Talk:Donna Brazile

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Susan Estrich

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments regarding a possible 2008 Al Gore candidacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frightening Thought That a Person That Biased Is Teaching in Colleges 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Brazile supports Obama?

message: 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)
replies: text:  EDIT: Full Transcript:  Nar Matteru (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "equating Atheism to Terrorism" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Birth? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sherrod Affair 

message: 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)
thread_title: Carville was Clinton's Lead Campaign Adviser, Not Brazile

message: What, where and when?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.220.107 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DS 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see the section about discretionary sanctions right above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Facts do not require consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CCNV work? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed blockquotes used "for readability"; copyright violation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Add "acting" to DNC chair in infobox? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you and have reinstated your deletion of the redundant text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant text 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906235807/http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/20993/donna_brazile_cuts_loose_2008_campaign to http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/20993/donna_brazile_cuts_loose_2008_campaign
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204224709/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1090183.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1090183.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that this edit by  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)
thread_title:  Biased and unrelated text. 

message: Third-party accounts of this article seem due:
*
Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has multiplied pageviews here 100-fold. --Nemo 09:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Politico quote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unions question