Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 4 August 2019 (→Fringe nonsense: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message 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. Politics: American Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dates need to be more clearly noted in each paragraph throughout this article.

I am asking for more clarity within the article on dates, and all other major events. Under sub-heading : Responsibility, topic, Cybersecurity analysis, this paragraph:

The FBI requested (on what date did they ask for this?), but did not receive, physical access to the DNC servers. The FBI did obtain copies of the servers and all the information on them (on what date did they obtain this?), as well as access to forensics, from CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity company that reviewed the DNC servers.

"Contents" is too general of a heading = Publicly released private information

"Contents" is too general of a heading to describe the information acquired by third parties and its importance, so a more descriptive heading, "Publicly released private information", was chosen to improve the article. Should the Wiki Contents box's first entry be Contents?69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Headings should be kept simple, the section discusses just that, the contents of the leak, a synonym might be fine, also the Podesta emails article has a similar heading. Seeing as there was no consensus for this edit it should be kept as it was.--Loganmac (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Some emails were altered before they were leaked

AP reports: "But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press. The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document . Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention." (source: Raphael Satter for AP News – Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails. Nov. 04, 2017) Is it possible to inlcude this information into the article? --Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Messages vs Messengers

Although the title of this article reasonably accommodates both message (content of emails) and messenger (allegations of source), the preponderance of text about the latter gives WP:Undue Weight. Particularly egregious is the section "Media coverage and public perception" which does not cite any public perception (e.g., polls).

That section includes an indented quote from Anne Applebaum asserting that the media is somehow wrong for focusing on content, which the "Reactions" section shows was a shocking set of diverse dirty tricks. Instead of using Applebaum's complaint about what the media should have been doing in July 2016, let's show some quotes from actual media commentary about the content as well as some semblance of "public perception" (say, an interview of supposedly random people on the street, if not an actual poll).

There also seems to be WP:POV expressed in using an indented quote from James Risen at the end of "Reactions" (immediately before the "Media coverage and public perception" section) that "chides" the media for covering message instead of messenger.

In fact, there have not been claims that any of the emails were fabricated, so the message should be paramount. If no one wants to excise the Risen quote (which is redundant with the subsequent Applebaum quote), then we should at least quote a media person who feels that content takes precedence over source -- if we feel that Risen's attack is worth including, wouldn't it be fair to include someone's defense as well? Martindo (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hack, not Leak

Mueller report confirms this was a hack originated from the GRU, not a "leak" from an insider. The difference is very important. Article should be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedsangha (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Fringe nonsense

Two editors are restoring content sourced to an absurdly idiotic Nation piece which repeats the ramblings of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who were literally just aping some Russian disinformation that a pro-Kremlin hacker fed them. William Binney who ran wildest with this on behalf of VIPS, appearing on Fox News to push this nonsense, later rejected that the manipulated documents were valid and concluded that they did not support the inside job theory.

Yet, here we are now in 2019, and editors are still pushing to include this fringe BS into this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk): You asked me to revert my recent edit to this article. However, I can't. According to the article Talk page, an editor is limited to one revision per 24 hours, and my revision was only a couple hours ago. Sorry. Also - you might want to ease up on characterizing others' edits as nonsense, absurd, idiotic, aping, and bullshit; this is unbecoming. I suggest more civility in your future rants. Cheers. BattleshipGray (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Computer Security articles
• Mid-importance Computer Security articles
• Start-Class Computer Security articles of Mid-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• Start-Class Internet articles
• Low-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles