Talk:2016 United States election leaks

Input from other editors

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? Leaks effecting the 2016 US election werent just the DNC and the Podesta emails, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks leaked by themselves Guccier 2 and DCLeaks leaks had impact on the campaigns. Example from DCLeaks DCLeaks released information about more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, including their personal cellphone numbers. The numerous crank calls that Hillary Clinton received from this disclosure along with the loss of her campaign's email security caused a very severe disruption of her campaign which subsequently changed their contact information on October 7, 2016, by calling each of her contacts one at a time It wasnt just the Presidential campaign, Guccifer 2s leaks went into congressional elections. Example from Guccifer 2 A candidate for Congress allegedly contacts Guccifer 2.0 to request information on the candidate's opponent. Guccifer 2.0 responds with the requested stolen information It wasnt just Democrats, DCLeaks released some Republican emails and other political targets too DNC emails and Podesta emails overlapped, DNC emails released on July 22 and November 6, Podesta emails released in October and November Investigations and media reports say Guccifer 2 and DCLeaks may be sources for DNC emails and Podesta emails It mirrors Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections bette Getting any idea of all of the leaks during the election and how they effected things means visiting 4 pages right now, DCLeaks, Guccifer 2, Podesta and DNC emails which doesnt make sense. More detailed pages for the actors, DCLeaks, Guccifer 2, so on is one thing but it was a series of events and readers need the context in the page not just in a wikilink Softlemonades (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Looks like it's ready for publication.Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 11 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) These are really helpful, thanks! Will post reply now and think about how to edit Thanks, this was mostly imported text that maybe I copy edited some. Credit in the edit summary I copied it directly from 2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Steele_dossier_allegations, which @NadVolum had rewritten and improved from a much worse version Id tried to cut Ok EDIT: Looks like it was an email to the political director and its in the article I can look for secondary sources EDIT: It looks like theyre just "at large " and theres not any progress, but if anyone has any sources post or use them They got a digital copy of the entire server, which is the same. I dont see a reason to include it but can hear from others Good point, Im gonna take it our right away EDIT: Done Thats so crude, and Im sure there are other quotes we can use EDIT: The WikiLeaks site is up and down a lot but Ill try to find something in https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html and add it Youre right, it should be 2016 US Election leaks. Ill wait to rename if anyone wants to discuss other names, but like #3 in the original post I dont think it should be 2016 US Presidential Election leaks or whatever EDIT: Renamed to 2016 US election leaks Softlemonades (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Regarding the server, yes the contracted company obtained an image of the server and memory which it said is standard practice. However, the decision to use Crowdstrike has been criticised and it has been suggested that it could compromise a court case. Regarding the indictment of the 12 Russians, I suspect nothing has happened beyond the indictment itself. It may be hard to find a suitable source which explains the intent of the indictment. Here is one: "The prosecutors assumed that they would never have to prove the case. The Russian defendants were in Russia. There was no way Putin would ever extradite them for an American criminal trial. The prosecutors knew that. What they wrote was not meant to be a real indictment. It was meant to be a press release". As evidence that there was never expected to be a trial, some sources have pointed to what happened when the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting defended itself against a Mueller indictment. Burrobert (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Trump "babbling" isnt great, the second source isnt RSP, and the third is a National Review op ed, and unless an RS or expert says it might effect the attribution in the article Im not sure we should add it but Im open to hear from others Same issue, its a National Review op ed and a different case. If there are no updates on this case, we should probably just leave it Softlemonades (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This draft was started as a merge. However if is on a subtopic of the articles it is suppose to merge. This article is about the leaks and how they happened who did them etc with a bit stuck on about what whas leaked, it is in the title "2016 Election leaks". The article "2016 Democratic National Committee email leak" is more about what was leaked and the perpetators are further down in the article. This article concentrates on what was common which is the perpetrators. It is not a merge of the topics. There may be a possibility for an article like this to remove common bits but it cannot replace the originals. And as I said in my original comment, why did you think the article needed to be changed so radically? For a merge the reasoning needs to be for why a merge should be done - not for others to have to go around arguing why the merge should not be done. You say it would amalgamate a numbr of different articles - Wikipedia can afford having a number of articles but people get fed up with articles that are long. The business is all over now so it is a good time to put it into morsel sized pieces if anything. Worries about splitting things up only really apply to ongoing situations where people are liable to fork on silly things and new content is added in odd places or duplicated if it is divided up. NadVolum (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This article is about the leaks and how they happened who did them etc with a bit stuck on about what whas leaked Almost all of the original content on what was leaked from the original articles made it over. Most of what was left out was from the Guccifer 2 page which wasnt part of the proposed merge, and the draft links to the main page. If theres anything you see that got cut and should be put back, feel free to do it or ask me to Wikipedia can afford having a number of articles Thats not the issue? why did you think the article needed to be changed so radically? For a merge the reasoning needs to be for why a merge should be done - not for others to have to go around arguing why the merge should not be done I made an 8 part list on why the page should exist Softlemonades (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Are you actually unable to see that the article is now about the perpetrators rather than what was leaked and its effects? Do you think it isn't about the perpetrators even though you have emphasized that side so much? NadVolum (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC) I do disagree, but Ill come back to it later and do a side by side of the DNC and Podesta email sections to the original articles Please remember to try to keep your comments and edit summaries civil. Things like "are you unable to read" dont help Softlemonades (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC) I feel you just ignore any objections and are willing to engage in unceasing argument to achieve your way. Is that civil enough language for you? Where in the introduction does it mention anything about the contents of the leaks or their effects rather than the perpetrators? Have a look at the first few section titles DCLeaka DNC Email leak Guccifer 2.0 submission to WikiLeaks Contents ... Don't you notice that what has been emphasized and what has become subordinate and pushed down below where a normal person would have the will to read abter going through the trudge of Guccifer and Wikileaks and DCLeaks? NadVolum (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC) I feel you just ignore any objections and are willing to engage in unceasing argument to achieve your way I just said Id come back and do a side by side compare of the text to the original? Im trying to hear out your position and double check mine? I immediately agreed to some of the changes Burrobert suggested? Where in the introduction does it mention anything about the contents of the leaks or their effects rather than the perpetrators? Thats a great point, thanks for bringing it up! Ill work on it! Im happy to work on the issues you see, but specifics like that help. If I saw what you see, Idve fixed it already Have a look at the first few section titles Theres a reason for the order - its chronological, and DNC and Podesta email leak both refer back to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2, which both had separate and important election leaks brouht up in my list at the top of the page. And I dont think the length is an issue since its only 41,000 characters and 6,000 words which wouldnt need a size split Softlemonades (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Chronology is just another way the actual leaks and effects are pushed down below everything else. You do seem very interested in Guccifer and Wikileaks and suchlike rather than the original topics - why don't you just cover that aspect for the articles and forget about merging? Then the original articles cut be cut down quite a bit to summarize and refer to the relevant bit here about the mechanism etc of the leaks? NadVolum (talk) 15:41, 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) Yeah when Nad pointed out the lead didnt mention it at all, I realized stopped with the lead after the size and focused on the body. Its really good feedback, and Ill go back to fix it and look at the other things like adding Assanges election statement when I have time this week Softlemonades (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC) For now I imported parts of the existing leads Both could probably use work, especially Podesta which just mentions CNN and pizzagate. The wall street speeches should get added, but its a start point Softlemonades (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC) I added DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 contents to the lead and expanded Podesta emails contents. I also dropped the pizzagate mention, its still in the Podesta emails section but didnt think featuring "widely discredited" stuff was worth it Softlemonades (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Right-ho. Well done. Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Okay so after the lead and the other stuff, I went back to do the comparison I promised and I see the big thing I took out from the DNC emails article: France. I figured it was a lot of space for one email about a "conspiracy theory" about someone not connected to the campaign, and the theory is basically dismissed twice in the section of text thats already written In 2011, France, under President Nicolas Sarkozy, led calls for international intervention in the Libyan Civil War, voted in favor of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and, subsequently, dispatched the French Air Force into direct military action in Libya in support of the National Transitional Council. At the time, France said the move was to protect Libyan civilians. But in a private email from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton – revealed as part of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak – Blumenthal claimed France was more concerned with Libya's large gold reserves, which might pose a threat to the value of the Central African Franc, thereby weakening French influence in Africa, and that Sarkozy was interested in increased access to Libyan oil. Former French diplomat Patrick Haimzadeh called Blumenthal's analysis, while it reflected a popular theory on conspiracy websites, "not credible" because "the timeline just doesn't add up" with Sarkozy's decision to intervene preceding knowledge of Gaddafi's plans. French investigative journalist Fabrice Arfi dismissed Blumenthal's claim as "far-fetched," while also acknowledging that even U.S. intelligence did not find France's publicly stated motivations for the Libya intervention to be entirely credible either. That was why I took it out, if you still want it back in I guess thats fine Things I cut out from Podesta were Trump calling for Hillarys speeches because it wasnt the contents or related to the publisher, but I guess that can go back if you want. I also rewrote "Whether the email was originally written by Hillary Clinton, her advisor Sidney Blumenthal, or another person is unclear" to "Its unclear who originally wrote the email" just because its shorter and clearer, but that can go back to. Softlemonades (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC) References

Elaborating on acceptance

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

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 bigger

  It combines a number of disparate topics Maybe I dont understand disparate right, but its a series of events and investigations

  the 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead section too long

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)