Talk:2016 United States election leaks
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States election leaks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Input from other editors
[edit]Long thread about article creation and first draft Softlemonades (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Any other editors have thoughts on this? The merge proposal in August only got one vague comment and no one else has really edited or commented on it. If there are ways to improve it, Id love to hear from others or get other people working on it @NadVolum in the merge proposal you said it wasnt a merge, it was a bad rewrite but didnt explain. Most of the content came from the main pages, some was just moved around for chronology or to keep things in certain sections. If you can talk about any specific problems, Id love to hear them Also pinging @Cambial Yellowing @Burrobert @Jack Upland as editors Ive seen active on WikiLeaks pages. Invite anyone else or make any edits or leave any comments you want Why make this page?
Softlemonades (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I am almost completely uninterested in US politics so don’t want to spend much time on this. The Wikileaks DNC publications is an order of magnitude less important than its Iraq and Afghanistan publications. I have looked at some of the points of interest and here are some comments: 1. You have covered the DNC suit against Trump, Wikileaks etc quite well. 2. You have been too kind to the notoriously dodgy Steele dossier. 3. The Wasserman Schultz resignation is fine. You could perhaps mention that Wasserman Schultz called the president of MSNBC to pressure Morning Joe co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and partner Joe Scarborough tone down their criticism of Clinton. 4. We should advise readers what stage the indictment of the 12 Russians has reached. Has there been an initial hearing? Have they entered a plea etc? 5. We should mention that the Justice Department failed to have the FBI take possession and conduct its own forensic examination of the DNC servers. There are a number of conflicting stories about why this happened. The DNC said the FBI didn’t ask. The FBI said the DNC rebuffed its request to examine the computer servers. Crowdstrike has some other version. 6. I cant’ see where the following appears in the Democracy Now source provided: “in a later interview on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention". The closest I could find is: “in this case, we knew, because of the pending DNC, because of the degree of interest in the U.S. election, we didn’t need to establish partnerships with The New York Times or The Washington Post. In fact, that might be counterproductive, because they are partisans of one group or another”. There is a sentence in the NYTimes source which says: “Mr. Assange told the news program “Democracy Now!” that he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention”. It then provides the above quote, which clearly does not say that the timing was as described. The quote says that the upcoming DNC convention determined the way in which the leaks were made. Anyway, if you are going to include this, you should make it clear that the quote you have included is an interpretation by a NYTimes journalist, not a quote from Assange. And you should not use the word “acknowledged”. 7. If you want to give readers an idea of Assange's attitude to the two contenders, include his quote about "choosing between cholera or gonorrhoea". 8. The title for the article is inadequate. There were presumably many elections in 2016. Which one are you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Nad's point that we need to improve the coverage of the content of the leaks. For example, the lead currently makes no mention of the content of the leaks. Burrobert (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
References
|
Elaborating on acceptance
[edit]I accepted this draft and I feel I should elaborate. Looking at this article, this seems like a controversial topic and there's a chance this'll go to AfD with a possibility it'll be deleted. I accepted anyways for two reasons:
- WP:AFCPURPOSE is to determine whether an article is likely to be deleted. I don't think this article is likely to be deleted. I believe there's a chance, but that it's well below 50%. This is a broad overview of the relevant leaks and that has a good chance of surviving AfD as an independent article.
- As an AfC reviewer, I don't like to decline things just because I'm not 100% sure they'll survive AfD. I'm going to accept things that are probably "good enough" for mainspace, even if eventually one of these risky acceptances doesn't work out. However, I will leave this message so others are aware of my reasoning.
Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 14:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Merge proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus . Softlemonades (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Podesta emails should be merged into this article, which describes the series of events more completely and in more detail and with more context Softlemonades (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is already quite large and the originals are of manageable size. It combines a number of disparate topics which are dealt with better in the original separate articles. The only real point in common is the mechanics of the hacks, and that seems to me to be what the main contribuitor was interested in rather than the contents which is what most other people are interested in. Tht actually mightbe a suitable topic for it to concentrate on and then the other article might be able to refer to it for more details on that. NadVolum (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding!
This article is already quite large
Its only 43,262 characters and in easy subsections. But it is biggerIt combines a number of disparate topics
Maybe I dont understanddisparate
right, but its a series of events and investigationsthe contents which is what most other people are interested in
All the contents are there. I listened to your input when it was a draft page.the mechanics of the hacks actually
+mightbe a suitable topic for it to concentrate on and then the other article might be able to refer to it for more details on that.
Can you explain more? Im not sure what you mean Softlemonades (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support for restructuring. There is overlap, content-wise, between these articles. I just added {{main|...}} templates on these sections. Perhaps it would be sensible to transclude relevant text from each of those articles instead of maintaining separate blocks of text, but I'm also happy just leaving the {{main}} tags in place.-Ich (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Tagging users for discussion @Burrobert @SPECIFICO @Jack Upland @Bobfrombrockley @Sideswipe9th Softlemonades (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose there are so many distinct issues involved with each of these topics, it's best to leave them separate. Merge is likely to further compromise NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Im gonna close this as the person who suggested it. There isnt consensus, but there are suggestions about developing this page more and the other two articles have been edited more Softlemonades (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Lead section too long
[edit]I have tagged the lead section as being too long. At MOS:LEADLENGTH, the Manual of Style advises that the LEAD section of an article with more than 30,000 characters of readable prose should be limited to 3 to 4 paragraphs, That is about 300 words in 10 to 15 sentences. The purpose of the lead is to provide a summary overview of the important aspects of the article, not summarize everything in the article. Additionally, with 30 plus citations in the lead, there is a possibility that there is information in the lead section that does not appear in the body of the article. MOS:LEADCITE suggests that only statements about living persons need citing in the lead but other statements do not need a lead citation. Since everything mentioned in the lead section ought to also be explained in more detail in the body of the article, the lead section should touch on the important points, and not be too detailed. It should inform readers enough to explain Who, What, When, Where and Why the subject is notable, but not necessarily How it happened. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I just trimmed it to about 200 words and 25 citations. If you think it needs more feel free to restore the template Softlemonades (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Cameron Dewe You lowered the rating of the page because it needed cleanup I wanted to make sure you saw that I tried to fix most of the issues you brought up about 15 minutes before that. If you think it needs more, thats fine but I wanted to make sure you saw that Softlemonades (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Softlemonades: Still needs some work. The lead mentions that an indictment was filed on July 13, 2018, but doesn't say who took the prosecution. However, it is not obvious from the body of the article either, and I cannot even find a separate section that covers this aspect of the subject. Also, no mention is made of the DCD's civil lawsuit, which has a whole section devoted to it but is not mentioned in the lead. Because there are both criminal and civil cases, with different findings, both should be at least mentioned in the lead, if only to avoid confusion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the feedback! Ill work on it some more. Softlemonades (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Softlemonades: Still needs some work. The lead mentions that an indictment was filed on July 13, 2018, but doesn't say who took the prosecution. However, it is not obvious from the body of the article either, and I cannot even find a separate section that covers this aspect of the subject. Also, no mention is made of the DCD's civil lawsuit, which has a whole section devoted to it but is not mentioned in the lead. Because there are both criminal and civil cases, with different findings, both should be at least mentioned in the lead, if only to avoid confusion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Cameron Dewe You lowered the rating of the page because it needed cleanup I wanted to make sure you saw that I tried to fix most of the issues you brought up about 15 minutes before that. If you think it needs more, thats fine but I wanted to make sure you saw that Softlemonades (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/24 January 2023
- Accepted AfC submissions
- C-Class Computer Security articles
- Low-importance Computer Security articles
- C-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer Security articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- C-Class Espionage articles
- Low-importance Espionage articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles