate (debatable - how many party executives are "leaders" by definition 10? 100?) and consequently whether the (leaked) response was proportionate (also debatable.) An argument could be made either way so defer to the RS - if Fox is the only source reporting it, which seems to be the case, I'm in favor of keeping it out. D.Creish (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

These are the DNC officers considered to be "Our Leaders" by the Democrats; also "Current leadership" section here. None were reported present at Nevada state convention, as far as I know. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. I would keep information in, but give the sentence very little weight and emphasis. I would remove the Shultz quote since out of place quotes are difficult for the reader to place in context. Masebrock (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Grammar correction

The definitive article is not used with titles if combined with names. If you want to put the emphasis on the job title and add the name as a non-defining relative clause, you would say "the Chairman of the RPC, name," and add the name in commas. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC) And hanging my head in shame: It's definitely not "definitive". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Russian Embassy quote

The embassy is Russia’s representation in the US and speaks on their behalf. Their press release to Russian news agency Interfax wasn’t picked up by any news media, and Interfax is "restricted by the Kremlin’s dominance", i.e., generally not a reliable source. The Russian govt’s denial is already covered in the "Responsibility" section; no need for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So Russian media isn't reliable because US media says so? What do you think Russian media says about US media? Masebrock (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, you can't dismiss an entire media outlet because of an offhand sentence at the bottom of a HuffPo piece. I doubt the reliability of such a source. Masebrock (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've included their second response in the paragraph with the first, and pared both down to make them more concise. Because Russia is blamed for the attack their position is relevant, but there's no reason to duplicate it in the section. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Masebrock (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The article was written by journalist Timothy Heritage, Reuters’ Brussels Bureau Chief and European Affairs Editor (he’s British, I believe). It was released by Reuters and picked up by HuffPo and other papers, the Chicago Tribune, for example. (The problem with HuffPo, IMO, is that it publishes reliable sources like this alongside the unfiltered opinions of the tinfoil-hatted.) The Russian government hasn’t just clamped down on their internal news media, closing down news agencies, newspapers, TV and radio stations and throwing journalist and editors in jail under a variety of trumped-up charges, but they are also running disinformation campaigns all over the world to sow distrust among NATO allies, for example. Here are some examples from the US, Sweden, and Germany. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

{removed possible misinterpretation of post}. The issue at hand is that the classification of Interfax as unsuitable for Wikipedia citation is based on a source (Reuters) that does not place the statement in the appropriate context to warrant such a strong non-reliability claim (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). One reason this context shows a weak claim is because the article is not about how Interfax is an unreliable source, and in fact says "Putin's decree appeared to have little effect on the ... private Interfax". Masebrock (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's his/her argument. See strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the argument that Interfax is not a reliable source regarding their quote from the embassy? The claim made by Interfax, the secondary source, can easily be verified by checking the primary source (the Embassy's Facebook). Masebrock (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don’t doubt that the Russian embassy issued the statement and that Interfax released it. My arguments against including another Russian denial were that their denial was already mentioned twice in the article (i.e., no need to add another denial every time they issue one), that Interfax HAS to publish official announcements given to them by government representatives, and that the rest of the world ignored the announcement because it wasn’t news or whatever. My post on September 2 was about you seemingly believing that there is no difference between the reliability of Russian and US media (my apologies if I misunderstood you) and questioning the reliability of Mr. Heritage’s assessment of the status of Russian media. I added some recent references on Russian disinformation efforts which back up the article he wrote in 2013. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

Currently, there is a second nomination for deletion at a discussion - (an AfD) - pertaining to this article, taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, this post is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Contents?

what even is this: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1802#searchresult should this be in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.204.162 (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Since John Podesta isn't a member of the Democratic National Committee, I believe this leak would go somewhere else. It could go on the WikiLeaks article, or maybe a new article like Podesta email leak (currently a redirect). ^Falling_Gravity 18:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Scrubbed of Mention of Tim Canova

Volunteer_Marek (talk · contribs) recently scrubbed all mention of Tim Canova from this page. I reverted that removal. Rather than mention anything here, he simply reverted again, pushing to edit war. However, I restrict my reverts to a single revert per 24 hours per personal policy.

This deserves some more eyes. Here's what the user removed: [7]. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the first couple reverts until coming here, but the last removal - which I undid - is an admittedly partisan edit and tends to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. The Canova material is reliably sourced and a central part of this leak. An explanation that "nobody cares, nothing happened" is indistinguishable from WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "partisan edit", and I don't appreciate it being characterized as such. I removed it because it's an example of "outdated recentism". At one point in time, five months ago, one could perhaps plausibly argue that this info was notable. That all the noise Canova was making about suing people was notable. But it has been five months and nothing happened. Show me some RECENT sources on this topic. So in addition to WP:UNDUE it also violates (and really, always did) WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Either that or it simply follows your general pattern of editing to keep Wikipedia as pro-DNC and as friendly to the Clinton Campaign as possible. Anyone can see your edit history and comments such as those you made in your second revert can't be ignored. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that asking you to discuss content not editors is pointless?

Anyway. Got any RECENT sources on this or no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No recent coverage of the moon landing, maybe it's time for an AfD nomination. There is no requirement for recent coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For news items there sure is. This was UNDUE when it happened but at least then you could scrape together a source or two. Now, the complete absence of sources (wasn't he threatening to follow a lawsuit?) clearly shows that this had no lasting notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Location of "responsibility" section

While I believe the lead should include content on speculation about Russian involvement, it is not appropriate to include the varied responses of US officials and cyber security firms at the very top of the article body, before any description of the leak release, timeline or contents.

The contents of the emails remain at the top of today's headlines (see also CNN, NYT, USA Today, Business Insider, and this Google Trends comparison, whatever it's worth). @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I trust this edit, with the explanation that alleged Russian responsibility "belongs before the content of the emails which has pretty much faded from public interest," is not an attempt at Civil POV pushing, and is instead a result of well-intentioned obliviousness regarding ongoing media coverage.

I think it's important to get outside opinion on this. It's hard to approach the topic without noticing that the two options presented - emphasizing possible Russian involvement or not - are exactly the strategies employed by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. I don't know what to do about that here, practically, but we should be up front about the issue. -Darouet (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a post at WP:NPOVN to see if editors would recommend discussion there or a larger RfC. Mandruss recently launched one for another election-related controversy and I specifically asked their input. -Darouet (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• This article is about the hacking of the DNC server(s) and subsequent publication of content stolen from it. I've looked at your references, and they are all about content found in Podesta's hacked Gmail account. That's a different subject and a different Wikipedia article. I haven't seen any recent mentions of the emails published on July 22, at least not in reliable sources. I agree with Geogene's edit summary (Actually, most sources are confident they know 'who' is responsible. Further, sources seem more interested in the culprit than the content of the stolen emails). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

7th Floor Group

@Geogene: You removed the 7th Floor Group section, calling it a "conspiracy theory" in your reason. You do know that the group is explicitly spoken of in the FBI documentation, which means that it's not a "conspiracy theory", right? I added that content, and I don't do conspiracy theories – if something is validated as true, then it is fact. Bay of Pigs Invasion? Fact. PRISM? Fact. 7th Floor Group? Fact. ... Now ... Illuminati, flat earth, lizard people, and gay-Muslim-Jewish-Socialist-Communist-Kenyan-Obama? Yea, all stupid conspiracy theories, and will most likely stay that way, forever. It is right to call those things conspiracy theories – actually, conspiracy "myths". Not so, with this. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 02:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That was a knee jerk reaction on my part, because the last time I heard the phrase "shadow government", Mulder and Scully were being sent to investigate. But I see that that is in the FBI report (primary source). I still don't see why it's a big deal. State's Seventh Floor is the clubhouse where the secretary and other bigwigs play politics, because that's where their offices are. I think the content is okay if reliable secondary sources are talking about whatever politics they were playing. That they meet in the building where it's public knowledge that their offices are, or that some bureaucrats jokingly call them the "shadow government", are trivia. There's a lot more colorful material in that report by the way, than this boring factoid, so I'm not sure why anyone cares. Geogene (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: I proposed a Merge, over at the Talk:7th Floor Group page. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 02:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section once before because the source is the FBI file, and we're not supposed to do original research. I also don't see the connection to this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory, it seems to just be a group of people who met to decide how to work with the FBI and other authorities so that the emails were released on more favorable terms. It deserves a couple sentences. -Darouet (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the CNBC report referenced in the 7th Floor Group article, the FBI investigation report is about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business when she was Secretary of State, so - as in the case of the hacking of Mr. Podesta’s private Gmail account - there’s also no connection to the hacking and publishing of data from the DNC servers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

As much as I hate Trump, his election as president was probably not influenced by a WikiPedia article relating to Bernie Sanders. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, so any factual evidence can be added into the relevant article. Sorry! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Russian involvement

I created an umbrella article Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election, given the independent notability of the topic and the scope larger than the email leak. Please help expand it.--DarTar (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Craig Murray

Murray is an Assange surrogate, i.e., a primary source. Anything he says needs to be looked at with a great amount of skepticism, especially this sudden and conspicuous about-face from "nobody knows who the source is" to "we know him/them and met his/their representative", suspiciously timed to come right on the heels of the CIA assessment on Russian involvement. I would have thought that any self-respecting reporter talking to him would have followed up this sensational development with questions. Yet, nothing, which is business-as-usual for the Daily Mail which is actually the source for the Washington Times. Also, "former ambassador" probably is supposed to make him sound like an expert; I don’t see how being ambassador to Uzbekistan makes him an expert on Russia or cyber attacks. Without any corroboration, his statement is given undue weight here. I’m therefore removing it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks and Assange have consistently said that the source of the leaks was not the Russian government. They have not said the "nobody knows who the source is" and instead have stood by their practice of not discussing sources. Others have hinted that the source was from inside the DNC (from Bernie supporters). Now Murray has come out and confirmed this. Being a former ambassador does bolster his claim and gives him more standing than another wikileaks representative. This is not to say that the DNC servers, as well as Hillary's emails weren't hacked. They were....probably by many governments. This article is about the release from wikileaks. This section is about who gave the documents to wikileaks. Who they say gave them the documents has to be included. Mpszafir (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the comments on Murray in this, also the article itself. Assange is changing his story. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Murray's statements were also sourced from The Guardian. But I think even the Daily Mail would give accurate information about who Craig Murray is and what he said. This article is full of nebulous conclusions passed along by people who won't even give their names. I think a little balance is in order. Thundermaker (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Democratic National Committee cyber attacks be merged into 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. These two pages cover the same material and appear to be content forks. 11Eternity11 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would support. The sources now seem to clearly indicate that the leaked data was stolen in the cyberattacks. The combined page could be Democratic National Committee cyberattacks and email leak. Neutrality^talk 04:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Support, combining both pages to Democratic National Committee cyberattacks and email leak. Sagecandor (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see below. Sagecandor (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being. Let's wait for the results of the review ordered by President Obama. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x. There is not deadline. ^Falling_Gravity 08:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as there are multiple investigations ongoing and likely all related articles will get expanded. Sagecandor (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with waiting for the results of the multiple investigations. There are a number of related articles, not just the two that pertains to the merger proposal (See the "See also" section). Each article is topic specific with its own take on events and this might be the most effective way to deleiver all this information. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The influence article contains other stuff too, like state-sponsored trolling. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It may turn out that the hack and the leak are not related. The leak could have been from DNC whistleblower(s). Mpszafir (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Will have to wait as more information comes out to confirm that this was a part of the DNC cyber attack, but I highly doubt it. If I remember correctly, wikileaks was threatening leaking info before the attack happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abimiller (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RNC hacking allegation

The allegation that Russia successfully hacked the RNC is paper-thin. It's based on an anonymous white house official's takeaway from an unspecified intelligence agency's briefing. It's based on a 35-word article from the Houston Chronicle. [8]

There are also sources which dispute the allegation. [9] [10] Inserting it in here, uncontested, with wording that indicates it was a conclusion drawn by the same agencies that said Russia hacked the DNC, seems to violate some policies, including WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Thundermaker (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

One more source -- the Wall Street Journal -- says the RNC hacking was unsuccessful. [11]. Thundermaker (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to agree with this, but it appears the reports of the RNC successfully hacked by the Russians can be disputed based on the sources provided above in this section. I reccomend please viewing the sources provided. It appears the New York Times and other outlets may have it wrong. I guess we will have to wait and see. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Twitter and things

Just throwing this here regarding this revert, but Twitter is actually a reliable source for what those individuals themselves said, per WP:SELFPUB. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The WikiLeaks tweet is about a different leak. Applying this to the DNC leak is pure WP:SYNTH. ^Falling_Gravity 20:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Source 14

This source provides no direct quotes from anyone regrading the US Senate and CIA testimony. It's completely unreliable hearsay, and should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.194.222 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed

This. Why poor quality of water in the city of Flint was related to email leaks? This is completely unclear from text. This does not belong to the page. Just to be clear, this is recent insertion by another user [12]. So I reverted it per WP:BRD. Please do not reinsert disputed text without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be from the wrong set of leaked emails. See Podesta emails#Debate questions shared by Donna Brazile. Needless to say, it has no place here. ^Falling_Gravity 21:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, the link/section you are giving explains what it was about. So, yes, this should be on another page and properly explained. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"However" and WP:EDITORIALIZING

Removed word, "however", from the intro, per WP:EDITORIALIZING. [13]

The reader can understand the two sentence without the word "however", which violates WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarly for word, "though", in that usage. [14] Sagecandor (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This too, in the Contents intro, is editorializing: "...including credit card and Social Security numbers, which could facilitate identity theft" The emails could possibly be used to facilitate many things, such as the exposure of illegal collusion with super pacs, etc, yet the "identity theft" possibility one is the only one cherrypicked (and it is actually taken from an article which claims the content of the emails have no importance!). There are no recorded cases of identity theft resulting from the release and this overemphasized content weasely carry's with it an implication that a purpose of the leak was to facilitate identity theft. The Snowdon / Wikileaks "curated release" versus "dump it all" issue should be covered elsewhere in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible curation?

In an article by Buzzfeed, anonymous DNC staffers are quoted as saying not all of the emails were released by WikiLeaks. If a higher quality source covers this then I think it can be added. ^Falling_Gravity 04:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should really look at how much credit we give to the citations from columnist news sites that have been discredited as people look to wikipedia as a factual basis. Simply put we should tell the reader the validity of the citations or not include them at all. EXAMPLE Citation 34:: The Hill. Wikipedia is better than this #fakenews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmare (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comey transcripts as source

Regarding this edit [15], where I removed newly added content from the Lead that was using this [16] as the source...shouldn't it have a secondary source to establish WP:Weight? Congressional testimonies largely exist as political theater, where each side plays "gotcha" with witnesses. We can play gotcha here at Wikipedia too if all we need to do is mine the Congressional record for zingers...or whatever we feel like putting in articles. I also think that the line accusing the Democrats of "stonewalling" the FBI is POV. pinging Cllgbksr, Gandydancer Geogene (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good argument. It's OK with me if you remove it and thanks for the notification. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. I've added a secondary source to the edit The Washington Post. I agree with User:Geogene that the Congressional hearings are often if not mainly used to score political points by both parties. A lot of political hyperbole occurs and showboating for the media. However, in this case the concurrence to Chairman Grassley's question was made by the former highest ranking intel person Clapper who was leading his agency at the time the DNC refused to cooperate with the FBI's investigation of the foreign hacking of its server. Clapper wasn't a low level employee, he was as high as it gets. That's why I felt his concurrence as it relates to the lack of cooperation by the people at the DNC has encyclopedic importance. He could have answered it 100 different ways but Clapper concurred. I'll let the WP populous decide if it has encyclopedic importance. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Good that you've checked in. OK, I did try to google for info and found nothing...but I must say that I did not try very hard. You seem to know what you're talking about (:)) and you have changed my thinking. Gandydancer (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the impetus for this was a Trump tweet from the other day [17]. I'm finding [18], a source I'm not familiar with, and a Slate piece, [19]. These are potentially usable. Still opposed to using Sen. Grassley's "stonewalling" in Wikipedia's voice. Geogene (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit wasn't generated from a Tweet. Like to make a suggestion, maybe use it in a different section of the article (Reactions?) instead of the lede and eliminate the Grassley stonewall language and go with cooperation wording. Where the reader understands there was a lack of cooperation but not using Grassley's stonewall phrase. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Was waiting for Geo to check in... Anyway, that seems like a good move to me. Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a secondary source from Slate and changed it a bit to match. Original [20] With my changes [21]. I mentioned that Clapper was agreeing with Republicans, and that the DNC claims that they weren't asked for server access, but that Comey said they were asked on multiple occasions. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good Geo.Cllgbksr (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be editor’s POV. IMO the paragraph isn’t supported by either the primary or the secondary source. The secondary source (Wolfson blog on Slate) doesn’t mention Clapper or the Senate hearing at all, and she is undecided on whether the FBI was "… denied access or simply never asked for it …". The only mention of the real or alleged FBI request(s) in the transcript of the Senate hearing appears to be what I’ve put in block quotes below. I don’t see how "I generally think that’s a very good idea" translates to "[Clapper] agreed with Republican senators that people at the DNC should have cooperated with the FBI's investigation of the foreign hacking of its server by allowing the FBI direct access instead of relying on private internet security companies". Comey is mentioned only in connection with the "incidental (intelligence) collection on an American person".

GRASSLEY: The FBI notified the Democratic National Committee of the Russian's intrusion into their systems in August of 2015, but the DNC turned down the FBI's offer to get the Russians out and refused the FBI access to their servers. Instead, it evidently eventually hired a private firm in the spring of 2016. WikiLeaks began releasing the hacked DNC e-mails last July. It took roughly 27,000 of the 27,500 DNC e-mails it released were e-mails sent after the FBI notified the DNC of the breach.

Mr. Clapper, would you agree that one of the lessons of this episode is that people should cooperate with the FBI when notified of foreign hacks instead of stone walling?

CLAPPER: Yes, sir. I generally think that's a very good idea.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

FBI says they will investigate leak

It should be clarified that the FBI did not examine the DNC computers themselves. Instead, the DNC contracted with CrowdStrike to investigate and the FBI fully accepted their conclusions without question. 24.254.11.36 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)B16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)24.254.11.36 (talk)B

russian claims not supported

the claims that intelligence agencies concluded russia was behind it are false. no formal assessment has been made

No they're not. Yes it has.- MrX 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You have changed it but it is still not accurate. There is no fo4mal assessment from any agency which supports this article's claim. It was just a fake news talking point. There is actually no evidence of a hack at all, it is just as likely a leak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No she was not clearly headed for victory

Please remove the phrase "clearly headed for victory". She was never electable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.100.29 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a quotation. It's also referring to the Democratic primary, which she won decisively. Geogene (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)