Talk:Podesta emails/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead changes.

Since someone attempted a drastic rewrite of the lead, which was reverted by an IP and then by me, I thought I ought to explain my reasoning (I don't know whether it's the same as the IP's reasoning). First, "Unflattering" is clearly POV language. Second, disagreeing with the basis of Politifact's conclusions isn't a valid reason to remove them from the article - our job is to follow the sources, not second-guess them. Third, the purpose of a lead is to follow the article - the article itself has an entire section devoted to authenticity questions, and it's an aspect that has both attracted a lot of attention and is unambiguously central to the topic, so it's appropriate to mention that in a sentence in the lead. Fourth, the time-devoted question is grossly WP:UNDUE for the lead; the source appears to be an editorial from a low-quality source (don't confuse the Washington Times with the Washington Post!) And, as mentioned above, the lead is meant to be a summary of the topic; the concerns raised in that editorial aren't reflected in the article, so it doesn't make sense to just drop them in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Since they removed the reference to politifact from the lead again, I'll go over my position in more detail: Politifact easily passes WP:RS, and is a high-quality mainstream source, so if they say that they interviewed experts on something, we can trust that those are genuine experts, that they actually interviewed them, and that their opinions are relevant. Relying on a secondary source like that to summarize a broad swath of opinion among experts is entirely normal and very much the appropriate way to handle a situation like this. If you feel that Politifact should have named them, or that its article is "worthless" because they didn't, you should contact Politifact to request a retraction - but it isn't a valid reason to remove them as a source here, since our responsibility is to go with the sources, rather than to second-guess them or to say "I don't trust what they're saying because of issue XYZ with the content." Basically, unless you get that retraction from Politifact, we have to go with what they say. (Of course, alternatively you can produce other sources that disagree, in which case we would cover both - but "they didn't specifically list the names of the experts" is not a valid argument when dealing with an otherwise-reliable source.) EDIT: Also, you're flatly wrong in saying that they don't name any of their experts, anyway! Going over the article, they quote Jamie Winterton, Susan Hennessey, Jeffrey Carr, and Matt Tait, all of them cybersecurity experts saying that some or all of the emails may be altered, and providing detailed reasons as to why. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Maintaining BLP/NPOV standards

I hope that this article doesn't become a list of potentially controversial emails included in this leak. This is what almost happened to the article 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak until I raised the issue on the NPOV noticeboard. Hopefully we don't have to go there again to keep this article in good condition. ^Falling_Gravity 03:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Why are edits removed for being "controversial" if they're well sourced and accurate information, isn't the point of Wikipedia to be accurate and contain "the sum of all human knowledge" ? If so, it seems only an exercise in partisanship, not neutrality, to remove that information - based on nothing more than a single editors opinion that it's "controversial"... We have a wiki page for Guantanamo, for Hiroshima/Negasaki, for North Korea, various police shootings, the KKK, plenty of controversial subjects here, plenty of which would be taken down if actors from those districts found information controversial... Anyway, I joined as an editor to ensure the people of the world gain accurate, well-sourced information, free from bias or partisanship, and as a journalist who has studied the propaganda model, it seems due to some editors at least, Wikipedia is just another propaganda arm for whichever political party holds favor at the time, it's disappointing, but not unexpected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aheezay: "as a journalist who has studied the propaganda model, it seems due to some editors at least, Wikipedia is just another propaganda arm for whichever political party holds favor at the time, it's disappointing, but not unexpected." I agree with your sentiment, but your tone is unnecessarily combative. Taking the high road, might not always be the most emotionally satisfying method, but it's almost always the most productive method, especially when dealing with a politically-relevant topic that can too easily degrade into uncritical tribalism. 4serendipity (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aheezay: It's not that they're controversial (note that I said "potentially controversial"), it's just that they violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. For example adding a section titled "Racism" over the phrase "needy Latinos" is inherently NPOV. Using the word "collusion" in section titles implies immediate guilt, while we should really just let readers decide. You also rely heavily on primary sources, quoting extensively from the emails. I would suggest focusing more on secondary sources that analyze these emails. ^Falling_Gravity

@FallingGravity: I think your suggestion for not quoting primary sources here is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. This article is quite explicitly about the source itself, so links to and/or outlines of the content of the source material should not only be permissible, but, in my opinion, encouraged. Should the article on Hamlet not include references to the source material? Or, for a more directly analogous instance, should the article on the Pentagon Papers have it's section on the Paper's contents removed? 4serendipity (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@4serendipity: Most, if not all, of the sources have links to the emails in question, so I don't see the need to duplicate them here. I suppose there are some cases where a direct link would help the reader, a decision which we could make on a case by case basis (much like Marc Elias's idea for accepting donations from foreign registered agents). ^Falling_Gravity 04:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, calling latinos "needy" is racism, like look at the dictionary definition of racism (the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.) I am just writing what that phrase is defined as... Not implying guilt, just stating facts - What else would you have me title the section? "Comments on Latino's?" "Research regarding the needs status of latino americans?", Racism is simply the most apt title based on every possible definition of the contents beneath it - backed up with multiple secondary and of course, primary sources - I also don't understand why you question the primary sources anyway, they ARE the emails... Wikileaks has a 100% record of publishing factual information for the last decade, better than any other news source I could get a secondary from? What's your beef? Collusion is also the definition of what inside communication with supposedly independent journalists is... If Wikipedia editors have a problem with dictionary definitions, shouldn't you send a request that they be changed? instead of attacking the messenger when words are used in support of those definitions? Again, I think a far bigger violation of the NPOV laws is editing in favor of partisanship rather than editing for dictionary level accuracy - and I believe (since I've been thanked multiple times for my edits) that many other editors stand with my view... Wikipedia doesn't need political partisanship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aheezay: Don't expect neutrality of wikipedia. Just look at Hillary's campaign page, the "Deplorables" comment has been added, deleted, re-added, re-deleted... countless times, and there were (spectacular) TWO rounds of RfC (You'll probably never find a second instance of this on wiki), and even the concensus was "include", up to this very momment, there is still an active discussion of the specific wording, and it's still being added/deleted. But when NYT published the story of two women accusing Trump of sexual harrassment on Oct 14, an article on wikipedia was immediate created, and since morphed into a detailed documentation. And there was a well-documented incident of United States Congressional staff trolling on Wikipedia. "Propaganda arm"? "Well, to be grossly generalistic, half of the wikipedia editors are trolls." Sofeshue (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia’s Uranium One

• http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/firm-co-founded-by-hillarys-campaign-chair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-blaming-russia-for-wikileaks-to_us_580dbb26e4b099c4343198ff

--87.159.118.134 (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what edit are you suggesting? I don't see what these stories have to do with the Podesta emails. ^Falling_Gravity 07:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @FallingGravity: please read https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release --87.156.239.116 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that, but if anything, stuff like this should go in the Podesta Group article. ^Falling_Gravity 23:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert of unreliably-sourced, tendentious material

I have reverted this edit as it contains a wide number of unreliable sources (Breitbart, ZeroHedge, WorldNetDaily, CNS News, Wikileaks as a primary source, etc.) and tendentiously-worded sections. I invite the user proposing these additions to discuss them here on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What makes those news sources "unreliable"? When "reliable" sources like CNN compulsively lie to protect Hillary Clinton and the Bilderberg Group? Humanoid (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What makes those news sources "unreliable"? Previous discussion among Wikipedia editors. See WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof was correct to remove that edit. None of those sources are reliable source for controversial claims about living people.- MrX 12:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at WP:RSN, and 4 out of those 5 sources aren't even mentioned there. Humanoid (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

DKIM Authentication

The DKIM Authentication section is not reliably sourced. Blogs and Twitter feeds are not acceptable sources for claims that a living person's emails are authentic, especially when the content of those emails may involve wrongdoing. I will remove this section again unless someone promptly adds reliable sources (news organizations with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking).- MrX 12:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Any person that wants to, can verify the DKIM signatures of those emails themselves. You can verify them yourself too. That is better than 99% of the "reliable" sources on wikipedia. If you don't understand cryptographic signatures, then stay away from this topic and let those who understand cryptography deal with sections about DKIM signatures. Humanoid (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no it's not. We do not allow original research. It is a policy. We require reliable sources, otherwise the material cannot be included. If the emails were authenticated with DKIM signatures and if this is relevant to the subject, reliable sources will write about, and then we can.- MrX 13:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, this edit of yours violates WP:DISCLAIM and WP:SYNTH. Please slow down and learn our policies.- MrX 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a reference from Fox News which discusses the blogger's work (making it a secondary source). However, saying all the emails can been authenticated is misleading because not all of them have DKIM keys. ^Falling_Gravity 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving sections from John Podesta article to Podesta emails article

Be informed that the policies WP:PROMOTION i.e. advocacy of any sort must be avoided and neutral point of view WP:NPOV must be upheld. It is especially important when current affairs and politics are discussed that on should be careful of WP:NOTCENSORED and have a more WP:COMPREHENSIVE view. From a European, maybe a more depassionate view, it is very disheartening to see that advocacy and censorship is taking a firmer grip on editors from Northern America and intertwined current affairs. Anyone with strong views on the 2016 US presidential elections for or against one candidate and is from Northern America, should think ten times over before removing or censoring well documented and relevant material. Wikipedia is not a Democracy WP:NOT#DEM, so orchestrated gang attacks or internet lynch mobs are not welcome. So no misuse of the WP:CONSENSUS by hitting with the "Consensus Shtick". Wikipedia is not political war zone, it is inclusive. Peace and Love! IBestEditor (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ps The Catholic Opinion section should have relevant material pertaining to issues raised by John Podesta's emails or any exchange relevant to him personally. Emails by other Clinton campaign personnel (ex. Jennifer Palmieri etc.), should be contained mainly to respective Wikipedia articles. Still, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMPREHENSIVE will be upheld. Thanks IBestEditor (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTAFORUM. And stop crying "censorship", that word doesn't mean what you think it means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Volunteer Marek the cited policies are simple and totally applicable. WP:NOTAFORUM bears no relevans here. I will not start I fight with you, even you felt that those cited policies touched you. They where not directed especially at anyone individual, as this is the first time I have taken notice of you, but as general information at very heated political time and situation. I hope that you, Volunteer Marek, could be more civil in future when communicating to an individual editor. Cited general WP policies and related warnings can sound harsh, but they are general in nature, not meant to hit people in the head with. I apologise if you or your inclinations felt in anyway offended. IBestEditor (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comments about "advocacy and censorship" and about "editors from Northern America" getting a "firmer grip" did in fact violate NOTAFORUM. Your comment about "Consensus Shtick" appears to imply that you don't care about consensus. "Not censored" does NOT mean "I get to include any POV I want!". (and really that whole essay was initially just meant as a warning to readers, nothing more).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of Foreign Donors supporting Terrorist groups

The Acknowledgement of Foreign Donors supporting Terrorist groups section is not reliably sourced and the section is a blatant WP:COATRACK implying criminality, rather than discussing the subject of the article. Salon, Wikileaks, and The Intercept are not acceptable sources for claims of wrongdoing involving living people (WP:BLPSOURCES). I will remove this section again unless someone promptly adds reliable sources (news organizations with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking). If it, or the section discussed above are restored, I will raise the issue on an appropriate noticeboard.- MrX 12:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have links showing that Salon or The Intercept are not RS, that the email in question may be a fabrication, or that Saudi support for ISIS would be a BLP issue? -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Undue Emphasis on Authenticity

What's with all this emphasis on the authenticity of these e-mails? Nobody, not even the Clinton campaign, has claimed that these e-mails are fake. And that'd be an easy route for them to take. This article seems like it's trying to sow seeds of doubt, placing undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE) on the issue of authenticity, which has in fact not been an issue with all this. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe having a section on authenticity is not Undue Emphasis because it was been covered by a reliable source when Tim Kaine (part of the Clinton campaign) question the authenticity of one of the emails. If you have more details about the authenticity then those can be added with reliable sources. ^Falling_Gravity 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• There has been considerable coverage of (and debate over) whether the e-mails are genuine or not; the Clinton campaign has not, to my knowledge, acknowledged any of them as genuine. If you feel that the coverage should not have gone into that sort of analysis, you should write letters to the sources asking for retractions, but until they retract them, our job is to reflect what they say, not to second-guess it based on our own arguments. WP:DUE weight is based on what the sources say and what they focus on, not on what we feel they should be saying or ought to be focusing on. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

At least pundits attempted to argue that some email were fake, but the emails were cryptographically signed by google's servers, so you basically have google's security people testifying to their legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.137.250 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Pied piper strategy

It's worth mentioning the Clinton campaigns Pied Piper strategy of asking their media connections to give Trump more media attention during the Republican primary. It's a fairly important tactic that was exposed by the leak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.137.250 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Source? Sagecandor (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Anon is probably referring to a strategy memo released by WikiLeaks. Most attention is given to Trump, but the memo also lists Ted Cruz and Ben Carson as "pied piper candidates". Politico has covered this, though the strategy was to "tell the press to [take] them seriously," not necessarily to give Trump or anyone else more coverage. ^Falling_Gravity 00:16, 11 December 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 Podesta email leak. Please help expand it.--DarTar (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's directly relevant to state here at least the one sentence:

• On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded the Russian government was behind the hack and gave Wikileaks hacked emails from John Podesta.

Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Added, thanks. This probably belongs in the "Reaction" section though, at least until more details emerge. ^Falling_Gravity 00:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's significantly reported on by WP:RS sources in thousands of publications in languages all over the world that it belongs in the lead intro and in the body. Sagecandor (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is probably the most major development on the topic of this article to date and should be mentioned in at least one sentence in the lead per WP:LEAD. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

primarynotbad

Re [1], which links to the essay WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the page clearly states: "(This) is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". It's just somebody's musings on the subject. On the other hand WP:NOR is a policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The DNI report's conclusion that there were no forgeries has been picked up by secondary sources and is obviously notable. WP:OR doesn't apply, and you know it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then use secondary sources. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I did, in the very edit you cited! Sheesh.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So why did you link to WP:PRIMARNYNOTBAD. Double sheesh factorial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence to the Authenticity section. I think it goes with the statement in the lead saying security experts believe the majority of the documents were unaltered. ^Falling_Gravity 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course the majority of them would be unaltered. That's so's folks can sample them and see no problem. Most of Houdini's motions were straightforward and transparent. This isn't like the village picnic where it's good enough to know that the majority of folks like tuna and we don't have to make egg salad. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No proof of Russian involvement given

CIA / NSA never delivered proof of their claims, wp is suppressing that fact. Just remember the deliberate CIA lies about Iraq WMD. Adviser 17 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Pielke

The stuff on Pielke did not receive widespread media coverage and is trivial. Since it concerns a BLP, it doesn't belong in this article. Please don't reinstate it without consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The material being abusively censored out despite several editors adding it back is reported by both local newspapers in Denver , i.e., it is considered quite relevant for a major U.S. city. Besides, the Wall Street Journal has covered the issue. The judgement that the material is trivial is extremely subjective and by such a standard half the Wikipedia should be deleted. In addition, the critique that there is a BLP issue absurd as the subject himself (Pielke) has helped publicize the Podesta e-mails about himself, as can be seen on the WSJ item. XavierItzm (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The text concerns living persons, hence BLP very much applies. This has NOT been covered widely and as a result does not belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Say what, when the two major papers in a major metro report it, is not relevant? Absurd. XavierItzm (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The article on the Wall Street Journal doesn't count toward the notability of the email in question, as it's an op-ed the person mentioned in the email. The Denver Post article is a truncated version of the Daily Camera article. Other WP:SECONDARY sources I've found that cover this are mostly posts from right-wing blogs. So so far we have one respectable secondary source that covers this leaked email. ^Falling_Gravity 01:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think one can disagree on the WSJ. Certainly a major national newspaper does not give space for an issue that is insignificant to its readership. But no matter, here is another source and full citation: The Gazette, which Wikipedia calls "the second largest circulation in Colorado, behind the Denver Post.". There you go. The two most important newspapers in the State of Colorado, plus the two most important in Boulder, plus the Wall Street Journal, all consider the issue relevant. XavierItzm (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't use opinion pieces in BLPs without some good reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ cite in full is "Mr. Pielke is a professor and director of the Sports Governance Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder" and it is in the voice of the WSJ itself. What, exactly, is the objection here? XavierItzm (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the email? I know he talks about the email in this piece, but the text just has stuff that should already be in his biographical article. ^Falling_Gravity 06:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to consider per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is if we need to repeat FiveThirtyEight controversy here when it's already covered quite extensively in the Roger A. Pielke Jr. article (including the comment made in the WikiLeaks email). For example, there used to be a section here on an email sent by Glenn Thrush, until it was moved to a section on Thrush's article to avoid repeating controversial material. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice criteria! Let's just delete this here article in its entirety and make nice references to the whole hack on the Pielke, Clinton, Podesta, Brazile and Saudi Arabia pages! Look, are the Wikipedia servers running out of space or something? I am sorry, but this cannot be considered a valid idea under any circumstances. XavierItzm (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So, if there is no further disagreement, I'll be adding back the deleted content. XavierItzm (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. When the inclusion of material is disputed, it's incumbent on the person proposing to add the material to develop a consensus for its inclusion; otherwise, the default is that the disputed material remains out of the article. I certainly don't see a consensus here that it should be included; you might want to open an RFC if that's desired. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

References

PolitiFact article mentions DKIM

There's been a slow edit war over whether this PolitiFact article mentions DKIM. While it doesn't include the acronym "DKIM", it does say "digital signature" and "digital signature verification" and then links to another article which does talk about DKIM. I think it's pretty clear that when PolitiFact talks about digital signature verification they're talking about DKIM. Thus, I'm going to reinstate that reference in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clear they're referring to DKIM while avoiding overly-technical language. The current source is adequate. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia/Qatar

Since this is a BLP the Saudi Arabia/Qatar stuff needs better sources, *at the very least*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Both sources are RS. The Intercept has received several awards with Greenwald, Scahill and Fang's reporting in particular recognized by fellow journalists. It's certainly more respected than say The Daily Beast, which you recently used as the sole source for a particular claim and a Politico blog which you used in another – both with direct BLP implications. Your apparent argument here is that because this article is a biography every edit is subject to BLP whether or not it concerns a living person. It would help discussion if you applied sourcing and BLP standards more consistently. And please don't mark contested edits as minor, as you just did. I've restored the relevant text. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, neither is a reliable source for BLP related material, which this most definitely is. If you want to discuss the DB and Politico, do that on appropriate talk page, rather than use it as an excuse. (And reverting an obvious disruptive account is "minor").Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added The News, which has "8,000 staff nationwide and approximately 3,000 journalists. " according to Wikipedia.XavierItzm (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... I seriously doubt that a website has "8,000 staff nationwide and approximately 3,000 journalists" - that would be pretty damn amazing. What you are talking about rather is the parent company News Limited. What you added is News.com.au.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny, this is like arguing the CBS website is somehow lesser because its staff is a subset of CBS's total staff. Dude, if it's got CBS's name on it, it does not really matter if it came out on web, broadcast, or cable. But, whatever. XavierItzm (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not mind adding more news sources for this, but definitely think that the segment should stay, as it is extremely relevant that supposed US allies directly fund the worst terrorist organisation in the world. Also, what happened with the reference to the John Pilger-headed Julian Assange interview that stated that this is the most significant of all the leaked e-mails? David A (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, if better sources can be assembled then yeah this can stay.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fox News isn't good enough? How about Harper's Magazine, International Business Times, or Yahoo! News?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Good references. If you insert all of them into the section, there should be no more reasons for removal. In addition, I still think that John Pilger's Assange interview should be included: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-secrets-of-the-us-election-julian-assange-talks-to-john-pilger David A (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pilger is not RS and undue. Fox News isn't RS here. Ditto GG's rag. Also, Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for Assange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is RS. The Intercept is RS. Please get consensus for your changes instead of edit-warring. James J. Lambden (talk)

I'm sorry, but if I'm not mistaken, you're the one who barely avoided a block for edit warring - and breaking 3RR - on this very issue [2]. And you're up to 3 reverts right now - tip toeing around the bright line. So perhaps you should lay off with the accusations against others and self revert.

And no, those sources aren't reliable in this context (though maybe in others). And obviously more than one editor has objected to this. So how about *you* get consensus for inclusion.

And to be clear - I'm not opposed to this being included in this article in some form. But it needs to be based on solid sources exclusively. And keep the Assange crap out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your tone isn't conducive to dispute resolution. Take it down a notch. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who made accusations of edit warring while at the same time 1) having made 3 reverts himself and 2) having violated the 3RR rule on this very issue and barely escaping a block. What exactly is wrong with my "tone"? Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Several of the sources are definitely notable, and the information is extremely important. Attempting to repeatedly remove all of it outright, rather than making improvements seems suspiciously like agenda-driven POV-censorship attempts to me. David A (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't evaluate sources based on whether they're "notable" but whether they are "reliable", and reliability depends on the context. In this context they're not. Likewise, accusations of "agenda-driven POV-censorship" are out of place (and crying "censorship" is a misunderstanding of what "censorship" is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The bible is a notable source, and we do draw a lot of content from it, but we don't state information drawn from it as a fact and we don't include biblical information in undue places. This isn't agenda-driven POV censorship, this is the realisation of the relative reliableness of a source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are the news sources in question considered unreliable? David A (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

David A, since this has been removed now by three different editors, you need firm consensus to restore it. Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It has also been repeatedly restored by several different editors whenever you have attempted to remove it, and again, the information that supposed U.S. allies directly sponsor the worst terrorists that the world has ever seen is of extreme public interest to be aware of. Everything else revealed in the e-mails is completely irrelevant in comparison. David A (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten and reintroduced the section on Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The sourcing is solid: the Belfast Telegraph, The Independent, Salon.com, The Intercept, Yahoo! News and FoxNews.com. I don't think there's any question about the accuracy of the information in the section. I also don't see any BLP issue here. The section simply states the contents of an email that has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

But it is WP:UNDUE and you sources are WP:BAD. Your entire section is WP:POV/WP:SYNTH. Also, WP:ARBCOM! (just kidding) Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Data theft section

@Neutrality: Thank you for your recent additions. Reading through the section "Data theft", I noticed that it suddenly changed focus to broader attacks on Democratic officials by the third paragraph. I think this might have a better place in the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks article. However, that might also mean broadening the scope of that article (maybe it could be Democratic Party cyber attacks?). ^Falling_Gravity 03:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. The New York Times article indicates that the Podesta attack was part of the same wave of attacks against the DNC & DCCC - Podesta was simply one of the hackers' most important "gets." That's what I'm trying to convey. There's almost certainly a less clunky way to do it. Neutrality^talk 03:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the proper section, best I could find in the list, for the question I have: How is objectivity served if there is no mention of the suggestion that the emails were leaked not hacked? Unless of course the supposition is that the CIA is categorically above lying to the American people.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close friend of Assange, has made it very clear that he personally collected leaked material in a wooded area from a go-between of a leaker, implying a physical object containing the information, presumably a thumb drive. Is it inconceivable that a leaker, disgusted with what they read in the emails they had access to, was moved to leak them, as did Chelsea Manning? Also, it bears repeating that the last publication date at Wikileaks — i.e., the day the leaks stopped — was the day after Seth Rich was murdered in DC in what was called a robbery, but his watch, wallet, phone and jewelry were on his person when police arrived.

Now, it also goes without saying that the Powers of State will vilify anyone who threatens their power. Craig Murray lost his position in the Foreign Office because he challenged the atrocities of a British ally, President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.

Thanks for hearing my question. ProudPrimate (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@ProudPrimate: It's an interesting theory, but it seems strange that a phishing expedition would require a leaker. In addition, the last emails are dated from March 2016, and Seth Rich was murdered in July 2016. ^Falling_Gravity 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: The emails were written over a period of time, of course, but they were published at the time I cited, all at once, and the source dried up. It's even more strange that a trove of published emails would require a phishing expedition. We know they were published. The article says they are trusted. Why presume a priori they were phished? Isn't that what you're trying to prove?ProudPrimate (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@ProudPrimate: We know they were phished because researchers have found the phishing emails used to hack accounts of the DNC and Clinton campaign. You can see the Podesta phishing email on WikiLeaks here. More details on how this worked can be found on Motherboard and The Smoking Gun. ^Falling_Gravity 06:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wetwork

I added this paragraph, but it was immediately deleted:

In an email from Podesta to Steve Elmendorf written on February 9th, 2016, Podesta said "Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard.", to which Elmendorf replies "I am all in" and "Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down".

I don't see any reason why it should be deleted from the article. Humanoid (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

After somebody complained that there should be a secondary source, I also tried adding this sentence to the end:

Some news sites speculated about what they could be referring to.

Yet, it was still deleted. Am I on the right website? Is this wikipedia, or wikideletia? Humanoid (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is infowars a "news site?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.12.130 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, my primary source, includes the actual email, complete with a DKIM signature proving that the email is authentic! This is more reliable than 99% of the sources accepted on wikipedia! Humanoid (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Revert edit

Could we please revert this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Podesta_emails&diff=next&oldid=791364004 ?--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit removes the phrase "what it said was," referring to WikiLeaks saying this was Donna Brazile's email. The email in question has been verified by cybersecurity experts and Brazile herself has admitted she wrote those emails. I think we have enough independent confirmation to say this was Brazile's email, not just what WikiLeaks says is her email. ^Falling_Gravity 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Podesta's password

Both PolitiFact and CyberScoop agree that Podesta's password wasn't "password" and that there's no evidence it was "p@ssw0rd", or even "Runner4567". Throwing Julian Assange's false statements into this article doesn't improve it. ^Falling_Gravity 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It was the password of his new Windows machine at work, which he presumably changed at after logging in for the first time. While the emails were hacked due to a different error by their IT dept., using "p@ssw0rd" for anything at DNC HQ is still probably a bad idea. 10:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither source actually proves anything, they just assert an opinion based on a lack of direct evidence. There's incontrovertible evidence Podesta used weak passwords for other logins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.142 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)