![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BLP1E? Not seeing how this figure is independently notable from
Democratic National Committee cyber attacks—no reason why their actions can't be adequately covered in context there
czar
03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
An entire paragraph in the lead was filled with speculation and covering topics not detailed in the article. Because the content is highly leading and poorly sourced, considering its extraordinary claims, I've removed it. - Darouet ( talk) 23:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The content about the identity of "Guccifer 2.0" (most likely a brand of the Russian intelligence services) should not be at the bottom of the article. It should in the top section, because the alleged Russian interference in the US election is the most notable aspect of the subject, as indicated by reliable sources. I see moving that to the bottom to be another POV-push. Geogene ( talk) 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Guccisamsclub: Newsweek and The Intercept are both reliable sources for some purposes. There are varying degrees of reliability. If you want to go against mainstream opinion, you need a much better source than you would need to echo the dominant opinion. That Intercept piece you're advocating for is a novel analysis by a reporter there, so it's not reliable enough to "add context" for the overwhelming majority opinion among reliable sources, namely, that Fancy Bear is a Russian government op. Geogene ( talk) 22:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed." This basically coincides with the opinions expressed in by Greenwald, Biddle, Snowden and others. Again it is important know exactly how and what we know, as opposed to just skimming headlines telling us what "everyone" supposedly knows. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 23:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
(1) it went against the bulk of reliable sources (2) it was an opinion piece (3) by a reporter.We disagree on everything except #3. Even if you think most of the piece consists entirely of "minority" view (it's not monolithic), that is not an argument for removing it, since it did not violate WP:WEIGHT. B. Living people are entitled to state what their views are in response to claims made by others about their views. It's simply not tenable to argue that Assange's relevant and repeated public statements, covered in RS, are not notable. The article already says Assange hates Clinton and is cozy with Russia (from 3 sources, one of which is a truly ludicrous opinion piece), so adding his statements about both Trump and Clinton is not false equivalence. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this article into a coatrack about Assange, but in an interview today he said he doesn't know Guccifer 2.0 and he seems agnostic about whether 2.0 is a Russian disinfo campaign or not. He re-stated that his own DNC leak sources are not Russian (this article already makes that clear). There's no hurry to add it until more sources come out and we can see how much weight it should get. But it's interesting, and perhaps relevant. [5]. Geogene ( talk) 00:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This article obviously has issues with neutrality and could reasonably be considered "Russia bashing". All of the links are to fake news websites. The only explanation given for the hack is "Russia did it", forgoing alternative explanations. -- 45.72.137.215 ( talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi all Wikipedia enthusiast editors :) I suggest to re-balance the introduction section first paragraph. So that claims from both views are represented ( NPOV). In other words, two sided claims instead of on-sided claims. I mean including in the article competing versions of what the facts are. Assuming trustworthy and reliable source(s) are available of course. Highlighted in italic below.
Some of the documents they say they released appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.
[1]
[2]
[3] According to Guccifer 2.0, U.S. intelligence agencies have deliberately falsified their technical evidence, and their reports about alleged Russian interference do not stand up to scrutiny, "this is a crude fake".
[4]
[5]
References
propaganda
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
--unsigned comment left by User:Francewhoa ( talk), 13:19, March 3, 2017.
I have undone a substantial reorganization of the article. I do appreciate that this edit was made in good faith, but I don't think it was an improvement on the existing organization. My primary objections are on WP:WEIGHT grounds, which extends to organization of content: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
-- Neutrality talk 21:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"I feel that it's fair for both allegation sides to use an equal amount of space in that article."I do understand that impulse, but the premise is incorrect. I agree it's important to clearly and accurately explain the positions of the Russian government, Assange, and the "Guccifer 2.0" character. And we do so already. We don't need to give them "equal time" nor should we. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view ... needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Neutrality talk 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to article: his communication with the Trump campaign's Roger Stone. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
Related articles and sources
Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be
Francewhoa ( talk) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the following section to its own section. As it's significant information. Also it would further add NPV to that article, because that information from Guccifer 2.0 himself contradict numerous expert's claims about the source.
On August 25, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 claimed that murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”. [1] Rich was a data analyst staff with the DNC. The month before, Rich was killed in Washington DC on July 10, 2016 with multiple gun shots. The following month, WikiLeaks offered a USD $20,000 reward for any information leading to a conviction in Rich's murder case. [2]
Francewhoa ( talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
"Some of the documents they say they released" I suggest that "they" be replaced with a noun because as it reads, it is unclear. Does the writer refer to Wikileaks as "they" here? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
"Guccifer 2.0" is a person or persona stating they were the hacker(s) that hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and then leaked its documents to the media,[1][2] the website WikiLeaks,[3][4][5][6][7] and a conference event.[8] Some of the documents they say they released appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.[9][10][11], then it's already clear that the "they" is Guccifer 2.0, the subject of the article. Geogene ( talk) 14:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phmoreno: Regarding your recent edit, this has been challenged before. There's a number of reasons why your edit is problematic:
-- Neutrality talk 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I know that Stickee has previously removed this content, and I think Geogene might have as well. Phmoreno, if you want to pursue this, then post here and try to change the consensus. Neutrality talk 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to add the below section to the article, but another wikipedia user deleted it from the article. I'm moving the relevant discussion from my talk page to this article's talk page as a more appropriate location. I could use assistance in reaching some kind of consensus on this. Thanks. Whoisg2 ( talk) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.
Neutrality
talk
02:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Russian metadata “fingerprints” were found to have been intentionally inserted into at least 5 documents from Guccifer 2’s first wordpress blog post on 6/15/16. [1] These Russian metadata "fingerprints" were not found to be present in the versions of these documents found in Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications. [2] As of November 26, 2018, it was discovered that G2 likely planted Russian metadata "fingerprints" into multiple of it's wordpress posts. [3] Elizabeth Vos of Disobedient Media noted that while there is evidence that G2 published documents and email screenshots, there is no evidence that Guccifer 2 published a single email. [4] The Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain tens of thousands of emails in .eml file format, as opposed to G2’s documents which contained .doc/.docx, pdf, and .xlsx (spreadsheet) formatted files. [5]
In addition to inserted Russian “fingerprints”, Guccifer 2 inserted at least 5 Romanian/Chinese “fingerprints” into documents on it’s 6/30/16 wordpress post. These files were last modified by “朱德” (Zhu De), a famous Chinese general and a pioneer of the Communist Party of China and had Romanian and Chinese language settings activated on these documents. Versions of these documents found in the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain no such Romanian or Chinese “fingerprints”. [6] [7]
On it’s July 6, 2016 wordpress post, Guccifer 2 also inserted Vietnamese “fingerprints” into at least 5 uploaded documents. Each Vietnamese “fingerprinted” file had a LastModifiedBy value of “Nguyễn Văn Thắng”, a high ranking Vietnamese communist party leader. Zhu De and Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky were also communist party leaders in China and the Soviet Union, respectively, and inserted by G2 into previous wordpress documents in the LastModifiedBy metadata values/fields. [8]
Assange claimed that Wikileaks emails were “pristine” and did not contain the circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement found in the “separate batch” of documents published by G2/Gawker/Smoking Gun. As previously noted, clear evidence of alterations/inserted “fingerprints” were found to be present in Guccifer 2’s published documents. On the other hand, Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications were not found to have a single instance of altered metadata or inserted Russian/Chinese/Romanian “fingerprints”. In addition to this, many of Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails and attachments were shown to be authentic/unaltered through DKIM verification. [9] [10] Whoisg2 ( talk) 02:20, January 9, 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this just a conspiracy theory? This is not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.187.185.84 ( talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BLP1E? Not seeing how this figure is independently notable from
Democratic National Committee cyber attacks—no reason why their actions can't be adequately covered in context there
czar
03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
An entire paragraph in the lead was filled with speculation and covering topics not detailed in the article. Because the content is highly leading and poorly sourced, considering its extraordinary claims, I've removed it. - Darouet ( talk) 23:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The content about the identity of "Guccifer 2.0" (most likely a brand of the Russian intelligence services) should not be at the bottom of the article. It should in the top section, because the alleged Russian interference in the US election is the most notable aspect of the subject, as indicated by reliable sources. I see moving that to the bottom to be another POV-push. Geogene ( talk) 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Guccisamsclub: Newsweek and The Intercept are both reliable sources for some purposes. There are varying degrees of reliability. If you want to go against mainstream opinion, you need a much better source than you would need to echo the dominant opinion. That Intercept piece you're advocating for is a novel analysis by a reporter there, so it's not reliable enough to "add context" for the overwhelming majority opinion among reliable sources, namely, that Fancy Bear is a Russian government op. Geogene ( talk) 22:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed." This basically coincides with the opinions expressed in by Greenwald, Biddle, Snowden and others. Again it is important know exactly how and what we know, as opposed to just skimming headlines telling us what "everyone" supposedly knows. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 23:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
(1) it went against the bulk of reliable sources (2) it was an opinion piece (3) by a reporter.We disagree on everything except #3. Even if you think most of the piece consists entirely of "minority" view (it's not monolithic), that is not an argument for removing it, since it did not violate WP:WEIGHT. B. Living people are entitled to state what their views are in response to claims made by others about their views. It's simply not tenable to argue that Assange's relevant and repeated public statements, covered in RS, are not notable. The article already says Assange hates Clinton and is cozy with Russia (from 3 sources, one of which is a truly ludicrous opinion piece), so adding his statements about both Trump and Clinton is not false equivalence. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this article into a coatrack about Assange, but in an interview today he said he doesn't know Guccifer 2.0 and he seems agnostic about whether 2.0 is a Russian disinfo campaign or not. He re-stated that his own DNC leak sources are not Russian (this article already makes that clear). There's no hurry to add it until more sources come out and we can see how much weight it should get. But it's interesting, and perhaps relevant. [5]. Geogene ( talk) 00:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This article obviously has issues with neutrality and could reasonably be considered "Russia bashing". All of the links are to fake news websites. The only explanation given for the hack is "Russia did it", forgoing alternative explanations. -- 45.72.137.215 ( talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi all Wikipedia enthusiast editors :) I suggest to re-balance the introduction section first paragraph. So that claims from both views are represented ( NPOV). In other words, two sided claims instead of on-sided claims. I mean including in the article competing versions of what the facts are. Assuming trustworthy and reliable source(s) are available of course. Highlighted in italic below.
Some of the documents they say they released appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.
[1]
[2]
[3] According to Guccifer 2.0, U.S. intelligence agencies have deliberately falsified their technical evidence, and their reports about alleged Russian interference do not stand up to scrutiny, "this is a crude fake".
[4]
[5]
References
propaganda
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
--unsigned comment left by User:Francewhoa ( talk), 13:19, March 3, 2017.
I have undone a substantial reorganization of the article. I do appreciate that this edit was made in good faith, but I don't think it was an improvement on the existing organization. My primary objections are on WP:WEIGHT grounds, which extends to organization of content: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
-- Neutrality talk 21:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"I feel that it's fair for both allegation sides to use an equal amount of space in that article."I do understand that impulse, but the premise is incorrect. I agree it's important to clearly and accurately explain the positions of the Russian government, Assange, and the "Guccifer 2.0" character. And we do so already. We don't need to give them "equal time" nor should we. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view ... needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Neutrality talk 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to article: his communication with the Trump campaign's Roger Stone. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
Related articles and sources
Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be
Francewhoa ( talk) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add the following section to its own section. As it's significant information. Also it would further add NPV to that article, because that information from Guccifer 2.0 himself contradict numerous expert's claims about the source.
On August 25, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 claimed that murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”. [1] Rich was a data analyst staff with the DNC. The month before, Rich was killed in Washington DC on July 10, 2016 with multiple gun shots. The following month, WikiLeaks offered a USD $20,000 reward for any information leading to a conviction in Rich's murder case. [2]
Francewhoa ( talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
"Some of the documents they say they released" I suggest that "they" be replaced with a noun because as it reads, it is unclear. Does the writer refer to Wikileaks as "they" here? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
"Guccifer 2.0" is a person or persona stating they were the hacker(s) that hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and then leaked its documents to the media,[1][2] the website WikiLeaks,[3][4][5][6][7] and a conference event.[8] Some of the documents they say they released appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.[9][10][11], then it's already clear that the "they" is Guccifer 2.0, the subject of the article. Geogene ( talk) 14:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phmoreno: Regarding your recent edit, this has been challenged before. There's a number of reasons why your edit is problematic:
-- Neutrality talk 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I know that Stickee has previously removed this content, and I think Geogene might have as well. Phmoreno, if you want to pursue this, then post here and try to change the consensus. Neutrality talk 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to add the below section to the article, but another wikipedia user deleted it from the article. I'm moving the relevant discussion from my talk page to this article's talk page as a more appropriate location. I could use assistance in reaching some kind of consensus on this. Thanks. Whoisg2 ( talk) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.
Neutrality
talk
02:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Russian metadata “fingerprints” were found to have been intentionally inserted into at least 5 documents from Guccifer 2’s first wordpress blog post on 6/15/16. [1] These Russian metadata "fingerprints" were not found to be present in the versions of these documents found in Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications. [2] As of November 26, 2018, it was discovered that G2 likely planted Russian metadata "fingerprints" into multiple of it's wordpress posts. [3] Elizabeth Vos of Disobedient Media noted that while there is evidence that G2 published documents and email screenshots, there is no evidence that Guccifer 2 published a single email. [4] The Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain tens of thousands of emails in .eml file format, as opposed to G2’s documents which contained .doc/.docx, pdf, and .xlsx (spreadsheet) formatted files. [5]
In addition to inserted Russian “fingerprints”, Guccifer 2 inserted at least 5 Romanian/Chinese “fingerprints” into documents on it’s 6/30/16 wordpress post. These files were last modified by “朱德” (Zhu De), a famous Chinese general and a pioneer of the Communist Party of China and had Romanian and Chinese language settings activated on these documents. Versions of these documents found in the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta email publications contain no such Romanian or Chinese “fingerprints”. [6] [7]
On it’s July 6, 2016 wordpress post, Guccifer 2 also inserted Vietnamese “fingerprints” into at least 5 uploaded documents. Each Vietnamese “fingerprinted” file had a LastModifiedBy value of “Nguyễn Văn Thắng”, a high ranking Vietnamese communist party leader. Zhu De and Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky were also communist party leaders in China and the Soviet Union, respectively, and inserted by G2 into previous wordpress documents in the LastModifiedBy metadata values/fields. [8]
Assange claimed that Wikileaks emails were “pristine” and did not contain the circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement found in the “separate batch” of documents published by G2/Gawker/Smoking Gun. As previously noted, clear evidence of alterations/inserted “fingerprints” were found to be present in Guccifer 2’s published documents. On the other hand, Wikileaks’ DNC/Podesta email publications were not found to have a single instance of altered metadata or inserted Russian/Chinese/Romanian “fingerprints”. In addition to this, many of Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails and attachments were shown to be authentic/unaltered through DKIM verification. [9] [10] Whoisg2 ( talk) 02:20, January 9, 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this just a conspiracy theory? This is not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.187.185.84 ( talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)