Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:21, 25 July 2016

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Politics Stub‑class Low‑importance

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

United States Stub‑class Low‑importance

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages talkpage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.100.46.68 (talk) 05:13, 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" . 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 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)

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)

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

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

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)

• Stub-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Stub-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles