Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 12 October 2016 (→Latest WikiLeaks Dump: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Susan Estrich

The Estrich quotation can be found here. As noted it's flagrant revisionism, Brazile was forced to quit because she repeated a rumor with no underlying basis. Ellsworth 21:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you delete the characterization of Estrich's remarks, please state why it is not flagrant historical revisionism. A characterization is not inherently removable is POV if it's accurate, is it? Ellsworth 20:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll go with User:JCarriker's edit on historical revisionism - adding that Brazile's own account differs, see Cooking With Grease (her autobio.) Ellsworth 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments regarding a possible 2008 Al Gore candidacy

I removed this section because it is unsourced and, in my view, harmful to the article. The article is, of course, about a living person. See Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material for recommended best practices. Jerimee 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frightening Thought That a Person That Biased Is Teaching in Colleges

Given the stunning ideological bias of Donna Brazile, it is frightening to think that she is "teaching" kids and conveying to them her view of life in terms of gender and racial oppression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazile supports Obama?

I removed statements that Brazile secretly harbors "contempous feelings" toward the Clintons and supports Obama. The source provided is an alleged email correspondence from a Hillary supporter's blog. Assuming this is a reliable source, Brazile simply does not say she supports Obama or that she would not support Clinton. She explicitly states "If I make a decision to go with Obama" (emphasis mine). Casting her comments as an endorsement is simply POV and SYN. Queerudite (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there does need to be a section about current controversies concerning Brazile's statements from this election as well as here animosity towards some supporters. There does need to be a clear and reliable reference source for this but it is true that Ms. Brazile has made statements recently that have become a part of her biographical story. Perhaps this should be handled encyclopedicaly but I think it should be included.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post just had an article which used an e-mail from Brazile. However it did not include the ENTIRE e-mail. We shall see this play out soon enough as this is getting media attention and coverage of statements is good enough at this point to add to this page. I will however wait for the full story to hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.166 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"equating Atheism to Terrorism"

I'm deleting this as the source quoted doesn't have her saying anything even remotely close to that.

Here's what I heard from the Video (Second video on page, first doesn't even have her appearing.

"You know Wolf, there are alot of believers, I'm one of them, and there are people out there who just don't believe int he existence of a god, and I don't know why because uh clearly there is strong evidence of - we - we there is a god, But I believe that you serve all the people not just those who profess to have faith, but those who have little or no faith, that's how you convert them."

While I find that last sentence somewhat disturbing, nothing in it or the rest of what she says is equating atheism to terrorism or even anything negative at all. If My ears somehow fed me a completely different audio than the video, go ahead and revert my changes, but thats word for word what I heard her say. Nar Matteru (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Full Transcript: Nar Matteru (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

There has just been a change of her year of birth, moving it from 1959 to 1958.

Neither her personal webpage, nor CNN's webpage have the year, in fact they seem to be copies of each other. However, there is a USA Today webpage (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1861.htm) which says 1959. This is however a badly formatted page, seemingly orphaned but still containing her DOB.

Is this a good enough source quote as authorative?

Gorillatheape (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod Affair

Maureen Downd's op-ed piece in today's NYT says, "t was Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, who, after hearing the entire speech, pushed to get it out and helped clear Sherrod’s reputation on CNN."  Is this worth mentioning if it's correct? Kdammers (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Carville was Clinton's Lead Campaign Adviser, Not Brazile

She only served as one of his advisers. I saw the documentary about his campaign, The War Room, and the movie showed he was definately in charge of Clinton's campaign. Many different sources also say his main campaign staff members were George Stephanopolous, James Carville and Paul Begala.71.63.233.66 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Education?

What, where and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.220.107 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Donna Brazile/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DS

Just so people want miss it, especially in regard to this Wikileaks notice, this article falls under the scope of discretionary sanctions. I've added the tag above. Here are the restrictions again:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages's general sanctions: All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Facts do not require consensus

Content has been removed on this page which was factual and supported by sources. The changes are being tracked and the editor responsible is also watching other DNC officials' pages with edits being contested. Facts supports by works produced by the page subject (Brazile) including her own published emails and her own interview responses are appropriate for inclusion if cited. Do not remove content before engaging the editors in Talk. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section about discretionary sanctions right above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit also violates WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY. Generally, you can't use primary sources for controversial material and you *definitely* cannot use such in a biography of a living person (BLP).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek with this. You cannot use an email by her to say that she is implicated in the controversy unless reliable sources say that. My reading of the email is that Brazile disagreed with the Sanders campaign over their representation in platform committees but did not want to become involved. Whether her position was right or wrong it does not show egregious bias. Clinton won the most delegates and wanted to control the platform committees. Normally a party national committee were allow her to do that. TFD (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CCNV work?

Why no mention of her work with CCNV and Housing Now(1989), along with other organizing work with Hands Across America(IIRC), etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.159.47 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest WikiLeaks Dump

I have fleshed out the "2016 Presidential Campaign" section, adding her inclusion in the last WikiLeaks email dump. Please feel free to add new information as this story develops, including any calls to step down from her post. Someone may want to add a note about her interview with George Stephanopolous, and her refusal to "open that document" as the WikiLeaks revelations are "postmarked from Russia."

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Women's History articles
• Unknown-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles