Jump to content

Talk:Donna Brazile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Susan Estrich

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments regarding a possible 2008 Al Gore candidacy

[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material for recommended best practices. Jerimee 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frightening Thought That a Person That Biased Is Teaching in Colleges

[edit]

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)[reply]

Brazile supports Obama?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"equating Atheism to Terrorism"

[edit]

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)[reply]

EDIT: Full Transcript: [1] Nar Matteru (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Brazile volunteered for the Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 as a teenager.[5]

Needs to be revised. "as a teenager" is inconsistent with either a 1958 or 1959 birth year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E6:E840:799D:F0A0:DE73:3271 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrod Affair

[edit]

Maureen Downd's op-ed piece in today's NYT says, "It 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)[reply]

Carville was Clinton's Lead Campaign Adviser, Not Brazile

[edit]

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)[reply]

Education?

[edit]

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

Assessment comment (re: LGBT advocacy and sexual orientation)

[edit]
Unresolved

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.

There should be a mention of her LGBT advocacy and her sexual orientation. Brazile is described as a "lesbian activist" by Andy Humm, "Out of the White House Closet", The Village Voice, 13 October 1999. Katn150 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)katn[reply]

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

Absolutely not. Per WP:BLPCAT subject must publicly self-identify before that can be even considered:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

The book is very likely a reliable source, but if it doesn't offer any context, I would rather leave the "Brazile is described as 'openly lesbian'" content out. Politrukki (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCAT, for the record, does not require a person to constantly walk around shouting "I'M A LESBIAN! I'M A LESBIAN!", waving a rainbow flag all the while, before we can describe or categorize them as LGBT. But in a case like this, where the description and categorization might be disputed, we would indeed require a source in which she openly refers to herself as a lesbian, and not just some third party calling her one — because that third party can be, and sometimes is, wrong about it.
For comparable examples, I can name you two Canadian politicians who have been described as gay by third parties in published sources, but actually are not — the third party simply made an erroneous assumption because the politicians had attended LGBT events as allies/supporters; one Canadian politician who has been described as gay by third parties in published sources, actually is gay but lives in a "glass closet" where he doesn't pretend not to be but avoids actually talking about it on the record to the media, and the third parties were accordingly using an advocacy journalism platform to push him out of the closet (which is thus not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia's purposes); and one who has been described as gay by a third party in a published source but I'm at a total loss to find any other confirmation of whether that source was right or wrong about it.
Accordingly, that's why these sources are problematic: the first one describes her involvement in LGBT politics but then lampshades her lack of personal clarity about whether she openly identified as lesbian or not — but again, that could just make her an ally rather than an actual lesbian, for all we can determine from that source in and of itself. And the second just calls her "openly lesbian", in a third party sort of way that for all we know could be based entirely on its author having read the first source and jumped to the wrong conclusion from it. For a living person, the ideal source for their sexuality is always one in which their own words on the matter of their sexual orientation are directly quoted. Not one in which it's debated, or one in which a third party just asserts it as a given. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS

[edit]

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

Facts do not require consensus

[edit]

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)[reply]

Please see the section about discretionary sanctions right above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your dnc overlords no longer determine what is reliable. Put it back in or this will become a problem for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.73.23 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has nothing to do with truth. Many false beliefs can be, and are supported by consensus. Truth is not determined by votes; assertions are validated/invalidated by the weight of evidence. Consensus is one of the worst ways to determine the facts. Landroo (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCNV work?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Latest WikiLeaks Dump

[edit]

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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Tempo (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears consensus needs to be reached in the 2016 Presidential Election section. I note with some dismay that a few users, most recently an editor with a history of engaging in edit wars and attempting to advance his/her leftist agenda, have repeatedly sanitized the paragraph in an effort to make Brazile appear as non-culpable in the scandal as possible. First note of consensus: can we agree that the question that she passed to the Hillary campaign and the question she was asked qualifies as "nearly verbatim"? Roland Martin forwarded the question to CNN producers: "19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?" Donna Brazile then sent that exact question (wording, capitalization, spacing...all identical) to the Hillary campaign with the subject header "From time to time I get the questions in advance." The next day at the town hall, Hillary was asked the question with slightly different wording, but identical subject matter. If anything the wording in this article is much too tame and unassuming. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Tempo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, as the header on this article notes, we're editing the biography of a living person, and that means that contentious material — negative or positive — must have consensus for inclusion before it's added. Removing poorly-sourced, tendentiously-written, biased or otherwise problematic material from a biography is not "sanitizing," it's editing. It's what we do.
It's not up to us to "agree" — it's up to us to say what the sources say, and the Washington Post source you cited says Note that the question posed by Jackson wasn’t the same exact one that Brazile passed along to the Clinton campaign — but the gist was similar. The other source cited, US News & World Report, says Ultimately, the question posed about the death penalty at the town hall was different than the one in the email. Both sources clearly distinguish the questions and neither one can possibly support a statement that the question was "nearly verbatim."
Neither cited source makes the direct claim that Brazile "colluded with CNN," therefore your wording for that section was unacceptable. What I replaced it with is a neutral description of the facts - she sent an e-mail with a particular subject header and particular content. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Moreover, your claim that this incident is a "scandal" is not supported by any reliable sources, and therefore we cannot describe it that way. What we have now is a dispassionate, accurate and appropriately weighted description of what has been said about the issue in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what qualifies as "tendentious" is up for interpretation, but the current version (and past) contains facts only. In either case, I'm fine with removing the "verbatim" characterization.I also chose not to add the Roland Martin angle of the story as it was getting a bit sensationalized. However, the question that he distributed (allegedly) to Brazile was in fact, verbatim. The question asked the following day was slightly different, and I know that WaPo played down the incident by describing the question as having a similar "gist," so I added CNN's own defense that called it "similar." The collusion is indeed alleged, and absolutely took place if Brazile in fact furnished the Hillary campaign with an advance question. Finally, I'm not claiming anything about a scandal. This *is* a scandal. Random House defines a scandal as "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." Are you contending that tipping off presidential candidates with campaign questions (abusing role as CNN contributor) is not morally wrong? Or are you saying that there hasn't been any public outrage over this story? In either case, I added more sources and offered Brazile's exact quote ("verbatim" *wink wink*) after the leak. Tapper's reaction has been included as well, to provide the reader with the entire picture.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC):[reply]

I'm not seeing "general public outrage" from any of the sources supplied here, nor am I seeing any of them describe it as a "scandal." Neither your personal opinion of what happened here, nor mine is relevant. We cannot go beyond what reliable sources say merely because you personally have a bone to pick with the issue. The current version is accurate and fair, in my opinion, and I'm fine with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The version I edit had a blatant misrepresentation of the source - the source said "different question" the text said "similar question". Now, I'm sure there are sources which cast it differently but I'm not sure why one sure be favored and the other excluded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is only required to restore material removed with "good-faith BLP objections." The argument that we cannot mention any negative allegations into this article unless is ridiculous and tendentious. I would mention though that the mention could be shorter. Just say what has been alleged and leave out excessive quotes and details. TFD (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification +Volunteer Marek. I deleted the US News source you were referring to as that appears to be the only RS on the Internet that stated that it was a "different question." In reality, the questions were near verbatim, but users can review the sources and decide for themselves. Right now the primary source is an article from CNN itself, written by the devout DNC acolyte Brian Stelter, and uses the word "similar" to describe the questions. The only addition I think we could make is the issue with Roland Martin emailing the question to various CNN folks, and then Brazile forwarding that exact question (copy-pasted) to the Hillary campaign.Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+Volunteer Marek. Your deletion on Nov. 1, 2016 at 14:28 is not justified. There is a consensus that, in the words of the New York Times, "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign." There also is a consensus that CNN stated: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor." These are facts -- they do not raise unfair BLP issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebw343 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek Re: [2] , why shouldn't we change the section name per WP:CSECTION, correct any WP:BLP issues and reinsert? Widefox; talk 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something should obviously be said about this. The word "scandal" should be avoided, but we should include CNN's statement on the background for her resignation "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor". Other than that we hardly need quotes. Iselilja (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek User:Ebw343 Not sure what part of WP:BLP including this scandal violates. This is a major, major story, and will probably end this woman's political career. There are numerous calls for her to resign, which she likely will after the election. Volunteer Marek, would you care to justify deleting several people's hard work on this article before we restore it? Thanks.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek Actually, it seems your deletion constitutes Wikipedia: Vandalism. You deleted any mention of the CNN scandal (which Jeff Zucker, President of CNN referred to as "disgusting" today), and left no trace of any information discussing her termination and widely publicized reason for her termination. Reverted the vandalism. You are more than welcome to plead your case for scrubbing and revising history on the talk page, but not to initiate yet another edit war.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, piece of advice. It's not a good idea to call other editors' good faithed edits "vandalism". That's a pretty good way to get yourself sanctioned for making personal attacks.
I removed stuff that was based on and partially sourced to Wikileaks and a couple non-reliable sources which constituted a WP:BLP violation. If you want to propose a different version which avoids using Wikileaks and non-reliable sources be my guest. In the meantime, per discretionary sanctions, you need to self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek Thank you for the piece of advice. However, you have still not justified nor explained any alleged violation of WP:BLP. I stand by my characterization of your inexplicable and drastic scrubbing of facts from this article as alarmingly qualifying as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Nobody has attacked you personally - only your revisionist editing, so nobody here should feel any danger from flimsy threats of sanctions on Wikipedia. Consensus has been reached for the current version, and to date, not a single user has supported your highly sanitized version of this article.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the disputed Wikileaks citation and changed the footnote to an article from the Washington Post that has the same quotes. There are a total of nine footnotes in this section. The sources now are CNN, New York Times, Politico, Washington Post, and Yahoo.com, which are viewed as reliable sources. Ebw343 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)ebw343[reply]

Thank you! Current version looks good, let's continue to revise and add to this section as the scandal continues to develop and more information is released.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The section "University teaching and affiliations" should be rewritten as it is lifted verbatim from the ref I added.

In the section "Debate question sharing at CNN" I collapsed two inappropriate blockquotes.

While easier to read, a block quote substitutes for quotation marks (for a longer singular verbatim quote). If you have to add quotation marks, it doesn't belong in a blockquote. If the first blockquote (the email to Podesta) didn't include "The mail continued," but used ellipsis, and didn't distinguish the title it might qualify. (Should be a little longer.) The second blockquote couldn't work because it combines different material & sources. see MOS:BQ. — βox73 (৳alk) 11:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add "acting" to DNC chair in infobox?

[edit]

Brazile was acting DNC chair and was not formally elected to that role. But that description was repeatedly removed from the infobox. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazile served twice as interim chair, once in 2012 succeeding Tim Kaine and again as a result of the resignation of Wasserman Schultz. During both periods, she was in fact performing the duties of the chair, despite the fact that she succeeded rather than was elected to the role. The infobox section pertains to both terms, and it isn't necessary to point out that she was interim (not acting) chair. If you choose to do so, please use the correct term. General Ization Talk 22:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between an interim DNC chair and a formally elected DNC chair isn't one that requires WP:UNDUE attention or one that's worth editwarring over. For example, if the mayor of a city dies in office, the interim mayor who's appointed to replace him until a special election can be held is not excluded from the succession — the dead mayor is "succeeded" by the interim mayor rather than the election winner, the election winner is "preceded" by the interim mayor rather than the dead guy, and the interim mayor does not need to have the title in their infobox denoted as "interim mayor" rather than just "mayor". Internally there are differences — the interim chair doesn't get to stick around for as long as she wants, but serves only until an election is organized and the new chair is chosen — but on a practical basis there's no difference in the rights and responsibilities of an interim chair as compared to a formally elected one. So her interim status should certainly be noted appropriately in the article body, but it is not essential that it be listed that way in the infobox too. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redundant text

[edit]

The info on the leaked debate question and the DNC/Podesta leaks is present in both the 2016 campaign section and in the controversies section. Pick one. Volunteer Marek  06:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and have reinstated your deletion of the redundant text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donna Brazile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and unrelated text.

[edit]

I think that this edit by PluckyTwo is biased and is unrelated to the thing at hand there. I say this because of the fact that we do not need to know the ins and outs of a debate. I say that it is biased because they bolded something that didn't need to be bolded, just to draw attention to controversy, and because the ins and outs of the debate basically criticized the person at hand without adding anything important. Thus, I think that this should be discussed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the edits made by PluckyTwo. They add more information about the controversy. Ebw343 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"

[edit]

Third-party accounts of this article seem due:

  • Brazile, Donna (November 2, 2017). "Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC". Politico. Retrieved November 2, 2017.

Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article has multiplied pageviews here 100-fold. --Nemo 09:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world can this article not contain a mention of early reviews of her book and her own comments about the 2016 election and relationship between the DNC and Clinton campaign? I came here looking for the truth and instead I find..... Nothing. Really?!? 2602:304:788B:DF50:945E:9A3A:988E:6C1 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. There has been enough advance reporting (though not reviews yet) that I have added a couple of paragraphs to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politico quote

[edit]

The section in Lima's article:

Brazile also addressed reports that she had contemplated calling to replace Clinton on the Democratic presidential ticket with former Vice President Joe Biden over questions about Clinton's health.

"I had a lot of other combinations. This is something you play out in your mind," Brazile said, adding, "The bottom line is she resumed campaigning."

It was one of "a lot of other combinations" and, as it turned out ("bottom line"), unnecessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting primary source?

[edit]

@MelanieN: Isn't quoting the open letter original research? If that's permissible, then it would also be OK to count the number of signatories and replace "more than 100" with 216? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, we can remove the letter itself as a cited source since it is primary. We'll be able to keep the quotes, since they are also quoted in secondary source references we include. Whether we keep or remove the letter as a source, it is certainly proper to include quotes from a letter in a paragraph about the letter - just as we can include quotes from a speech in a paragraph about the speech.
The edit I replaced had quotation marks around an excerpt from a news report about the letter, confusingly making it sound as if they were quoting the letter (and incidentally inserting commentary which was not from the letter, or in fact from anywhere that I could find; actually I'd love to include those comments in the paragraph, if we find and cite a proper source). --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unions question

[edit]

Should a third leaked question, about Unions, also be listed here? Apparently, after the death penalty discussion, Brazile sent two more questions, one for Clinton, and one for Sanders: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027. Both were later asked those questions. Since this was released one day before the election, media missed it. Should we list it anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollande97 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before any material can be added to the article, it first must be covered by reliable, secondary sources. Wikileaks is a primary source, and not a reliable one (on it's own) at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the problem. As I said, media missed it. Here's a Politico article (sort of): https://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollande97 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donna_Brazile&oldid=1209641723"