Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Clapper in lead

The Clapper sentence in the lead section was removed by VM, re-added by me, then removed again by Sagecandor. This phrase was part of the consensus RfC about the lead, so it should not be removed without prior discussion; the RfC closer even made a note about this in the wikitext. Right now I can't restore it due to 1RR. Sagecandor, please self-revert, then let's all discuss the merits here. — JFG ^talk 04:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Which RfC? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page: #RfC: Proposed lead section. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was posted on April 12. Yes, that was good version of lede for April 12 (agree with others). However, a lot of things had happen later. One should not use old RfCs to freeze content for dynamic subjects, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. And the Clapper thing wasn't really part of the RfC it was just left in there for "one thing at a time" reasons. Elsewhere in discussions there was no consensus for its inclusion. Regardless it's outdated now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Clapper not knowing about the classified FBI investigation is being touted as something it's not -- exculpatory. Which it isn't. Clapper would not know the inner workings of an FBI investigation. Sagecandor (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As DNI, Clapper supervised the FBI, CIA, NSA and others. He explicitly said that while he was in office (i.e. until January), none of the agencies he supervised had found any evidence of collusion. If you look at the detailed transcripts, he also said that he would have known; no need to know the "inner workings" for that, it was his job to get reports and assess the overall picture, and he did exactly that, forcefully confirming Russian interference while clearly negating Trump collusion. Of course, that doesn't disculp anything that may have surfaced after Clapper left, but we have other witnesses for that part (Comey, Feinstein, Burr, Nunes, Schiff etc.), and they are drifting off-topic from the Russian interference proper, so undue for this lead. — JFG ^talk 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Director of National Intelligence does NOT supervise the FBI. The Department of Justice supervises the FBI. There is no reason to expect the DNI to know what the FBI is doing. --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the FBI, "Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Clapper does not "supervise" the agencies, he "coordinates" them, that's why the ODNI was created in the first place after the 9/11 inquiries revealed lack of communications between various intelligence agencies. In this particular instance, Clapper, Brennan and Comey have met and coordinated their findings. Clapper then reported on this understanding. We have no credible reason to suppose that the FBI or another agency would be hiding some evidence from Clapper, so when he says they did not find evidence of Trump collusion while they found plenty of evidence of Russian meddling, we can only take his word. The journalist did push him to clarify both issues at that time. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A novel theory to justify edit-warring. 2 points! SPECIFICO talk 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no theory and there is no edit-warring. There was some RfC-approved text; VM removed it, I restored it, now we discuss. During the discussion, the text should stay. — JFG ^talk 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Repetition is not engagement. WP:WEIGHT. The reason not to restore it is not only the DS restriction. It's that numerous editors have challenged the edit and it has no consensus. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Does he say any of this? Does he say they presented him with no findings, or just that he did not believe them?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Verbatim from the interview transcript, after Todd asks about the evidence of collusion:

– Todd: But does it exist?

– Clapper: Not to my knowledge.

– Todd: If it existed, it would have been in this report?

– Clapper: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.

and later, speaking about the January report:

– Todd: So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom-- you admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?

– Clapper: It did-- well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.

Seems pretty clear-cut and supports the text that was removed: Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. — JFG ^talk 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Clapper: My words not 'exculpatory' for Trump, CNN. Sagecandor (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Added source, CNN, at DIFF. Done. Not exculpatory. Sagecandor (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

[1] Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Great cite from Volunteer Marek:

• Kruzel, John (May 12, 2017), "Donald Trump's Mostly False claim that James Clapper said no collusion found in Russia probe", PolitiFact, retrieved June 22, 2017

Amazing that Trump's self-same arguments end up appearing on Wikipedia, without attribution to Trump and his associates. Sagecandor (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• This quotation of Clapper contradicts other statements by the same Clapper and other summary in the lead. No wonder because this is a "mostly false claim" (as the source tells). This is not anything unusual. Politicians make a lot of various statements, and their statements change a lot depending on new data or other factors. This should be taken into account to produce a good summary in the lead. As written, this is contradictory and misleading. I would suggest to simply remove the phrase as something contradicting other statements by the same person and facts. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Comey and Clapper: This source says that Comey kept Clapper in the dark about the investigation into possible collusion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a case-in-point illustrating why WP must not cherrypick from the thousands of public snippets by government and political officials. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Just to reply to JFG's claim that "Clapper would have known" if the FBI had any evidence: actually the transcripts say the opposite. Per the PolitiFact citation, Asked about Trump’s tweet in a May 12 interview on MSNBC, Clapper explained that the director of national intelligence position would not necessarily offer a vantage point into FBI evidence. Clapper said that in his more than six years as DNI, he regularly deferred to the FBI when a counterintelligence investigation could possibly morph into a criminal investigation. "That was certainly the practice I followed here," he said of the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation. "So it’s not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or even more importantly, the content of that investigation." "So I don’t know if there was collusion or not," added Clapper, who resigned at the end of President Barack Obama’s term.
I think we should leave in a Clapper statement, but modify it to be more accurate. The proposed statement, Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia., is not entirely accurate. .How about Clapper stated that as of January 2017 he was not aware of any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. That's accurate, without getting into the weeds about his various statements. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What difference does it make what one man knew as of 6 months ago? What is the significance of that? We must not write in play-by-play mode. History will not record what Clapper knew in Jan 2017. I think its unencyclopedic to include news snippets that detract from the core narrative. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO and My very best wishes. Unencyclopedic to parse hairs like this, wishing and hoping Clapper comments are "exculpatory" of Trump, when he himself has said verbatim they are not "exculpatory" of Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

People are still quoting him (and misquoting him) months later. Reliable sources think it's still relevant. Part of our job is not just to include notable information (as judged by volume and persistence of coverage) but to make it as accurate as possible. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy also means not overemphasizing cherry-picked quotes just because it's pushed out by an interested party with a conflict of interest who happens to be the chief executive of the U.S. Sagecandor (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with MelanieN's proposed rephrasing: Clapper stated that as of January 2017 he was not aware of any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Ignores PolitiFact and CNN. Sagecandor (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Slightly outdated and misleading sources. There's also this recent fact-check though it's not about Clapper:

Trump has a point in that none of the investigations have made public any hard proof that Trump colluded with Russia during the presidential election – if there is any hard proof. – politifact.com, 2017-06-16

We could cite that instead. Politrukki (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be an accurate summary of the findings in various investigations: nothing. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've restored consensus wording again. I used the specific wording per RFC but I would not oppose alternative wording or adding content similar to what was here if the content is properly sourced – using secondary sources – and if WP:WEIGHT is established. Politrukki (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There obviously is not a consensus to include this - calling domething the "consensus version" because you favor it doesn't make it so. Personally, I oppose including this in the lede since Clapper has since said quite clearly that the meaning of the remark should not be over-stated. He was talking about what he knew at a specific moment, some time ago. Something that needs that many caveats is just not lede material imo. People have just seized on this quote because it appears to suggest something that Clapper has quite clearly said he didn't mean to say. Maybe it's ok for Fox news to misuse the quote that way but we should not be doing so. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Not quite correct: Clapper clearly said "we had no evidence of such collusion", including FBI, CIA and NSA in the "we". He somehow backtracked in May, saying there were perhaps things he didn't know, but in January Clapper, Brennan and Comey had insisted that they were coordinating their efforts closely and they all agreed on the reports' conclusions. Those conclusions purposely omitted any hint of collusion because, news flash from Clapper in March, they had no evidence. What a mess, these master spies… — JFG ^talk 23:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We should leave January-Clapper material out of the lead. We are not writing a play-by-play account. The article lead should reflect significant points, base on current knowledge. The Clapper material just distracts from the more important points. It's not noteworthy.- MrX 21:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but if we leave this quote out, we need to give some update on the state of all these investigations: what is a good summary of "current knowledge" on their findings so far? — JFG ^talk 22:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

By quote, I assume you mean this outdated snippet: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." The fourth paragraph should include a summary of reports that Trump is being investigated for obstruction of justice (and why) and that he has lawyered up (and so has Pence).- MrX 23:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that snippet, and I was asking what else can we say about the multiple investigations that have been underway for a year now? (6 months for the congressional ones) By the way, Trump is not being investigated for obstruction of justice, and even if he was, that is off-topic for the lead of Russian intervention. — JFG ^talk 23:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Trump is not being investigated for obstruction of justice" Are you sure about that? Trump seems to think he is.- MrX 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I'm not sure, because all sources are anonymous, but the latest reports clarify that Mueller is merely considering whether to pursue the obstruction of justice track. I bet this particular source is a high-powered lawyer, given the lawyeresque cover-your-ass wording of their quote… — JFG ^talk 20:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I suggest a one word change which makes it clear it's not an exact quote:

• Clapper stated clarified that as of January 2017 he was not aware of any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Even better:

• In May Clapper clarified that, at the time of the report in January 2017, he was not aware of any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

BullRangifer (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions to closing editor

@The Diaz: as you are the editor who closed the relevant RFC, would you kindly clarify whether there is consensus to include Clapper's statement in the lead per the RFC? Politrukki (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was held and closed a while ago, and new information/sources have surfaced since then (see sage's links above, for example). We should be guided by the most up to date sources, not by an outdated rfc. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the lead include James Clapper's comment that as of January 2017, the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia?. - MrX 12:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin gave direct instructions to help elect Trump, report says

• "Vladimir Putin gave direct instructions to help elect Trump, report says", CBS News, June 23, 2017, retrieved June 23, 2017

Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This source tells that "every single state [of USA] had been affected". This is known as "hybrid warfare". My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it says That report "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives - defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton." That is different than trying to elect Trump. It is widely reported and known that the Russians did not like Hillary and their work was to discredit her. Exposing the DNC was more appoint helping Bernie than Trump but fits the desire to damage Clinton. --DHeyward (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

" more appoint helping Bernie" - uh what? See WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the source literally says: "A report Friday morning claims Russian President Vladimir Putin gave direct instructions to help elect Donald Trump president." This is not that difficult...- MrX

Which isn't in the report. It's obviously inference and if you read what they quoted, the report doesn't mention Trump and wording it that way here would be undue weight to a single view that is not widely held. There is nothing new here, which is easy to see as it's the same report from December. To quote it again as it's reported by the vast majority of sources as well as the intelligence agencies: That report "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives - defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton." It isn't hard and this single source that isn't pointing to anything new doesn't warrant changing the narrative from harming Clinton to helping Trump. The Russians were attempting to harm Clinton and that is not disputed or new. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source says it is. Feel free to contact CBS News to request a correction if you believe otherwise. You're analysis of the facts doesn't trump that of a reputable news organization.- MrX 11:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That report "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives - defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton." is a direct quote from the CBS article. Feel free to ask them to clarify what they meant. In the meantime, the vast majority of sources say the intent was to damage Clinton and it would be UNDUE and SYNTH to use this single source to override all the other reliale sources. Stop acting obtusely solely to argue for a single, minority viewpoint unsupported by any other sources, including their own. --DHeyward (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I directly quoted the very first sentence of the article, which happens to reflect the title of the source and the first sentence in the video. It's also what several other sources report:

"A new report indicates that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered election hacking to help elect Donald Trump."
— The Independent

"But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
— The Washington Post

"Early last August, President Obama was handed an ”eyes only” memo from the CIA that described how evidence clearly showed Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally and directly involved in a cyber campaign to not only disrupt the U.S. presidential race, but to help throw the victory to Donald Trump."
— The Mercury News

"Barack Obama received an “intelligence bombshell” from the CIA last August warning him that Russian president Vladimir Putin was directing a hacking campaign to tip the presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, the Washington Post reported on Friday."
— The Guardian

"An investigative report by The Washington Post (WaPo) has revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in the election of Donald Trump as the US President."
— The Indian Express

"Barack Obama received an “intelligence bombshell” from the CIA last August warning him that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was directing a hacking campaign to tip the presidential election in Donald Trump’s favour, the Washington Post reported on Friday."
— The Irish Times

" It also stated the Russian president's instructions: To cause the defeat of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or at least harm her chances of winning, and to aid the election of now-President Donald Trump."
— Haaretz

Now, perhaps you could explain how exactly I am "acting obtusely solely to argue for a single, minority viewpoint unsupported by any other sources"?- MrX 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Dheyward but this can be extremely well sourced, and your argument against it appears to me to be OR (ie, "sure, multiple RS say it, but I reject what the RS say based on my own independent analysis of the situation"). Also, I'm not sure there's a really meaningful distinction between "harm clinton" and "help trump" - it was a two way race so any action by the Russians obviously did both. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Of course this is widely sourced, however if anyone wants to dig deeper, the plan to influence the elections has been developed by a "think tank" created by the SVR [2] [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the important fallout from this is that Trump has finally admitted that Russia interfered with the election (or at least did something naughty). I think this may be the first time he has done so, and he tweeted it multiple times. Of course he appears to have done this for the purpose of attack. And, he may reverse himself tomorrow; so we shouldn’t yet use this in such a manner. But, at least, I hope this stops some editors from demanding that we use the word alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not news: the "direct orders from Putin" assertion was already spelled out in the January ODNI report. The only news is that somebody has now leaked the briefing document that Brennan provided to Obama and Congress "Gang of Eight" in August. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

NO, but it is more confirmation. I think we should add a line about this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Already added to the lead: However, the CIA cited intelligence sources inside the Russian government that identified Putin giving instructions to disparage Clinton and help Trump. The August briefing part was already in the body: Concerned, Brennan gave classified briefings to the Gang of Eight (the leaders of the House and Senate, and the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees) during late August and September 2016.[95] Referring only to intelligence allies and not to specific sources, Brennan told the Gang of Eight that he had received evidence that Russia might be trying to help Trump win the U.S. election. Might be worth editing slightly with this more precise information, mentioning this Kremlin insider source revealed in the WaPo piece; I'll have a go at it. — JFG ^talk 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done[4] — JFG ^talk 12:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Who the Russia investigators are talking to

Who the Russia investigators are talking to, Axios

BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this RS?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain how it's viewed here, but it should be possible to verify each person in more known RS, which can be used as references. This gives a basis for investigation/confirmation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We should be covering this. It should be under the "Investigation by special counsel" section, and that section still needs to be enlarged to the bursting point and then spun off into a sub-article devoted to the investigation. (All content deleted from that section should be restored.) We talked about it, but has it happened? There should only be a few summary paragraphs there and a "main" link. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Commentary and reactions - Russia (again)

For lack of a better option, I ended up Google-translating the Russian references. The first one (current ref. number 322) is Putin’s official statement as "Russian President", i.e., primary source. The second one (#323) is a rehash that same statement (consisting mostly of direct quotes) by the Russian government’s newspaper of record, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, i.e., also a primary source. I’ve deleted both and, instead, added the NY Times article editor DHeyward mentioned in the "Russia did not retaliate" discussion above. The text of the section needs some rewriting; right now it reads like the official statement. I'll tackle it tomorrow unless someone else gets to it first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good fix. It tells correctly "The statement went on to say that further steps for restoring Russian-American relations would be built on the basis of the policies developed by the Trump administration". My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did it already. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN reveled as faking it

Off-topic and unrelated to improving this article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So was reading a few articles about this whole thing. And found that CNN was filmed during an undercover operation and caught stating that they made the whole thing up But pushed it for extra ratings. They knew it wasn't true but stirred the pot. It was something called project Verritas and is easily sourceable across the web. How come thins hasn't been mentioned. I admit I'm not very in ouch with this issue so ive not changed anything on the article but this seems like it should be a bigger deal than it is given there is no mention of this on the main page. any comments? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Any RS you care to link to?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC) The Whole thing is documented Quite well here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#CNN_undercover_videos_.282017.29 Including its critisisms and has potential worth at least referencing the incident on this page if not at least linking to the site that shows the main detail. I mean if CNN did fake the whole thing its relivent to this topic. If they didn't but are being accused of it its relivent to this topic 85.159.132.48 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC) So no CNN were not caught out, a producer for programs in a unrelated field expressed HIS OWN opinion. Nor did he say it was all made up, he said it was "mostly bullshit", and that is saying that it is only "mostly bullshit now" because there is not major evidence (note this is about the coverage, not the actual story). Also this is appallingly edited, the jumps mean a lot of material (and this questions that were being answered are missing). When the full footage is released I think we can discus what was really said.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Neither Project Veritas nor Wikipedia are reliable sources. Project Veritas' heavily edited videos are mentioned in the Project Veritas article; which is where they belong. This is also WP:FRINGE and should be hatted. Objective3000 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new subsection of Commentary and reactions

Obviously not a good faith proposal to improve the article. Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'Journalists opposing Mainstream Media narrative' Humanengr (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC) If it's possible to find RS.... . For our purposes here, Trump's favored sources (Fox News, FSB, RT, Sputnick, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, and The Daily Caller) would probably qualify per WP:PARITY, which allows fringe and unreliable sources in the absence of commentary from RS, the ones Trump hates (Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, BBC, CNN, FBI, CIA, etc.), IOW, the "Mainstream Media". We clearly have two sides, with Trump and Putin on one side, supported by their fringe media, and the rest of the world's media on the other. Trump's side should be documented. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Nyet. POV-toothpick. False equivalence. Watch your WP:WEIGHT. That's like a section from the flat earth society on the Magellan article. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 'Russian interference' has not been proven in either a scientific or legal sense. False on the false equivalence. Humanengr (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Congrats on your POV. Just keep it out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Don't tell me what to do or not do. Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Snot me, WP:NPOV SPECIFICO talk @BullRangifer: 3 not 2. Those who take the accusations as 1) proven, 2) disproven, 3) unproven (i.e., merely accusations). Humanengr (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Nicely put, there are indeed three readings of this affair. All should be represented. — JFG talk 05:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC) In a certain sense, the question is irrelevant. We just document what RS state, and most RS consider the interference to have happened, and it being performed by Russia and directed by Putin, all to harm Clinton, disrupt the American voting and democratic processes, and to help Trump win. (Isn't it a strange and unexplainable coincidence how it actually worked so well? That's what's happened! ) Whether that's actually true is doubted and debated by fringe and unreliable sources. You want to document that doubt? We already do that (Trump's and Putin's views are clearly described), abundantly, but go ahead and propose some actual edits, with the sources you'd like to use. Maybe this will work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Thx BullRangifer. Note however that RS does not proven fact make. There have been no proceedings in a court of governing jurisdiction. Ergo, your statement "That's what's happened!" has not been proven. Humanengr (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Further, BullRangifer: The entire article, starting with couching by the title "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and the title of the first section "Russian involvement", present as proven fact. That makes Wikipedia a lie -— i.e., an unproven allegation that the controlling editors here take as fact — Is that what you, we, everyone here wants? Humanengr (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC) We document what RS say. Only fringe and unreliable sources dispute that POV. The article states some things as fact because RS do it, and other things are stated as unproven allegations because RS do that. Our job as editors is to present it that way. What may "actually be true" is somewhat irrelevant. We fight for "verifiability, not truth", because "truth" is a slippery bugger, often subject to one's POV. Those who are blessed are those who consistently change their opinions and bring them into line with what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC) What is indisputable is that these allegations have not been adjudicated in a court of jurisdiction. Do you or any RS claim it has been adjudicated? Humanengr (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC) No, but if and when they do, RS will report it and we will document the decisions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC) In the meantime, WP parrots and presents mainstream drivel as fact. (It's drivel if only on the count that it has not been proven in a court of jurisdiction.) Again, is that what you want? The fact that the controlling WP editors here take allegations as proven fact should be cause for alarm, not defense of 'policy'. Humanengr (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC) As others have said, we use RS. If RS have said it's real so do we. And no, not being proven in a court of law does not make it drivel, it makes it legally unproven).Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Neither has the Law of Gravity. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC) This is also not helpful, can all edds please resist the temptation to mock.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Not mockery in the slightest. It's an observation first made by Karl Popper and it is a refutaion of Humanengr. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Again, simply asserting that RS treat Russian interference as a fact does not make it so. Eppur si muove. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC) No, but we cannot say what RS do not say, and we do say what RS say. So if RS say it is a fact (even if it is not) so do we. So are thre any RS that actually say that Russia did not interfere with the US elections?Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) @Slatersteven, re "not being proven in a court of law does not make it drivel, it makes it legally unproven).": It's drivel because it's legally unproven AND they don't say it's unproven. If this were a murder case, they would take care to always say 'alleged'. But they don't. They lie, they deceive, they mislead all. Humanengr (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) @Slatersteven, re "As others have said, we use RS. If RS have said it's real so do we.": Listen to yourself. Why make WP accomplice to this fraud upon the public? Re "we cannot say what RS do not say, and we do say what RS say.": Repeating: "WE DO WHAT RS SAY". LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You are human being, not robot. You can choose not to commit fraud. Humanengr (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC) You are right I am not a robot. But what we are are people who (by being here) have a greed to Wikipedia's terms and conditions. If you are not happy with them either leave or take it to the right noticeboard. If Wikipedia HAS A SET OF RULES WE EITHER OBEY THEM OR WE LEAVE (EITHER VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY). Also who is misleading, Donny, THE MEDIA!!!!, Putin? Now do you accept what I think happened as evidence, and do you agree that we can include it in this article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I support including diverse views points, but articles should not be organized according to our perception of sources' points of view. Any opinions that we include should be noteworthy (they should come from people who are widely regarded as experts) or the opinions should be cited in other third party sources. Humanengr, please propose specific copy with citations and we can work from there. - MrX 12:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks, MrX. Re "they should come from people who are widely regarded as experts)": Not when THEY LIE, DECEIVE, MISLEAD ALL.That makes them criminal. That makes the editors who repeat this drivel, citing all sorts of WP policy as justification, effectively complicit. Which is a Shame. Because I think the vast majority of you, if you realized what you are doing — and the fact that it only benefits those you would normally oppose — the MIC, Neocons, and Neolibs — would stop and fight for changes in WP policy and beyond. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Can we please close this as this does not seem to be about the article, but Wikipedia in general (and attacking it's editors) and thus is just waiting time.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC) This article is prima facie. I am not attacking, I am appealing. Re your "If Wikipedia HAS A SET OF RULES WE EITHER OBEY THEM OR WE LEAVE (EITHER VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY).": Choice 3, as I wrote to MrX — stop and fight for changes. Humanengr (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "Not when THEY LIE, DECEIVE, MISLEAD ALL.That makes them criminal.". That's a very vague assertion and doesn't seem to reflect the body of available sources. You opened this section to propose a new subsection in the article. What specific content do you propose putting there, noting that we don't create empty sections in published articles?- MrX 13:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC) The media (and the politicians, 'experts', etc., they cite) lie, deceive, mislead each and every time they report unproven allegations as facts without the qualifier 'alleged'. Is that clear? Humanengr (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Cites?- MrX 14:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC) As you commented in this edit: ""Alleged" does not represent the preponderance of sources." And in discussion re that said "sources are overwhelmingly treating the Russian interference as an accepted fact." Humanengr (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC) What does that have to do with this discussion: Proposed new subsection of Commentary and reactions?- MrX 15:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC) This is just soapboxing, can we just drop it now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Humanengr: … stop and fight for changes. Talk pages are not the correct place to argue about changing Wikipedia policy. Continuing with such here is WP:DE. Time to collapse this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Most of those sources fail rs, hence coverage of their views is limited and mostly should be sourced to reliable news sources reporting on them. However, note that mainstream media is not treating Russian interference as a fact, although it is giving more weight to observers who treat it as fact. It's like the war in Iraq. Mainstream media did not actually say Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was behind the 9/11 attacks, it just gave more coverage to observers who believed the intelligence was accurate. Incidentally, the conservative media was even more biased than mainstream media. TFD (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC) It seems pretty clear that Humanengr is here to do battle[5] in an effort to right great wrongs and is not here to build the encyclopedia using RS. I agree that they are soapboxing and violating talk page guidelines. We have seen no proposed edits yet, so this should be hatted as unconstructive and disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Russia

What is this sentence in the third paragraph trying to say: "The statement went on to say that Russia would take work on Russian-American relations under the administration of President D. Trump." Is that a translation from one of the Russian references? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to ask about that myself. The Russian source was very confusing, and I'm guessing it's a result of an earlier, and equally confusing RfC. [6] -- There were better sources for it in English, but I didn't feel like getting involved in yet another dispute. DN (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC was only about the lead section; this confusing sentence is elsewhere. Some good Russian speaker should provide a better translation indeed, and we probably don't need to quote three sources for that. — JFG ^talk 10:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit I was referring to was from the third paragraph in the lead section. [7] -- DN (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see. So we should have two threads, because Space4Time3Continuum2x was quoting a totally different part of the article. — JFG ^talk 19:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I should have added that my question was about the "Russia" subsection, not the lede. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Russia did not retaliate

The following discussion 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.

---

About the "Russia did not retaliate" statement, I believe it is justified to mention it because the norm in international relations is quid-pro-quo: every time country A expels diplomats or spies from country B, the latter responds by expelling an equal number of diplomats or spies from country A. The fact that Putin said in effect "I'll wait and see until Trump is in office" is a very peculiar attitude… No matter how it's interpreted, it is on-topic for the whole Russia / Trump story. — JFG ^talk 19:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Russia did not retaliate" belongs in the article, but not the lead. I don't think it's significant in the context of an already extensively complex subject.- MrX 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That is OR deluxe. If he said that not in OR effect but in fact, and RS link it to the topic of this article, then properly worded text might be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources noted that Russia did not retaliate against the expulsion of its diplomats. There was a source already describing it. Here's another: [8] --DHeyward (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Heyward, please review WP:SYNTH. You're not responding to the given problem here. We all know about sourcing. Lots of stuff is sourced. Nobody has said otherwise. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The response from Russia when their diplomats were expelled is due for the lead if we keep that they were kicked out in it. Which is why it has consensus for inclusion here [9]. @MrX: With talks on going and previous consensus to include it, why did you remove that part?[10] PackMecEng (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's only a few words, so why not keep it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the worst argument for including something in Wikipedia I've ever seen. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

LMAO! MelanieN, of course it is, if taken alone and totally seriously. No serious Wikipedian who knows my history here would do that. Some people are very concerned about the size of the lead, so it was only for them. There are much more substantive arguments for and against including it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've self-reverted. I still believe it would be better to leave this out of the lead, but consensus is apparently not on my side.- MrX 00:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be stated in context, in the terms that RS discussed it at the time. The cryptic and synthy non-sequitur snippet in the lede, conveys no encyclopedic information. And the aggressive edit-warring to reinsert it while it's still under discussion is just sad. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: It's a bit hollow to cite an old RfC that lists a long-extinct version of the lede. Editing continued fast and furious throughout the RfC and since the RfC. What's your view of all the other changes? The RfC was not about that little appendage. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would leave it out of the lede. It has no context and it's not an important enough detail for the lede. If it someday turns out to be significant (as it might - for example, suppose it turns out that they refrained from retaliating as part of some kind of bargain with a Trump advisor) we can reconsider then. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was closed just two weeks ago, so I disagree with it being old. While it was not specifically about that little part, it was also not disputed at all during the discussion. That may just be because there were bigger fish to fry in that lengthy debate but it should be noted.

I personally agree that it is not very clear in it's placement or wording but I would say that the response from Russia or lack there of is notable. Since it is very unusual that there was almost no retaliation and little response. As MelanieN notes some context for it would be helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have RS stating that this is very unusual, etc. perhaps you can write some informative text to replace the snippet, most likely in the corpus but perhaps in the lede depending on what your RS has to say. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

NY Times Looks decent on it. Perhaps expanding the statement to something like "Russia's foreign minister recommended expelling American diplomats in a tit-for-tat response, but President Putin announced he would not retaliate. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How about "Putin instructed his foreign minister to pretend he was urging X but surprisingly, Putin disregarded his pleadings and generated several days' cable tv fodder by inviting American diplomats to his holiday kiddie show at the Kremlin." -- But in any event this stuff doesn't belong in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha, that might be an improvement from what is currently there. But I think I like my suggestion better. PackMecEng (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, my position is basically the same as MelanieN. This is a minor detail that is not a significant or properly contextualized enough to bear including in the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it has no context and should not be in the lede. It's not "a plain statement of what happened", to quote the editor who reinserted it, it's "a plain statement of what NOT happened". It doesn't "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points", it merely leaves the reader wondering what it's trying to imply. The consensus here seems to be for deletion from the lede. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that most editors simply don't want anything except for American government claims and actions in the article. We say that Russian diplomats were expelled, and that Russia did not retaliate. Both are equally significant. Why are we removing the second half of that story from the lede? Because this article is meant to state American intelligence agencies' views in Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that Russia not retaliating is as significant, and no nations do not always retaliate. What is more important is they said they would, and then did not after the election (and taking into account Donnys actions [[11]]).Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Stop disparaging other editors and comment only on content improvement. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase could be used in proper context, i.e. Putin did not respond because he expected favors from Trump (that is what Russian language sources I read were telling). However, as written this sounds strange. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What about rewording to "Russia's foreign minister recommended expelling American diplomats in a tit-for-tat response, but President Putin announced he would not retaliate." [12] That should add some context to why it was unusual. Also given the number of RS writing about it at the time I feel it qualifies as notable. Thoughts?PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead describes the actual subject (the "interference" by Putin) and the reaction by US. Telling there was no reaction to reaction does not belong to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The lack of reaction is the notable part, which is why it needs an explanation. Specifically everyone was expecting them to react and Putin was advised by high ranking officials to react but choose not to for unknown reasons. PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Utter BS propaganda. Find any RS account to support? SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

NYT, CNBC, and WashingtonPost. Those are just three quick ones I found. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Like I says, "carefully stage-managed" propaganda BS is what RS describe. This article is not about BS, it's about the Russian attack. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, we should point out the propaganda related to this as well. Do you have a suggestion for adding that info? The rest of the sources don't really mention that though. I'm also not sure I agree that parts of this article are not about BS. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean like arse techinca and the pundit amigos? Maybe. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps but the Ars Technica (I think you made a typo with the name) adds some much needed expert balance to the article. I was thinking more along the lines of the Fox Vox sources. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: I see there was an attempt to remove the sentence, per "majority opinion in talk", and it was then restored. Personally I do not yet see a clear majority in this discussion. This is how I read it:

• Include sentence in lede: User:JFG, User:DHeyward, User:PackMecEng, User:BullRangifer.
• Don't include sentence in lede: User:MrX, User:MelanieN, User:Fyddlestix, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, User:BullRangifer, User:SPECIFICO, User:My very best wishes
• Unclear: User:SPECIFICO (against?), User:Thucydides411 (for?), User:Slatersteven, User:My very best wishes (against?).

It might become clearer if the people I have listed as "unclear" - people who have commented without specifically saying "include" or "don't include" - would clarify where they stand. And if I have misinterpreted anyone's stand, please correct me. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That is because I do not think it is quite that black and white. The bare statement "Russia did not retaliate" should not be in the lead without it also saying that they had planned to and then decided against it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Against lede. I doubt that any RS ultimately consider it of lasting significance. And we have no idea what any Russian thinks or recommends because RS tell us Putin routinely has folks disappeared when they disappoint him. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am against including "Russia did not retaliate" for two reasons: (1) Actually, Putin is going to retaliate right now [13], (2) he already retaliated in a number of ways, such as this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I moved to "not include". Without better context (which would be too much detail for the lead), it doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead, BUT it should be included in the body, with context, and this latest USA Today ref about planned retaliation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

When I deleted the sentence the last time, I had counted seven editors against including it in the lede (that's a 58.3% majority), four for inclusion, and one undecided which seems to be the exact tally we're at right now. The sentence wasn't even discussed in the RfC, and I still don't know how that ended. It kind of fizzled out after a month, and after another month an editor closed it based on a "consensus favor(ing) the proposed" version. How did the closer even manage to count editors supporting para 1+3 but not 2+4, etc.? Putin's statements are cited ad nauseam in the "Russia" commentary and reaction section, they don't belong in the lede. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating my update, it appears we DO have consensus to remove it from the lede, and SpaceTime has removed it. Context or new information can be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2017 (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.

And so the cleansing of the article proceeds. At least when an article becomes skewed enough, it's no longer harmful - readers can see it for what it is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nominator's note: I feel that having a stand-alone article for this is WP:UNDUE, and do not expect people on the talk page to be interested in merge proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

NY Times 'correction'

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html:

Correction: June 29, 2017 A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

Humanengr (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the original article? It would be nice to check what it said. Also, have we cited or used this in the article or discussed it here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20170626053247/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html:

… The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

Humanengr (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article does not make the "17 agencies" claim anywhere, so I'm not sure what this has to do with this article at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, thanks for finding that. Unless there is some other reason, I have to agree with Fyddlestix that there doesn't seem to be any relevance here at this point. Otherwise it just means that "The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by four American intelligence agencies: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." (revised version from June 30) That much is still certain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," implies that the alleged interference is a fact, and a number of editors have argued that we should accept the opinions of U.S. security police regardless of how mainstream media reports their findings. TFD (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So, iiuc, 13 agencies decline to approve, 4 do and, as you say, "a number of editors have argued that we should accept the opinions of U.S. security police regardless of how mainstream media reports their findings." Do I have that right? Humanengr (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that says that 13 agencies "declined to to approve"? I don't remember even one agency declining. 13 agencies not contributing towards the assessment does not mean that they agree or disagree with the findings, it just means that they were not involved, hardly surprising for agencies such as Coast Guard Intelligence or National Geospatial Intelligence. The sentence that used the phrase "representing 17 intelligence agencies" to explain who the ODNI is - and not to claim that all 17 agencies came to any conclusion - was removed from the article. It was the conclusion of ODNI, FBI, CIA, and NSA. And 6 months later a journalist made an error, and the newspaper corrected it (badly, IMO, they should have said who the agencies were, but I'm editorializing). It's not relevant to this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Until the Coast Guard and the Mine Safety Review Board produce fingerprints of Putin on Assange's laptop... SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that would be an interesting story. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re 'a basic fact' per the quote you included above: may I ask if you take 'Russian interference' as 'fact' because, in your view, 1) reliable sources report it as fact or 2) primary sources claim it as fact or ?? Thx

What BullRangifer, you or I consider "facts" is irrelevant. This is not a forum. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk)

Objective3000 is correct, but, FYI, I base my opinions and editing on what RS "report as fact" (which is the same as what they "claim as fact", "allege as fact", whatever). They know more than I do. That RS confirm what primary sources say is an added plus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Iiuc, we part in that I see an RS "report as fact" as substantially different from "claim as fact" or "allege as fact". The former present as 'fact', the latter an allegation. E.g., refs 1, 3, 4 quote the ODNI-DHS joint statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that …" and "We believe … that …". Ref 2, the ODNI presents their conclusions as "We have high confidence in these judgments …". The lede sentence says 'high confidence'. I take these primary sources, the RS's citing those primary sources, and the lede sentence as presenting allegations not facts. Humanengr (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this source cxontradictvthat, does it say the other intelligence agencies have not concluded this, or just they were not part of the process (when it is not part of their job)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Re 4 out of 17: agree that's not worth pursuing as there is insufficient public data re agency roles and positions. Interesting though that the claim of all 17 has been repeated elsewhere by 'experts'. Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this sworn testimony under oath clear enough?:

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): The president has repeatedly talked about ... Russia's involvement in the U.S. election cycle as "a hoax" and as "fake news." ...

JAMES COMEY: Yes, sir. There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that because this is about America, not about any particular party.

HEINRICH: So that was a hostile act by the Russian government against this country?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

There is zero wiggle room left for doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Do any of the 17 current (e.g., not fired) agency heads concur? Also, per DNI.gov:

High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.

Humanengr (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead of asking here, maybe you should look it up and find some sources on the subject, then see whether there's any information worth adding to this article. -- Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also what have these agencies been quoted as experts on? It is down to those who want to include something to demonstrate relevance. Now maybe we could reword it to " all relevant US intelligence agencies", but why bother?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[my edit to my last cmt crossed w your cmt] If there were such, it wouldn't matter, as they would be concurring re 'high confidence', not a fact. See DNI definition above. Humanengr (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My edits crossed with RRC's and then w yours. Hope it's readable now. Humanengr (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I see now it dropped my edit. Will redo in a bit. Humanengr (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[redoing that] @Red Rock Canyon If there were such, it wouldn't matter, as they would be concurring re 'high confidence', not a fact. See DNI definition above. @Slatersteven Agree re don't bother. (I had inserted a response to you above re 'not worth pursuing'.) [hth] Humanengr (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me explain, when I said why bother I meant why bother to change what we have now, your source does not contradict the claim that the US intelligence community conclude with high confidence the interference occurred, what it says is that agencies not involved foreign espionage were not part of the process. It does not say they do not agree with the assessment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[i tried to 'thank' you, but see now it didn't take] That's fine (though we can't say for certain no other agencies were involved in some way). The open issue (which maybe should be split off if it continues) is the derivative discussion BullRangifer and I are having. Humanengr (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The definitions are interesting, but it would be a SYNTH violation to use them here since that's from a document about Iran. Regardless, it's clear that the intelligence community treats this as a fact and carries out their investigations on that basis. They are seeking more evidence to back up what they have already found. What they've already found is what makes them so confident it happened.

I do find their "high confidence" definition interesting, as it is the strongest possible statement wise humans can make, and in science a window is always left open for the possibility of being wrong. It's essentially a scientific definition, as those of us in the scientific world would use the same language to describe the theory of gravity and other scientific theories which we treat as fact. We can always be wrong, but the known evidence is so strong that we bet our lives on it being true every single day.

The only thing still in doubt is the degree of collusion between Russians, hackers, and the Trump campaign, and that too is becoming more clear. The allegations in the Steele dossier are very clear and many have been corroborated, while others are still being investigated. So that's why we are more cautious with how we describe collusion. We treat it as unproven or partially proven. The latest revelations about the Russian/Flynn/Peter W. Smith collusion is very interesting and demonstrate some form of collusion did occur. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Started new thread below Humanengr (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of 'high confidence"

[contd from discussion w BullRangifer above]

dni.gov provides that definition identically in multiple docs -- see, e.g., the Annex of this doc. It's general DNI policy.

What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language

… Confidence in Assessments. Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that varies in scope, quality and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments, as follows: • High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong. …

@BullRangifer, re your second para above: Is the issue at hand here one of 'science' or one of 'law'? Humanengr (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And what edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer Re: science. This is law, not science. It has not been adjudicated. Until then, it is 'alleged', here with 'high confidence'. Humanengr (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a street crime. History is replete with bad actions by governments that have never been adjudicated in a court of law. That doesn’t mean we must use the word alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I'll address a suggested edit after this discussion clarifying 'high confidence'. Humanengr (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

iiuc, you are asking why clarify first. A: to build common understanding. Humanengr (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

But without knowing what edit you propose we do not know if this definition ids being correctly applied.

To illustrate (based upon the conversation this forked from) your edit might be "only 4 of the 176 agencies concluded with high confidence", but this clearly would have nothing to do with the definition of "high confidence".Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the problem is. The very first line of this article says "high confidence" and includes a link to an article explaining exactly what that means. -- Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is why I am asking what this is actually about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to refer all to related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Citing claims in international disputes, which I started there as that issue bears more broadly across WP. (Slatersteven has already responded there.)Humanengr (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a point here, either. Does Humanengr have some suggested changes, or is this like their previous TP discussion that was hatted? DN (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We're merely citing RS reporting on the conclusion of the US intelligence community. If there are newer RS now reporting something different, then please cite them. Otherwise this is just a retread of prior discussions on who or what is a reliable source and how to paraphrase/quote them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And now it has been raised here as well [[14]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just two words

The following discussion 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.

---

To make the title and first section header consistent with the lede, prepend with 'Alleged'. Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

we have had this more then once (once a week) we have it in two other forums, drop the stick.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2017 (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.

Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

You are invited to participate in Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

James Comey testimony

DrFleischman In this edit [15] your edit summary reads "summarize and remove blockquote - readily paraphrased, totally undue and unnecessary" - How exactly is including the testimony "totally" WP:UNDUE or "unnecessary" in a section titled James Comey testimony, June 8, 2017? I find it hard to understand how the literal testimony could be considered undue here, not to mention how such a small portion of the testimony could be considered "unnecessary" or giving too much WP:WEIGHT. See below...

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): The president has repeatedly talked about ... Russia's involvement in the U.S. election cycle as "a hoax" and as "fake news." ...

JAMES COMEY: Yes, sir. There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that because this is about America, not about any particular party.

HEINRICH: So that was a hostile act by the Russian government against this country?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

DN (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think this part of his testimony is extremely WP:DUE in that particular section. In his live testimony, Comey was asked why he thought he was fired and he replied, "I take the president at his word that I was fired because of the Russia investigation." [16] here's a more appropriate link [17] - Taken from the article Dismissal of James Comey. DN (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman wrote a good paraphrase of the essential points made by Comey; a full quote does not inform the reader any better. MOS:QUOTE explicitly says that well-written prose is preferred to extensive quotes. — JFG ^talk 03:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: What MOS:QUOTE says is...

• While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.

Overuse happens when:

   a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere
   quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased
   the quotes dominate the article or section

This is not the case in this instance, nor does it bare any similarity to "OVERUSE". If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you and DrF. The more applicable portion of this guideline is...MOS:BLOCKQUOTE....DN (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This also does not address the reasoning that DrFleischman gave, which was that it is WP:UNDUE. DN (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Small suggestion

Only because looked at this from a thread at WT:RS, might I suggest that the Russia response section (since they are a major player) be elevated to an H2 heading rather than left as the last H3 heading in the "Reaction" section? (I'd put it right after "US Gov't Response"). Or at least it should be elevated to be the first reaction rather than the last, within that section. Leaving Russia's reaction to the very very end seems rather dismissive of what they have to say in a major international dispute. No content has to be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx both -- I was planning on raising that issue as well. Humanengr (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Would you care to do that? Alternatively does anyone object if I do? Humanengr (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem if you do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Grazie -- Will put as H2 as per suggestion. Thoughts on header title? Humanengr (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Why change it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Currently as the last H3 section, it's titled 'Russia'. Humanengr (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Change it to Russian Government Response then, not a big issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• I object, BIGLY. Russian government response to Russian interference? They were a major player alright, as indicated in title and body from start to finish, but the section was right where it belongs, Russian commentary/reaction (among other commentary and reactions) to US intelligence community’s conclusion and US government response. It’s WP:FALSEBALANCE to elevate formatting level of Russian denials of interference and reactions to conclusions and response. You asked if there were any objections, and 12 seconds later you went ahead because one editor who happened to be online at the time agreed? I reverted; please do not go ahead without discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that the article already includes comments from Russian officials in response to specific accusations and developments, especially in the first major section, "Russian Involvement". So it's not like the Russian side of the argument is relegated to a single subsection down at the end of the article. That makes sense as a way to structure things, with Russian responses on specific issues throughout the article, and more general related developments in Russia in their own subsection. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hacked emails in lede

I just noticed that this sentence was changed from the former correct version to a confusing one. (Looks like it isn't just Trump who can't keep those facts straight.) Those were two separate and different incidents. The hackers invaded the DNC servers and stole emails sent to and from DNC staff members from January 2015 until the operation was discovered and eventually shut down in May 2016. John Podesta's personal Gmail account was hacked (spearphished) on March 19, 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing info on Peter Smith

The article is missing the info on Peter Smith and Matt Tait [18], [19], [20] and of course [21].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

GOP operative sought Clinton emails from Russian hackers, implied he was working with Mike Flynn.

This is pretty big. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

It certainly could be something to add - after sources have a little time to chew on it and determine what it all means. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely sounds big. Definitely sounds too early for us. Objective3000 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't get this, "its too early" stuff. WP:NOTNEWS does not prevent one from having an up to date article.Casprings (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Look at item 2 on WP:NOTNEWS. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." WP:FART is also an apt essay on the subject. Best bet would be wait for more sources to come in to collaborate and add to the WSJ story. PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it should not be treated differently. Treating this the same as other information from other WP:RSes means that it should go in the article. The only reason, I would argue, to keep it out is that it is an extraordinary claim and such a claim may need other independent sources. That says, we have other independent reporting in an hour, we should not continue to wait. Wikipedia should be up to date. Additionally, given the quaility of the WSJ andthe sourcing in the article, I think there is a pretty good argument to go ahead and add.Casprings (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also rather wait, it's not as if this is going to go away. But have no strong objection (but see the thread below).Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is one source for your "extraordinary claim" and you think it must be rushed into the article? What I meant by citing item 2 was that yes it should be treated like other pieces of information. Which would mean that one source is not enough to make a big claim like that. Like everyone else is saying, it should be left out until more report on it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a place for this in this article. This story is about the personal potential culpability of an American seeking Clinton emails, not "Russian Interference". And although it might add to the cloud surrounding the Trump regime, it is only tangentially related to the article subject of "Russian interferance" in that it pertains to Clinton emails. And it does not sound like he succeeded in obtaining Clinton emails, only that he was poking about. Beyond the fact this individual was not Russian it does not sound like this individual HAD any actual influence on the election or participated in any way, and that he completely failed at even his attempt... there is simply no basis for inclusion in the article of this latest revelation based on the subject title of the article itself of "Russian" "interference" in the "election". Marteau (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Do RS make the link?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove that they don't. That would be a question for any editor supporting inclusion, which is not me. Marteau (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So I take it form that that the sources you have seen have not made the link?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, who broke this story. But I saw nothing in the Newsweek article which cited the Wall Street Journal investigation which supports including this matter in this article about "Russian" "interference" in the "election" (and I quote those words for emphasis, because that's what this article is about... I find nothing about this latest story relating to the election, Russia, and interference except tangentially. Marteau (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The link is being made. You have clear evidence that an American worked with Russians. Muliple examples, but here is one: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gop-operative-sought-russian-hacker-help-against-clinton-wsj-980053059798 .Casprings (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Rachel Maddow show is not a reliable source. It is an opinion show. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

the wh

OK, looking a little more deeply at this report, I don't find there is much to it, as far as this article is concerned: An American who SAYS he was working with Mike Flynn ATTEMPTED to contact the Russians to see if he could get Clinton's deleted emails. (You know, the ones Trump publicly invited the Russians to find.) Several groups of hackers, including some Russian hackers, claimed to have Clinton's emails. But the operative was not convinced what they gave him was authentic and he did nothing with it. There is no indication that he actually connected with anyone associated with the Russian government, or obtained any valid information, or passed any information to the campaign. Looking at all the ifs and maybes and nothing-theres, I don't find anything worth including in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is that someone contacted to the Trump Campain was trying to work with Russians. Importantly, his connections apprears more the Flynn. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/gop-activist-who-sought-clinton-emails-cited-trump-campaign-officials-1498872923 Casprings (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

If RS do not make the link neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

They do.

• A new report raises some big questions about Michael Flynn and Russian hackers
• GOP Operative Attempted to Collude With Hackers He Thought Were Russian to Get Hacked Clinton Emails
• MICHAEL FLYNN ALLY SOUGHT HACKED HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS, SAYS REPORT

The fact you have an alley of Mike Flynn, a long time GOP operative, seeking to work with the Russians and break the law is hugely important. Casprings (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell not they do not link the election interference with this. What we have is someone who worked for the GOP,m claiming to work for Flynn unsuccessfully contacting the Russians (off his own back). Sorry this is not a link..Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! Russia hackers discussed getting Clinton emails to Michael Flynn – report "Intelligence agency findings describe hackers seeking to obtain messages and send them to intermediary who also had deep ties to Trump backer Newt Gingrich" and "The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser." <---- there's your source making an explicit connection. Let's get more:

'I was recruited to collude with the Russians': An unexpected player has added a new layer to the Trump campaign's Russia ties "Hackers believed to be Russian discussed how to steal Hillary Clinton's emails from her private server and transfer them to Michael Flynn via an intermediary, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing reports compiled by US intelligence agencies investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election." <------ another source making an explicit connection.

Also this "Most of the commentary surrounding the Russia scandal has treated the possibility that Donald Trump’s campaign deliberately colluded with Moscow as remote, unfounded speculation. The new reporting that has broken this weekend suggests instead that this collusion likely did take place."

So can we please stop pretending that this is not connected to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States election? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty obvious connection. Flynn was working for Trump, and no one under Trump dares act without direct orders from him. Trump is known to punish independent action very severely. Trump always expressed public admiration and defense of Flynn, even after he was removed from his position. Trump never showed any discontent for Flynn's actions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The report that Russian hackers were trying to get hold of information they had been asked to get for a Flynn intermediary - that's very interesting. If true it confirms - from the other side of the transaction - that someone was asking known hackers for those emails and dropping Flynn's name. Of course the hackers would have been looking for those emails anyhow - Trump publicly asked them to! None of the reporting suggests that they actually did get into the server, or did get any emails (although Smith's report suggests that they tried to give him some stuff he didn't regard as valid). It's very tempting to take these reports and extend them and make connections and fill in blanks and jump to conclusions - I was about to do some of that myself but caught myself before hitting "save". We have to avoid that temptation and stick to the exact details of what has been reported. Let's continue to collect info and not put anything in the article just yet. I am a little troubled if the ONLY source is WSJ. We normally look for two sources. Are any other publications getting independent leaks? Has anyone confirmed a relationship between Smith and Flynn? --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I’m a subscriber, but am wary of politically related stories in which WSJ is the sole source. Objective3000 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the WSJ is a very WP:RS source with an extremely impressive record. The story has muliple sources, including ones on the record. Finally, if the WSJ is thought to have a bias, it is to the right. Seems pretty likely that this is simply a "scope", but one that seems of high quality enough to include.Casprings (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It probably is time to put something about this in the article. In the meantime I have written an article about the principal, Peter W. Smith, who is notable for multiple reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed draft

I have written a draft about this - you can see it here: User:MelanieN/Smith. But I'm not sure it belongs in this article. This was not about anything the Russians did; it was about an American trying to contact hackers, including Russian hackers. I think this belongs in the encyclopedia somewhere but I'm not sure where. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC) "

Possibly under New Developments, or, Cyber Attacks and Email Leaks? DN (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyber Attacks and Email Leaks 2.2 sounds like the best fit. At least until it gets it own article of course. PackMecEng (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Should go under a section about us collusion. Casprings (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Since many, if not most, readers won't be able to read the paywalled WSJ story (I'm one of them), here's another source you may want to add because it details some of WSJ's content that I didn't see anywhere else. Smith taking the story to the WSJ in May sounds to me like an intentional distraction and attempt at obfuscation by an avowed Trump supporter, i.e., an attempt to draw attention away from the actual investigation of Russian intervention and suspected/alleged collusion by the Trump campaign and drag Clinton and her private email servers and their disbunked (no evidence or even indication found, ever) hacking back into the spotlight. For now, the story belongs right where you put it, in Smith's article. Thanks for writing it; Troopergate mentions him only in passing but he seems to have been a central player, i.e., the financier who paid the troopers for making statements to Brock. BTW, DOB may be February 23, 1936, unless there are two 81-year old Peter W. Smiths who died in IL on May 14, 2017, in IL. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Peter W. Smith in question was 81 when he died. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I did include a link from The Hill for that reason, but I'll include the Vox link as well, thanks. And I'll put in the birth date. No need for conspiracy theories; Smith did not take this story to the WSJ out of the blue. According to Harris, he had been working on it for some time, but hadn't called Smith yet. Smith heard the WSJ was working on the story so he called them. He talked to them a couple of times and provided them with some documents. As to why he called them, obviously he wanted to get his version into the story, and it's possible he realized he didn't have long to live. I gather your opinion is NOT to include it in this article? --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct, my opinion is not to include. "Attempted Attempted collusion by veteran GOP operative claiming to work with Flynn, Bannon, and Conway", no information on the self-styled "Russian hackers" who responded - I don't see how this fits into this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see how my original language gave the impression that Smith had approached the WSJ with the story. I have changed it from "Smith told the WSJ" to "Smith confirmed to the WSJ". --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Vox article said "attempted collusion" may have occurred; could that be a section heading? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say possiable instead of attempted. Not sure what did or did not occur.Casprings (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We do know that they did not gain any useful information. And we have no evidence, or even a suggestion, that they were in contact with the Russian government. That's why I preferred "attempted". (oops, forgot to say: this is MelanieN, away from my regular computer.)

We should go ahead and get this in the article.Casprings (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Several now-outdated inaccuracies with this page.

Upon reviewing this page, there are some glaring holes in the way this story is being presented and written about here.

1) There has still been no definitive evidence produced that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election. Therefore the article title and references to it in the article should include "alleged". This is a major flaw that runs through the entire page.

2) The lead sentence of the article (in the summary at the top) incorrectly begins with the assertion that "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded..." This has now been debunked with many retractions and clarifications from several sections of the media. Example - AP (https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6). The NY Times has also corrected this (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/new-york-times-associated-press-correct-claims-that-all-17-intelligence-agencies-agreed-on-russian-interference/) It was in fact only three U.S. intelligence agencies who have suggested this - the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency. This fact should probably be included in the article itself (perhaps a section on media reaction/retractions?).

3) The fact that the above point uses the Washington Post as a reference (who have no interest in releasing any kind of retraction or correction) is a telling part of their bias and I question using them as a source for any part of this story. It is a well-known fact that Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (and Amazon billionaire) is a Democratic Party donor and funded Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign in 2016. It is in his interests (and those of the editors that are hired to work for him) to push this story as hard as it can. Many other news outlets have discredited the "United States Intelligence Community"/ 17 intelligence agencies assertion that circulated for months unchallenged.

You really need to question why the majority of news source links in this article are coming from The Washington Post and The Guardian (among others) who have a vested and biased interest in using this story to de-legitimize Trump's election victory in 2016. If you're going to allow article references for this story from sources like those (along with Buzzfeed... lol), then would you also allow articles from sites like News Max, The Daily Caller or Info Wars? My point is that including biased references discredits the entire page.

4) This mistake is repeated in the section 'U.S. intelligence analysis' under 'January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment' where the page states "U.S. intelligence agencies released a de-classified version...". This should be corrected to the 'Office of the DNI' and/or 'three U.S. intelligence agencies'.

I believe this page will be less biased and more neutral (something I KNOW Wikipedia strives to achieve) if the above recommendations / criticisms are acted upon. To do anything less makes the page article (and this site) seem littered with bias and incorrect facts.

Mangodebango (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to evaluate RS like WaPo, I suggest you take it to RSN. We don't evaluate evidence or make judgement calls like the ones you are suggesting, as far as I know. If you prefer sources, like Breitbart for example, you will find they aren't as reliable. DN (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Evidence has been found, according to our sources. (Hopefully evidence is not being "produced") 2) Dubious claim and broken links. 3) Just no. We don't evaluate sources based on their owners. You can inquire at WP:RSN if you believe otherwise. 4) I don't see a mistake there.- MrX 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What a garbage & pithy response.

1) And where exactly is this evidence because it isn't linked or shown anywhere on the page discussing it. 2) The links work fine for me. I suggest you check your internet connection. 3) So can I link news stories made by such places as BreitBart or Info Wars then? (not that I want to... you're completely missing the point made). 4) The mistake highlighted in my original report is repeated in that relevant section. It is NOT "U.S. intelligence agencies released a de-classified version..." it is only the Office of the DNI (as per the cited reference).

Get your facts straight before you bother with another response. If the issues on this page aren't handled objectively, I will petition to either have the entire page removed or relevant sections that contain the errors highlighted. Mangodebango (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Not this crap again. 2) No no it has not been "debunked" and "Free Beacon" ain't RS. You're also trying to make mountains out of a minor correction. 3) Yawwwwnnnn. WaPo is RS. "FreeBeacon" or whatever, is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading past discussion on this page, where others have discussed each of those issues in detail and come to consensus about them, especially your #1. For #2, the NY Times has a full explanation of their retraction which explains the situation better than I could. Politifact as well. While it would be inaccurate to say "17 agencies concluded", it is NOT inaccurate to say "the intelligence community concluded". The Coast Guard or DEA intelligence agencies were not asked to help in producing intelligence about Russian interference in an election, because they would have nothing to contribute. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible with coordinating the other agencies, and speaks on behalf of all of them - in the absence of competing conclusions from other agencies (there are none in this instance), the ODNI can be assumed to be the consensus of the intelligence community. Please go and read some of the other threads on this talk page - all of your concerns have been addressed in one way or another. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - I have reverted your deletion of the US media reaction section. You cite "Washington Free Beacon' in your explanation but that is inadequate. The two sources cited are directly from the AP and the NYT. What's more - this recent development (less than 2 weeks old) has relevance to the page. It is NOT "making a mountain out of a molehill". That's just your (biased) opinion.

Honestly - is this a page of unbiased moderators or is this whole Wikipedia being run from an unbiased perspective some kind of big charade? I think some of you guys really need to moderate your own comments with a little less vitriol before you go adjusting the page! Mangodebango (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not suppose to do that. You're suppose to get consensus for your additions. You should self revert (might also want to explain what a brand-new account which "has been paid by Combs Enterprises Inc on their behalf." is doing on this page. A bit out of your neighborhood, no?) You should also read WP:SOAPBOX.

And yes, the two sources are NYT and AP but in this case they are WP:PRIMARY sources and this is not enough to merit a mention in the article, much less to have a section of its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, Mangodebango, you need to stop doing this. Perhaps this specific issue warrants inclusion, but that should be discussed first. In any case, it is of only marginal relevance to the topic of the article - some newspapers printed an incredibly minor inaccuracy, and then later corrected it. It's probably not something worth taking note of, except in that we make sure not to include the mistaken version. Either way though, it's not such a pressing issue that you should try to force it through without any discussion whatsoever. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no context for this...

• On June 29, 2017 and June 30, 2017, several news media outlets (including the Associated Press and The New York Times) issued a correction/clarification to their previous reports widely circulated that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election. The correction noted that there were only three U.S. intelligence agencies who have reached this assessment - the FBI, CIA and the National Security Agency.

...since nowhere in the article does it currently state "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia..." When the retraction was made, it was removed from the article. The inclusion of just the retraction seems WP:UNDUE. DN (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - I can take on board some of the suggestions that Darknipples has suggested (even though I still think this entire page should be clarified as being an allegation/alleged as nothing has been definitively proven), but I ask that you do not engage in harrassment/public airing of my personal details in this forum. My personal details and whether I have a new account or not, or where I've claimed being a paid contributor (as per Wikipedia rules) is frankly no business of yours. Before you go and post any more on my Talk page or look up my edit history, I suggest that you look up WP:DNB. And while you're at it, you can also look up WP:PRIVACY, WP:HA and User space harassment (and no, I won't be posting those on your Talk page although I probably should). For someone who has been here for over 12 years, you should know better! Mangodebango (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're insinuating that I violated your privacy or are "harassing" you, then that's false. I only asked about a detail you yourself posted on your user page. I do find it a bit peculiar that a brand new account which so far has only edited articles related to Sean Combs, would all of sudden decide to jump into the middle of this one right here. All I've done is asked for an explanation. That's not "harassment" that's... asking for an explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your focus on the Washington Post and who owns is also peculiar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To a degree I think there is a valid point here, the article (maybe) should make it clear that all three of the domestic and overseas "espionage" agencies concluded this. That only intelligence agencies that do not engage or deal with espionage were not included in the assessment.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You think it might make sense to include some information in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment then, as a general description of the report and process? Especially since it seems a lot of people are confused due to the stories going around about "17 agencies". --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As it does seem to be causing confusion (and as our job is to inform) yes it might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How about adding the bold text to the lead and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and adding the Rosenberg’s NY Times article as a second reference? This isn’t the article to go into lengthy explanations on what the responsibilities and areas of expertise of the individual members of the Intelligence Community are (if people are confused, maybe it's because they are reading sources like the Free Beacon and tweets by prominent individuals?).

• A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), based on intelligence information collected and disseminated by CIA, FBI, and NSA, stated that Russian leadership preferred presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

• The report, based on intelligence information collected and disseminated by CIA, FBI, and NSA, asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a useful and correct clarification to me, thanks. — JFG ^talk 19:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. ONDI, which represents 17 Intel agencies, did the assessment. Because of the time requirement only 3 agencies took part in developing the report. Nowhere is it supported that all the Intel came from those agencies nor that any agency disagreed.Casprings (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Never seen this theory of "the time requirement". The DNI himself, James Clapper, testified under oath that only the FBI, CIA and NSA contributed to the report. Brennan (CIA) and Comey (FBI) testified the same thing. The "17 agencies agreed" story was merely a Hillary campaign talking point, conflating "ODNI represents 17 agencies" with "all 17 agencies endorsed the report". This was established long before the New York Times issued their correction. Details from an archived thread follow. — JFG ^talk 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you've seen the theory of due weight. BTW there's no constuctive purpose served by using this page to rehash and justify the hundreds of tenuous and now disproved denials of the facts of this matter. SPECIFICO talk 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The Russia-WikiLeaks claims first surfaced on July 25, 2016, at the opening of the Democratic convention, just a couple days after WikiLeaks had published the DNC emails. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats Then Clinton emphasized the "17 intelligence agencies" claim during the third presidential debate. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/ and media coverage picked up from there. Compare a news search for "17 intelligence agencies" and "Russia" from January to September 2016[22] with the same search for just October 2016.[23] — JFG ^talk 06:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A candidate stating a fact doesn't make it a campaign talking point. Let's not tell the intelligence agencies how to do their work. Let's just report what they say, as scrutinized and verified by RS. This point has been hashed and rehashed here so many times it would help not to bring it up any further here. WP editors' theories about how the US intelligence services "should" conduct themselves is of no interest to our users. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh? "Let's just report what they say"? That's exactly my point! The head of the intel agencies said under oath that the report was compiled by FBI, CIA and NSA, nobody else. There is no "WP editors' theories" behind this at all... — JFG ^talk 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG I refer you to my comment here. Even ignoring that completely insurmountable objection to this edit, it's still not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The simple fact is; when the spokesman for an agency speaks for that agency, they are speaking for that agency. That you've "uncovered" the fact that only three of the agencies worked on the report only shows that three of the agencies worked on the report. It doesn't indicate, in any way -as such an edit would- that the other agencies disagreed with them or even held no opinion on the matter. Indeed, we have a statement prepared on behalf of the entire US intelligence community which states quite clearly the lack of any disagreement, whatsoever. Neither of you have, nor can prove that no-one in any other agency did not review the report and endorse it, for example. I know you both see this as "there's no evidence that any of the other agencies had anything to do with this," but that's simply not an accurate view of this report. The authors were explicitly speaking for the entire community, as evinced not only in the report but in the reliable third-party coverage of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not me saying it, it's the DNI director in charge. Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, his opening statement:

As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term. The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/ — JFG ^talk 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Other sources agree that only the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI were involved in producing the report, and that the report represents the conclusion of the intelligence community as a whole. Both are true. "Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations." [[24]] "The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign." [York Times]. Though the distinction between "a report produced by 17 agencies" and "a report representing the views of the intelligence community as a whole" may not be super important, it does exist. I think some clarification along the lines of what Space4Time3Continuum2x suggested is warranted, though I would prefer "produced by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI" or something. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I see you've already added the info to the body. I'm also considering changing the second sentence of the lede as follows (bold): Their assessment released on January 6, 2017, by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to make it clear that it was the assessment of the US Intelligence Community and not just the ODNI who released it. Objections/thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We need to get the wording right. Per: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.96f4ac596edc

FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank both you and the ranking member for -- for this hearing and these hearings.

And I want to thank General Clapper and -- and Attorney General Yates for -- for appearing today. We have -- the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.

CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office...

FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that -- that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my -- what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment (ph) to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or -- or disagreed when it came out..

In sum, ONDI, which represented 17 agencies, produced the report. Because of time requirements and because of the sensitivity of the subject, they only used 3 of the 17 agencies within ONDI to produce the report.Casprings (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Their assessment language makes sense, or is necessary. The first sentence makes clear that this is the conclusion of the Intelligence Community as a whole, but when talking about the report specifically, it isn't necessarily the assessment of the Intelligence Community as a whole. It just feels like that change would imply the active participation of every agency, which I think is what we want to avoid, at it would be misleading. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was going by the "cover(?)" on pg. 4 of the PDF which says "ICA Intelligence Community Assessment" but that may be OR (not that we don't have any of that in this article). I can live with the current wording. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

Your opinion is important, everybody's opinion too. But it doesn't erase the facts with any opinion.Neuwert (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor that wants to add content to justify its inclusion, not on anyone else, including editors that delete it. Geogene (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neuwert: You are quite precocious, instructing other editors here. Please undo your reinsertion and read the WP policies at WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH and WP:V. We're not in the truth business here, and I am too grey and dim to have anything that could be called an "opinion." SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW [25] <-- can't say this in Wikipedia voice. Or at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You could rewrite that better instead of deleting everything. Is that an editors' standard? I don't think the word "crap" is a good argument. Is the word "crap" used only by long-time editors? Is the request made by de Senate Justice Committee not valid as source, or must not be mention on the article?Neuwert (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not valid as a source for casting aspersions about living people. Geogene (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Geogene Who are in this article dead? How you act, it seems that Natalia is the only living person. There are others sources i've posted. What about the others questions?Neuwert (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

|}

Senate Judiciary Chairman asked FBI to investigate Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya

It was happended on April 28, 2017 and I don't know why it is not on the article. Now, I think is the oportunit. Neuwert (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

That definitely seems worth including, since there's a lot of material there about illegal Russian lobbying in the US, and specifically about Veselnitskaya. The reports received by the committee say that Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS were both involved in lobbying Congress on behalf of the Russian government to repeal the Magnistky Act, without registering as foreign government lobbyists. Are there any secondary sources that have picked up this story and made the connections? --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion as undue weight. I'm not sure how any alleged connection between the Russian lawyer and the Pee Pee Papers is even relevant to the topic under discussion. Also the material that was being entered contained negative BLP content that was referenced to a primary source. Geogene (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The connection as such may not be relevant to the article (though it may turn out to be at some point), but this document does include a report from the Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit on multiple lobbyists (including Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya) illegally attempting to influence American politicians on behalf of the Russian government. That seems like it might be considered Russian interference in the 2016 election on its own. I'm not advocating putting anything in immediately, but I think this should be examined, and I'll be looking around for related sources. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It could be; taking a longer view of it than just for today. In this particular episode, Veselnitskaya doesn't appear to have influenced the election at all, they just offered Junior some dirt that didn't exist, and sat him down to talk to him about the Magnitsky Act. The problem is that Junior took the bait, and now has been caught. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

According to your argument, the entire Natalia's story should be deleted, once it didn't influence the election.Neuwert (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the article about the alleged russian inteference? Why does that connection not relevant? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4683232/Glamorous-Russian-lawyer-met-Don-Jr-s-political-links.html Neuwert (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article is "Russian interference" as opposed to (alleged) "Interference by Russians". And that's only a small and incorrectly weighted aspect of the overarching story: that Donald Trump Jr. was offered dirt on Clinton, was told that supposed dirt was being provided by the Russian government, and that he eagerly met a supposed foreign agent in order to get it. [26] That's what matters, and that's what sources are giving the overwhelming WP:Weight. The supposed Pee Pee connection looks like a pathetic effort from the White House spokesman to try to distract from it. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

the Senate papers are official government documents from the FARA Registration Unit and a court record, neither of which can be used as the main source when discussing accusations against living persons (according to WP:BLP). Plus the connection there is very tenuous, only that they both appeared to violate FARA and lobby against the Magnitsky Act, which is currently only tangentially related to the reason they're mentioned in the article. Additionally, the other sources you've presented only refer to Mark Corallo claiming that there's a connection between them, without any attempt at independent verification. I imagine that soon some newspapers will examine this story in more detail, and perhaps at some point it will make sense to include, but definitely not until then.--Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon "Pathetic effort", "crap". These are the arguments I could expect from this. If Wikipedia is a media compendium, this has not much to contribute.Neuwert (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The article about the Donald Trump–Russia dossier has the mention to the request Senate Justice Committee to de DJ investigate Fusion GPS. Maybe that must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuwert (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Neuwert, I'm sorry if other editors have been unhelpful or flippant. I will try to explain why this material is inappropriate here. 1) It's probably not relevant. What we know of Fusion GPS's actions are peripheral to the focus of this article. Fusion GPS is only barely mentioned, and that's for a reason - it's relatively unimportant to this article's topic - as far as we know it's not part of the Russian government effort to interfere in the election, and it's only slightly connected to the US government investigation of said interference. The article about the Trump-Russia dossier obviously has a different topic than this article, and different information will be relevant in different articles. 2) Using information from government documents themselves as primary sources to make allegations about living people is against policy. If secondary sources discuss the senate's request, that's a separate issue, but we can't go into court documents ourselves to find information about people. 3) None of other the sources you've referenced make any factual statement about the connection Fusion GPS and Veselnitskaya. They simply say, "Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo said Veselnitskaya is connected to Fusion GPS". They do not make authorial statements about it. If you want to put this in the article, find secondary sources discussing the details of this connection and its importance to the main topic of the article. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't address other users in a heading. It is inappropriate and off-topic. Use their personal talk page. Collapsed per WP:TALKNEW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2017 The link in footnote 39 is incorrect. The link should go to the following URL: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551. Instead, it currently links to an article about the Ringling Brothers circus. Thank you. Percussaresurgo (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)  Fixed - Thank you - MrX 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Are you sure it was not supposed to be a link to a circus on this article? PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC) You do have a point.- MrX 22:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Russian Officials Overheard Discussing Trump Associates Before Campaign Began Should be added. This shows a connect between Trump Associates and Russia before the Campaign even started. WSJ: Russian Officials Overheard Discussing Trump Associates Before Campaign Began: U.S. intelligence starting in the spring of 2015 detected conversations in which Russian government officials discussed meetings with Trump associates Casprings (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Pretty vague. Objective3000 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC) This seems to have a lot to do with Don Jr's emails. "Now, in light of the release of emails Tuesday by Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, investigators are going back to those early reports to see if they can understand them better." I've made a few adjustments to keep the timeline straight, and avoid saying things the article tends to walk back throughout the course of the story [27]. "It isn’t clear which Trump associates or advisers the Russians were referring to, or whether they had any connection to his presidential aspirations." - "The U.S. intelligence agencies weren’t sure what to make of the vague and inconclusive information, given that Mr. Trump had done business in Russia and was a global celebrity well-known to prominent people there." - "The reports on the 2015 conversations weren’t particularly illuminating, the people familiar with them said.". Let me know what you think. DN (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) It seems to have came out because of that, but to me it is a better fit on the general subsection of links to Russia. But I am good with whatever. I just think it is an important fact that intel agencies started to pick up these conversations as early as APR 2015. Casprings (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "Added look into Trump Digital Campaign" Casprings Is there any more to this than "investigators are looking into it"? Is there anyone else who picked this up besides McClatchy? Perhaps the instant a single news source covers a topic is a little early to put it in the article? Also, if this is developed further, it would probably be better placed under the section about the Special Counsel's investigation, rather than a subsection under the section "Background", which this development most definitely is not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC) CBS, Newsweek, The Hill, Vanity Fair, CNN, but they're all referring to McClatchy (it was McClatchy's confidential source). If added (I vote yea): Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, new section "Jared Kushner". Reason: Beside the confidential source saying the Justice Department is looking into it, several Democrats are demanding a full investigation. From McClatchy: "The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan, “where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play,” (Virginia Senator Mark) Warner said. Twitter’s and Facebook’s search engines in those states were overwhelmed, he said, meaning they couldn’t discern fake news from real news. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC) The "diplomatic meeting" with Kislyak and Vnesheconombank and - oh goody - his picture are already there, under "Other Trump associates". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC) And we might as well add the attempted (but hey - A for effort!) Veselnitskaya collusiongate, although Trump Jr. took the lead on that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Article name change to reflect various investigations into Trump Campaign? I think this event is becoming notable for both the Russian interference and the multiple investigations into the Trump Campaign and persons associated with the Trump Campaign. Should we change the name of the article to reflect that? If so, what should we change the article to? I tried to think of a good choice that was WP:CONCISE, but I cannot.Casprings (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC) I think it may be a bit premature at this point, but it doesn't hurt to talk about it. It will eventually become clear, but we must wait and see what happens before we can say, with confidence, what changes need to be made, if any. DN (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC) It might end up being the case that two articles would be better, one focusing on the Russian interference and one on whatever links to Trump's campaign there were. It's pretty clear already that the Russian interference was far larger in scope than anything the Trump campaign knew about. The news reports in the US are currently focusing mostly on the political scandal aspect of it, but we shouldn't forget that, from the Russian government's perspective, whatever contacts they had with the Trump campaign were an incredibly minor part of their coordinated effort.--Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC) I don't think so. If it becomes clear that Trump campaign worked with the Russian (which is kind of looking like, but it is too early to just state) then something like Russian-Trump interference in the 2016 United States seems like it would work. Plus it would be one effort and should be in one article.Casprings (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC) After thinking about it, you're probably right that this article's name should be changed. Just looking at the various subsections and text, half of this article is related to the Trump campaign and to US government investigations of the Trump campaign and administration. A reader would get the impression that the majority of Russia's effort to interfere with the election was carried out in coordination with Trump. That may at some point turn to be true (though I doubt it), but that's not what the facts are at the moment. Russia had a deep and complex strategy for interfering in the election, involving multiple individual methods requiring the efforts of thousands of people. There's some sign that Trump's campaign was marginally involved, but no evidence that they were even aware of the majority of this effort, much less so integrally involved as to deserve half this article's text. Right now this isn't an article about Russian interference in the election, it's an article about the Trump-Russia scandal. Either the name should be changed, or the content should rebalanced to give greater weight to the main topic.--Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I think the name I suggested would actually be fine. It is short and with the fact that the campaign was meeting with GRU agents, I think it fits.Casprings (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I don't like that formulation at all, since it puts the two actors on equal footing in the election interference, which really is not at all supported by the sources at this point - the interference by Russia is extensive and well-documented, whereas the connections to the Trump campaign are not well defined at this point (some people met some other people, but we don't have any direct evidence at all of the extent of their cooperation, merely pointers saying that it probably existed). I'd be very opposed to any change that implies their actions in the election were equivalent, until sources are showing evidence that the Trump campaign worked hand-in-hand on every major element of the Russian government's interference. I'd prefer "Trump-Russia Scandal" because that's what the article is actually about right now, a political scandal resulting from Russian interference in the election and Trump's possible collusion, but I imagine there'd be some article name neutrality problems with that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) What do you think about Trump-Russia Scandal and Russian election interference . A major aspect of this is still Russian election interference but the Trump Russian connection is becoming more and more important. This title perhaps gets at what the article is currently about. I just don't think you divide it into two articles because of think linkage between the two, but I think you are right about not showing they are co-equal in election interference.Casprings (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) That makes sense to me. However, just from looking at article naming policies, I'm not sure if having "scandal" in the title would be appropriate, since it probably would be considered non-neutral ("Watergate Scandal" is given as an example of a non-neutral name that's only justified because of its widespread common usage and general acceptance). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC) What about "Trump-Russia affair and Russian election interference" Borrowing from President Trump's "best words", I would simply call it the "Russia Thing". — JFG talk 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC) For readers in the US, we could go with two titles. for our liberal readers in US cities, we could go with "What the f*** is happing". For the more conservative folks in rural areas, we could go with "He got help from Russia? So what, everyone does". Perhaps a means to target the actual naming of the page by IP location?Casprings (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Requested move 14 July 2017 The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: Not moved – WP:SNOW close per unanimous opposition and withdrawal by nominator. — JFG talk 20:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections → Trump—Russian affair and Russian election interference – The rationale is four-fold. 1. The article's content is just as much about the Trump campaign/associates as it about the Russian interference. 2. It doesn't make sense to divide the article. This is one historical event and shouldn't be separated. While sub-articles might be needed, the main article should remain together. Creating an artifical divide would not serve the reader 3. The word "affair" is a neutral word, versus "scandal". 4. With the addition of Trump to the title, the article no longer requires 2016 as an identifier. Casprings (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Survey Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Oppose for now - You are too much in a hurry. This is an encyclopedia. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose - I agree with Objective3000. This is the same as the section you brought up 2 DAYS ago (SEE ABOVE SECTION - Article name change to reflect various investigations into Trump Campaign?). With all due respect, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Casprings. DN (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose - I just think that "Trump—Russian affair and Russian election interference" is a bad name. It sounds odd and nobody else calls it this. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose "Trump-Russian affair" is currently premature/POV, and if there's need for it eventually, should get its own article. Proposed title would be two articles in one. Geogene (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose – No indication that RS call this story the "Trump affair". Trump calls it the "Russian Thing" now, that would be at least a WP:NOR title. Very few people seem to agree on what the scope of this article should be. I suggested earlier to focus on Russian interference proper, and have another article for all the inquiries and political infighting, but the idea was rejected. We have thankfully spun off Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, relieving a bit of the bloat here; I believe we should now spin off something like Accusations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, or Scrutiny of Donald Trump's relationships with Russia. — JFG talk 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose for now As above no one is calling it this, and we still are not sure how much Trump was involved. Also (frankly) the suggested title is awkward.Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose. Current title is to the point and needs to be kept. I agree that there’s a lot of material that may need to go into a separate article eventually, for example, if the numerous ongoing investigations by the Intelligence Services, Congress, Special Counsel result in findings of collusion by members of Trump campaign. We don’t know enough at the moment. As for the proposed title: Trump-Russia affair - sounds a little weird (although I have seen a number of political cartoons showing Trump in bed with Putin, so (quoting Trump Jr.) "I love it" :). Russian election interference - too ambiguous; it could mean a third party interfering in an election in Russia or Russia interfering in various elections anywhere. @Casprings:Would you consider withdrawing your RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Procedural note: this is not an RfC, it's a WP:Move request; any editor may decide to close it early per WP:SNOW. Or indeed, the OP may withdraw it for the same reason. — JFG talk 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Sure. It clearly has no support.Casprings (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Discussion Any additional comments: I do think that this article's current title is not reflective of its contents. More of it is about Trump, his campaign, his administration, and investigations into them than is about Russian interference in the election. Someone reading this article could get the mistaken impression that most Russian interference involved Trump's campaign, a conclusion that is not at all supported by the sources. At some point, we'll need to either rebalance the material, change the title, or split the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC) @Darknipples: I brought up the section above to get an idea of something to propose, which I did. However, I agree with Red Rock Canyon, besides the two options about splitting the article or rebalancing the material. For what "this is", I think the current article reflects it and the WP:WEIGHT of Russian interference and Trump. It just needs a name that shows the "Trump" part of it. I would be happy to withdraw this move request if you can think of a better name for that.Casprings (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC) The current title is NPOV. Adding “Trump” to the title at this point lessens the neutrality; even though RS nearly all point to the interference aimed at promoting Trump. The interference appears to be aimed at reducing sanctions and/or diminishing the concept of U.S. democracy, and/or other unknown machinations from a possibly manipulative foreign power. We don’t know. For now, we just include what RS report. If that happens to cause the inclusion of the Trump administration and family, then that’s what we include in the article. But, let us not jump ahead to a conclusion that it is all about Trump and include his name in the title. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC) To be clear, it's not that I don't think this may eventually be necessary. I agree with a lot of what Casprings, and Red Rock Canyon are saying, it's just premature at this point, IMHO. DN (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2017 (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. RfC: Should the lead include James Clapper's comment that as of January 2017, the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia? The following discussion 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. Should the lead include James Clapper's comment that "as of January 2017, the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia," or some variation of that? - MrX 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose the proposed sentence, or any that says "the agencies he supervised had found no evidence", because that is inaccurate. It's not what he said. He said "he was not aware" of any evidence. He also said specifically that if the FBI (an agency he nominally supervises) had any such evidence, he would not have known about it. I am neutral about including an accurate sentence in the lede, such as "In May Clapper stated that as of January 2017 he was not aware of any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." I'm not convinced it is lede-worthy, although it should definitely be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose because it is inaccurate and not what Clapper said, per MelanieN. I also oppose the "not aware of" rephrasing because it is outdated and because it doesn't really help the reader. We already say that the current, ongoing investigation is into whether there was collusion. Neutralitytalk 19:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose. Undue to state in the lead that someone didn’t know something some months ago. I wouldn’t add it in the body myself as it sounds odd to say someone that used to supervise some of the investigative bodies hadn’t seen any evidence as of an earlier date. But I wouldn’t spend time arguing about it in the body in an accurate form. Although, I suspect it would eventually be removed when more is known. Objective3000 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Oppose - I agree with MelanieN that it is not accurate, but would go further and say that when reworded to be accurate, it becomes unworthy of inclusion in the lede. No objection to an accurate, properly contextualized discussion of this in the article body, but in the lede it is misleading and undue. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose any mention of Clapper's January statement in any form and with any wording. The January statement is dated, has repeatedly been cited out of context to insinuate exculpation of Trump and his coterie, and which is now superceded by statements of current knowledge not then available to Clapper. Even if accurately worded, it is now WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose Per all of the above. DN (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose as outdated BUT we should give some information about the findings of all the investigations mentioned thus far. When the Clapper–Todd interview emerged in March 2017, his statements clarified the findings of the agencies as of January (Russia did lots of bad stuff, and we don't know if anyone around Trump was linked to this). Now it's June, and several people involved with the investigations have come forward to say various things. It may be hard to summarize in the lead but I believe we need to address the issue, for the benefit of readers who legitimately want a quick overview of "where are we standing now?" — JFG talk 20:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC) This has nothing to do with "findings of all the investigations" -- Strawman again. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose Inaccurate as to what he said, and also leaves out the fact he only claims this until Feb 2017. Thus it says nothing about anything really beyond being used as a piece of evidence there was no evidence at one time. It might be relevant if it turns out there is no evidence now (or whenever the investigation ends) in order to show this was a witch hunt, until them this is just flummery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose. Out of date and now known to be inaccurate, so misleading to include it. He spoke from his admittedly incomplete POV at the time. Since then we know that other agencies were dealing with this. He was not privy to that info. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose. Inaccurate. Misleading. Outdated. Provides only part of info. Totally ignores own statements by Clapper saying, "Clapper: My words not 'exculpatory' for Trump". Sagecandor (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose. For reasons given by MelanieN, Fyddlestix and Sagecandor. As Fyddlestix observes, when accurately reported, it becomes not lead-worthy. Neutral as to later inclusion tending toward include as part of the narrative journey. Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Comment – Looks like a WP:SNOW close is warranted. The sentence has been removed already. Can some uninvolved soul kindly close the RfC? — JFG talk 04:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC) No need to close it. It was only opened because of a couple blokes' obstinate refusal to accept consensus. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose per all the above reasons. Unhelpful to article. —MRD2014 12:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose per all the above reasons, especially those by SPECIFICO. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 19:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose zzz, WP:SNOW Stikkyy t/c 05:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose As already pointed out, a) the wording is misleading if not an outright falsehood and b) the information is outdated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2017 (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. Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton Seems important: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?mwrsm=Email Casprings (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Yepppp. Go ahead and add it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Confirmed my trump JR. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/donald-trump-jr-s-stunningly-incriminating-statement-to-the-new-york-times/ Casprings (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Well, WaPo is just referring to the NYT. Personally, I wouldn't add this too quickly. But, considering the reputation of these sources, I also wouldn't be stomping my feet to remove it. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Point was that Trump Jr is confirming the story and WP:RSes are making that point.Casprings (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC) This seems like material for Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, not this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Can't argue with that. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Why not both? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC) It seems the allegation is not about rigging the election but about the instructions the Trump administration will take from the Soviets after the election. TFD (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) The "Soviets"? GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC) There is an ongoing investigation as to rather the Trump campaign worked with and coordinated efforts with the Russians. Of course it is relavent to this article and, more importantly, WP:RSes agree.Casprings (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Casprings that there is some relevant WP:Weight here. I haven't had a chance to examine the story thoroughly, but maybe enough for a brief inclusion. ::Power~enwiki Objective3000 The Four Deuces how is it this context should be exclusive to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and not this article? See below... "The meeting — at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican nomination — points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help." Next thing you know, editors will be trying to argue whether or not collusion with Russia is illegal [28], and that therefore the entire article must be WP:UNDUE. DN (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Keep in mind that per Comey's testimony before Congress, the New York Times published an incorrect article. We should proceed with caution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Which one? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Ah. Never mind. Still, New York Times stands by its reporting and this seems to be a disagreement over what constitutes a Russian agent. This is minor and really of no consequence here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC) The NYT has been pretty dead on and accurate with their reporting. Plus Trump Jr. said it happened. Casprings (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Not really: RISCH: I remember, you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the "New York Times" wrote an article that suggested that the trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out? COMEY: I do, it was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance in their communications. RISCH: Correct. That upset you to the point where you surveyed the intelligence community to see whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct? COMEY: That's correct. I want to be careful in open setting, but — RISCH: I'm not going to go any further than that, so thank you. In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual. Do you recall that? COMEY: Yes. RISCH: Okay. So again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement? COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and going on are not talking about it. We don't call the press to say, hey, you don't that thing wrong about the sensitive topic. We have to leave it there. I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th statement. Nonsense. But I can't go explaining how it is nonsense. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, that's not really a criticism of New York Times. Anyway - here you have primary source vs. primary source. You need a secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Analysis: Donald Trump Jr.'s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC) The original story certainly fits in the links article. IMO, the follow-up stories provide what is needed for inclusion in this article – not as an example of interference; but as evidence the Trump team was amenable to interference. Objective3000 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC) We need to point out that the "damaging information" was that Russia was allegedly paying money to the DNC. TFD (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Per Don Jr's statement, which we have every reason to doubt.Casprings (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Don received an email that told him the information was coming from the Russian government Seems pretty important to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?_r=0 Casprings (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC) He received the email not sent it. But: "Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy" and "Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy. Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information." and " In an interview Monday, Mr. Goldstone said he was asked by Mr. Agalarov to set up the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. “He said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have." Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) As ever, plenty of selective quoting going on here. So, see also: "It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others" "He said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have. But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful". As with all of these news reports, what actually happened is pretty unclear and depends on who you believe when it comes to detail. A paper's anonymous sources say the info was sold as coming from the Russian govt; the person who wrote the email says, on an initial inquiry, it was not and he did not assume it was. Our current text states as fact that it was from the govt, with people here as usual diving in to add the most negative content they can from speculative media reporting. N-HH talk/edits 09:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Not clear what your point is. It seems like obfuscation and some particular original research. The source clearly says "the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Don Jr confirmed the meeting and you have the email from 3 different sources.Casprings (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC) We also have the White House confirming it happened confirming it [29], so the only question is not if it happened but what was disused.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Well and you have an email that indicates the info is from the Russian government. Casprings (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Er, where did I suggest the meeting did not take place? As for "sources", I have pointed out the discrepancy in the claims, quoting the actual article and helpfully bolding the relevant bits for you. We do not have the actual email of course. Given that, WP cannot claim in its own voice the info was, definitely, being sold as coming from the Russian govt and that Trump Jr would have known that going into it. This is pretty basic stuff for those approaching editing with an open mind and no bias, and should not be being reinserted. And what on earth is a "Russian connected lawyer"? N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC) There's no "discrepancy in the claims" unless you really really twist things around till they are something they are not. And WP is not Wikipedia, so yeah, they can claim "in its own voice". Not your job to second guess reliable sources. *That* is pretty basic stuff for those approaching editing with an open mind and no bias. Like in WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC) A Russian connected lawyer is a lawyer with Russian connections, which she clearly had. I will self revert the other. However, the wording of the email is confirmed by 3 sources that state he indicated that the information came from the Russian government. That is a key fact and should be in the article.Casprings (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC) She is, I believe, a Russian lawyer. Sticking "connected" in the middle adds no information (connected to what? The whole country? The Kremlin, by implication?) and is grammatically confusing. If you want to include the fact that the NYT is citing anonymous sources as claimimg some particular alleged detail relating to a highly politicised issue, you'll no doubt get away with that (although personally I don't think this sort of media reporting is good for an encyclopedia) but please at least attribute it as being exactly that. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Connected to the Russian government of course. That's sorta obvious no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC) No, not obvious from the wording necessarily, hence why I asked for clarification. And to the extent that that is the implication, not necessarily true either, or at least pretty meaningless (how "connected" do you have to be to be definitively "connected"?). N-HH talk/edits 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Don Jr. being told that the Russian government provided the info isn't a small detail. It's pretty core. Moreover it's from an extremely WP:RS sources with great sourcing.Casprings (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I didn't say it was a "small" detail, I said it was a detail, and a contested one at that, which it is. And anonymous sources may be "great sourcing" for speculative and political media reports, but no, neither are for an encyclopedia, whether it's the NYT or anyone else. As I also said, if it does go in, it has to be exactly on that basis: anonymous sources being cited by the NYT. N-HH talk/edits 11:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) My, how far have the goal posts been moved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Part of the e-mail chain has just been tweeted by D. Trump Jr. and will hit secondary sources soon. Objective3000 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Which obviously changes everything, as it confirms what the sources reported (which of course in turn does not invalidate any earlier objections to relying solely on anonymous-source reporting, especially to say things in WP's voice as facts). As for "goal posts" being moved, that literally makes no sense. N-HH talk/edits 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Content disputes Two questions are in dispute in the section. 1. Should the article mention that the email indicated that the Russian government was the source of the information. Per: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign. 2. Should the title of the article mention that Veselnitskaya is Russian connected? In other words, should the title mention he was meeting with someone that was connected to the Russia and the Russian government? If you say yes to either, what should the wording be? Casprings (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "The media claimed that Donald Trump jnr had exchanged e-mails that said that information being provided by a Russian lawyer to Trump Jnr had come form the Russian government. Whilst the meeting had been confirmed the details of what was discused have not been".Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Nyet. We don't use "claim" when we mean "report" - and prior to retaining criminal counsel, Jr. confirmed what was discussed in his attempt to minimize its significance. SPECIFICO talk 11:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) So care to actually make a constructive suggestion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 1.Per discussion above, if this claim [sic] does go in, it needs to be something like, "According to anonymous sources cited by the New York Times, the email indicated that the information being touted would have come from the Russian government, a claim denied by Goldstone". 2. Per discussion above, "Russian connected lawyer" doesn't add much more than innuendo to how she is already described, eg a "Russian attorney". As for including it in the sub-heading, that is already long enough, with eight words (one of them wrong; I'll fix that now). N-HH talk/edits 11:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Unnamed sources. They aren't anonymous to the NYT. Objective3000 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Yes. Let there be no further denigration of RS reporting with the strawman decoy canard about "anonymous sources" from the underworld. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Agree. Something like. "The New York Times reported, based on three unnamed sources with access to Goldstone's email, that the email indicated that the Russian government was behind the information on Clinton." Actually we shouldn't even try to poison the well with this "unnamed sources" business, especially since Trump pretty much confirmed the email.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I guess we can dispense with the "unnamed sources" business now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Fine with me. Objective3000 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Information about Trump administration's response from The Independent. --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Before the emails were actually published and commented on directly, it was perfectly right to query the use in an encyclopedia of just-published reporting based on anonymous or unnamed sources – as it always is – and to require, if it is used, that it is described as such. There's nothing "denigratory" or "strawman decoy canard"-like (whatever that means) about describing evidence/speculation in exactly the same way as the paper reporting it does. And of course "anonymous" refers to the fact that they are not being made public by the paper rather than the fact that even the paper doesn't know who they are. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) That's not what's meant by 'anonymous' - that's what's meant by 'undisclosed' 'unnamed' 'confidential' usw. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC) No, that's exactly what is meant by "anonymous", which is synonymous with "unnamed" in the terminology the New York Times and other newspapers themselves use. Like I said. N-HH talk/edits 19:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC) We all understand that was your understanding, but most comments appear to say it's incorrect. No bigsie, as they say in USA. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) OK, you and most other people commenting here appear not to understand how the word is technically and professionally used in this context and were, quite clearly, at least partially misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my point as a result. To clear up the confusion, I then point you to an article in that very paper explaining how it actually uses the term. This might have been thought helpful for both this and any future discussion, but instead you're coming back at me again and *still* telling me I'm the one being "incorrect" about usage, just because you and one or two other pseudonymous online people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to media terminology? Um, OK. N-HH talk/edits 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Anonymous can mean unknown to the paper or known and unnamed (although the NYT wouldn’t use unknown sources). Unnamed means unnamed. So, it makes no sense to use the word anonymous as it can be confused by the reader with unknown to anyone. Unnamed is far less likely to be confusing. Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Tell the public editor of the New York Times and pretty much any other journalist. They seem to manage. N-HH talk/edits 22:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC) From Greek via Latin "anonymus"[30] literally means "unnamed", I don't see what the big fuss is about. Journalists regularly used unnamed, anonymous, undisclosed, hidden, confidential, protected or exclusive sources. "Anonymous source" seems to be the term of art in the profession, so we go with what the RS profession uses most. — JFG talk 23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, we know that. But, many readers probably don’t. This is particularly true in these times as the term ‘’anonymity’’ has a different connotation on the Internet. If the source says anonymous, we should use it. But, if the source doesn’t specifically use that word; I think it would be better to use phraseology that indicates that the primary sources are known to the secondary source. Let us not assume that everyone has memorized the dictionary. (I’m up to aardvark so far.) Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Tell it to Greek Wikipedia. What's Greek for "alleged" ? The last sentence of the introductory section reads: "Nothing came of the meeting, and Veselnitskaya later denied having any such information or working for the Kremlin" and tagged to citation #27, a WaPo article. The first part of the sentence, "nothing came of the meeting" is impossible to gauge at this point. Something could have come out of the meeting, and Don Jr. may have been handed information. On the other hand, that would also be impossible to prove right now considering all public information. Therefore, since it is impossible to ascertain for certain if something did or didn't come out of the meeting, the entire sentence should be removed. StylumCEO (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)StylumCEO. Email Text Per: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html?mwrsm=Email The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton. The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” If the future president’s elder son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication. He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.” We should quote email and add more context.Casprings (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Don Jr just tweeted out the emails also.Casprings (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Yeah, which said email from Goldstone directly contradicts Goldstone's "denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” - since he says "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump". Never, huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Maybe he doesn't recall. See also: Jeff Sessions.- MrX 17:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Another canard, or a kettle of fish. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Easier to read Emails in chronological order Much easier version to read: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/donald-trumps-jrs-email-exchange/533244/ Casprings (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC) That would probably make a good external link.- MrX 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Done.Casprings (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Location in Article Just from the perspective of organization, does it makes sense to include this subsection under 2017 Developments? I can see an argument that it should be, based on the fact that it only became public knowledge in 2017, but perhaps there should be some explicit acknowledgement of that? As is, it doesn't make much sense to have an event that occurred in June 2016 under a 2017 heading. I think it would be better to put it in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials --Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Cool with that. Also, thinking this should be in lede.Casprings (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Agree with that and was just thinking the same thing. It might actually need its own section though it may be too early for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC) New page A new page on this was started here: Trump Campaign—Russian meetingCasprings (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Meeting with Russian lawyer was renamed "Donald Trump Jr." but that completely hides the fact that Jared Kushner, current Senior Advisor to the President with a top secret clearance, also attended, expecting to receive hacked information from a foreign government, and did not mention this contact previously (goes to judgment, as pointed out in sources). Trump Jr. set up the meeting (and is also the dipstick who gave interviews, i.e., he's featuring much more prominently than Kushner at the moment), but he has no official position. We need to find a solution that doesn't reduce this complex to one participant. I would have reverted for now but can't because of 24-hr restriction. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The source (I removed the paragraph breaks): "The Trump Tower meeting was disclosed to government officials in recent weeks, when Mr. Kushner, who is also a senior White House aide, filed a revised version of a confidential form required to obtain a security clearance. The Times reported in April that he had not disclosed any foreign contacts, including meetings with the Russian ambassador to the United States and the head of a Russian state bank. Failure to report such contacts can result in a loss of access to classified information and even, if information is knowingly falsified or concealed, in imprisonment. Mr. Kushner’s advisers said at the time that the omissions were an error, and that he had immediately notified the F.B.I. that he would be revising the filing." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Kushner's attendance is mentioned in the very first line of the section; that's not hiding him. Besides, this particular link with Russia went clearly through Don Jr., via Goldstone and the singer. Kushner was then invited as part of the campaign team, like Manafort. — JFG talk 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Unwatching this page I am convinced that certain editors are persistently adding bias to this article (plus certain others fighting for a NPOV article) and that this will eventually end up at arbcom. I have stated my objections, and am now walking away. I am tired of the constant sea-lioning [31] and am unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Too many paragraphs in lede WP:MOS states there should be four paragraphs in the lede. I'm a little surprised that this is not being enforced. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC) We don't need to enforce an arbitrary MOS limit, although we should be mindful of keeping the lede section short enough. Each paragraph addresses a consistent part of the story: first one defines the subject, second is about specific actions by Russia and denials thereof, third is about US reactions and sanctions, fourth is about investigations. The fifth paragraph covers recent news and may or may not survive after a few weeks. — JFG talk 10:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC) I tend to agree with JFG on this. Guidelines aren't absolutes, and exceptions are allowed. If not, they are called "policies". Long and complicated articles sometimes need more paragraphs in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Campaign meeting with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin We now have enough people in the room to cast Snow White and all seven dwarves. I changed the title to "and others" because I couldn't think of anything better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Shortened it to "Veselnitskaya meeting": she's the main character in that Snow White reboot. — JFG talk 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC) January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment I note that there is a categorical statement in the article which is directly contradicted by reference 2, the Jan 2017 ICA. Read the hatnote. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC) The problem is to try and include everyones view. But yes we should be working to exclude stuff, any suggestions?Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) @Ancheta Wis: Which "categorical statement" are you referring to? — JFG talk 10:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) In the section on the Jan 2017 ICA, "The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions.", there is an ambiguity about the cited report, which is declassified, and the Intelligence Community Assessment, which is classified. The classified report and the declassified report have the same conclusions, but there is obviously more "how" and more "evidence" in the classified ICA. The declassified report has a hatnote on almost every page which states "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.". It may be that this article is trying to "connect the dots", but there is plenty to write about without the extrapolations. One obvious application of the declassified report would be to correlate the reporting times/bylines of news articles in the US press with the times that the hacking effort "went dark", namely after the election result. The directive to "go dark" is mentioned in the declassified ICA. Do you want me to point it out in the declassified report for you? That would be clear evidence of the influence of the hacking effort on the US. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC) That would be clear evidence of the influence of the hacking effort on the US. While that me be true, it sounds like OR. If you are saying that this article is trying to connect the dots; can you tell us where? We're just trying to stick to RS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Ancheta Wis, yes, please point out the "going dark" source info. That's an interesting detail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Ancheta Wis, I think you have a point. That sentence is misleading by not clarifying the difference between the two reports. Please suggest better wording, OR maybe we should just leave it out altogether. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) for @BullRangifer "Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately" --pp.1-2 Declassified ICA Jan 2017. I recall seeing this (I call it "going dark") in NYT I think (I picked up on this in Dec 2016 I think, because Putin was specifically mentioned), which is why the ICA sentence made an impression on me. Now since there has been some time for this fact to percolate, it now seems harder for hackers to obfuscate the effect of less echoing in the echo chamber. I frankly am waiting for a citation in the press on this (to avoid the OR charge) because the lessening echo effect could be chased by the intelligence community. Still, "chance favors the prepared mind". I have other observations which I forebear in the interest of a shorter article. The article's attempts to connect the dots simply make it contentious to too many interests. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I don't understand what Ancheta Wis is getting at. The sentence "The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions" seems to have been cherry-picked from Sanger's NY Times article: The report described a broad campaign that included covert operations, including cyberactivities and “trolling” on the internet of people who were viewed as opponents of Russia’s effort. While it accused Russian intelligence agencies of obtaining and maintaining “access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards,” it concluded — as officials have publicly — that there was no evidence of tampering with the tallying of the vote on Nov. 8. But the declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions. So it is bound to be attacked by skeptics and by partisans of Mr. Trump, who see the review as a political effort to impugn the legitimacy of his election. Intelligence officials have rejected that view. Taken out of context, the sentence looks like editor's POV to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Bingo! Space4Time3Continuum2x is spot on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Yup. This is pretty badly cherry picked. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC) I think the broader point that the declassified report has limited evidence is important to note, since it seems to be generally acknowledged by secondary sources (not just the NY Times), and it is a caveat about the limitations of public evidence from the US government. But it should definitely be made clear to readers that this applies only to the declassified report, and not the full report. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, the difference should be noted, without casting unfair aspersions on the declassified report. Each has their function. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC) I see the effect of quoting this one sentence as something akin to OR editorializing here. It's so incomplete that it should not be used, also because it only serves the attempts of fringe editors to confuse readers and lessen their trust in RS. Taken alone, it serves as an unfair and illegitimate aspersion against the declassified report. Such a report cannot be expected to include details which must be kept in the classified report. That is not a weakness. That's they way it's supposed to be. Crucial evidence, sources, and many other details contained only in the classified report, aren't any less real and true because they are not in the declassified report. It's also the same type of unfair and illegitimate aspersion made against the Donald Trump–Russia dossier compiled by Christopher Steele. The fact that it uses unnamed sources has been described as a sign of inaccuracy. That's not true. That's the way such reports are supposed to be written. It does not render the report any less true or accurate. It just protects its sources. Those sources have likely been revealed to the CIA and FBI, as well as to Mueller, for their investigations. Knowing that, and having sought verification and found it quite often, they have so much confidence in the dossier that they are using it as their "road map", a fact which really scares some people (from all the attacks made against it). If they were innocent, they'd ignore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Assuming that the classified report contains more solid proof, or that the Steele Dossier has been verified by US intelligence agencies, would be a violation of WP:V. We can't rely on speculation in place of actual sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC) following the money It was suggested at another article that this material should be added to this article: In July 2017 it was reported that Mueller has expanded the probe to look into Trump's businesses and those of his associates. The President said that digging into matters beyond Russia would be "out of bounds". Sources I agree but I can't find where to put it. In the opening part of the Special investigator section? In a new subsection called "expansion of the investigation"? Not at all because it isn't about Russia? Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I think we have gotten to the point where we need the Mueller investigation article (need better title).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC) The source indicates that the investigation is related to the election interference (or at least that Mueller believes it to be related). I think if more sources discuss this, it'd be worth putting in a sentence or two about it in the special investigation section. I'll see if I can find others. -Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I think the investigation is getting so board that yes a separate article might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Transferring material to "2017 Special Counsel investigation" There is such an article: 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Several editors have suggested to transfer relevant material about the investigation from here to there. I agree. — JFG talk 22:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I have transferred most of the "special counsel investigation" material to that article, and significantly trimmed the relevant section here. There's lots more work to do at that article, documenting the various investigations. Anyone please feel free to help. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. If you copy significantly from another article, as I did, be sure to say in edit summary "Some content copied from [[name of article]], see that page's history for attribution." --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I drastically trimmed the "obstruction of justice" section but did not eliminate it. What is the feeling of others here? Should that section now be removed and the basics reduced into a few sentences, or even a single overall summary sentence - something along the lines of "Mueller is reportedly looking into multiple matters including actions by Russia, links and possible coordination between Trump associates and Russian agents, financial activities of several individuals including Flynn and Manafort, and possible attempts to obstruct the investigation." --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Best move it all to the dedicated investigation article and keep the shortest possible neutral summary. That's long overdue; this article is supposed to be about Russian interference, not everything that's being thrown at Trump. — JFG talk 00:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Beauregard to all How very disappointing to see the removal of Mr. Sessions name edit-warred back immediately after I challenged its removal. WP should not be deciding for the Atty. Gen'l nor for the reader what name they associate with a notable person. His full name is widely used in public communication by Mr. Sessions and by RS that refer to him. It is not as if we went to great lengths to discover an unused middle name long-since abandoned by the individual blessed with it. The proper name should be reinserted and any discomfort with it should be resolved through talk page consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Why is this even an issue, who cares?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Leave it out. The actual article about Sessions (which is titled "Jeff Sessions") uses his full name only twice: in the lede sentence and in the inbox. Otherwise and at all times he is Jeff by his own choice. There was a discussion about his name at that article, see Talk:Jeff Sessions/Archive 1#Name origin?. IMO there is no justification for using his full name at this article. In fact I have always felt that efforts to shoehorn his full birth name into places where it is not needed are basically attempts to tie him to the Civil War and make him seem like a reactionary southerner. He can't help it if he carries a name that was chosen by his great-grandparents for his grandfather, 100 years ago. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. His full name is not "widely used by Mr. Sessions", quite the opposite. He is virtually always "Jeff". Please see the current Attorney General page and his Senate page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Firstly, my response was to SPECIFICO, asking why this is an issue. Secondly, the name (for him) was chosen by his parents. But he cannot help it if he carries a name chosen by his parents.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I was also responding to User:SPECIFICO, sorry if I didn't make that clear. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF? Not sure what's meant by "his fault" as if his name is some sort of infraction. We are way deep into OR if we start projecting contemporary values onto every Southerner of a long-past era. Clinton proudly uses the name of slaveowner Jefferson. How many tens of thousands are contemporary namesakes of Robert E. Lee? Whitewashing early 19-th Century references, if you insist on reading them into a mellifluous and distinctive name, is unwikipidean, IMO. It certainly is not mainstream practice not to speak his or anyone else's name for that reason. USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601) SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) You are the one who see's his middle name as important, no one else (including most RS) does.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC) No one has said "his fault", don't know where you got that. And I don't see where anyone has invoked WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyhow, to the point: Sessions himself is the one who always shortens it to "Jeff". That's not our "insistence", it's his. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC) his fault is a paraphrase of the sense I get from comments above by you and Slatersteven. "He can't help it..." sounds to me like "not his fault" -- I should simply have quoted your words to avoid misrepresenting your meaning. Sorry. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC) No, what we said is it his not his fault, and this is a strawman and you know it. Address the point we actually made, why is his middle name important?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Are you saying that you prefer my paraphrase to your wording? I realize it was Melanie and not you who objected to my rewording. At any rate, you (and she) were the ones who raised that point, not I. So if it's a strawman, it belongs not to me. Why don't we let others help sort this out. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC) If we're done debating who-said-what, I'd like to see your response to my substantive comments: His full name is not "widely used by Mr. Sessions", quite the opposite. He is virtually always "Jeff". Please see the current Attorney General page and his Senate page. and Sessions himself is the one who always shortens it to "Jeff". That's not our "insistence", it's his. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Removal sounds good to me. Using his middle name appears to be an attempt to typecast him. The fact that it may correctly typecast him is not relevant. We don’t do that. We follow RS. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Right. No source ever uses his full name, unless to slander him by association. — JFG talk 00:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Has any RS ever used his full name, I do not recall ever seeing it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC) JFG don't make categorical negative assertions which, logically, cannot be proved. In fact they are easy to disprove in this case, using your googlizer. And please don't disparage the motives of either WP editors or the editors of publications that use his full name in certain contexts. None of this advances our purpose here. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC) At this point, three people are saying to leave it out. SPECIFICO is the only one arguing for JBS III, and they have repeatedly failed to address or refute my point that the man himself always uses "Jeff", including official uses like his official pages at the Justice Department and the U.S. Senate. (And in case anyone cares about Google hits, "Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III" gets 40,800; "Jeff Sessions" gets 14,600,000.) I believe we have consensus that "Jeff Sessions" is the appropriate way to mention him at this article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) MelanieN, as I said above, let's not be rushin' this. There's no current consensus to include it but it's not in the article now. Not all interested editors log in at intraday frequency. As I said above, I think we should see what others have to offer so we can see a broad expression of editor judgment. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I agree that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to include the name "Jefferson Beauregard Sessions" in this article. I have thus far never once seen him referred to as anything other than Jeff Sessions in any of the sources referenced in this article. Even if his full name is "Jefferson Beauregard Sessions", it appears to be used with such rarity as to not merit mention in any article except one focused specifically on him as a person, and definitely not in this article. If you would like to include his full name in this article, show that a large number of the sources referenced here use that name. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Is Wikipedia promoting "fake news"? The following discussion 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. I note the title of this article remains unchanged despite the fact that we have still been offered no proof that the alleged the "Russian interference" is real. That is the very definition of "fake news", "post-fact" and "truthiness" that the MSM ascribes to alternatives non-MSM sources. The truculent defence of this indefensible position undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. By comparison, the Daily Mail is a "reliable source"...though politically I despise it. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) posted on the same week that congress has voted for sanctions for Russian interference. That is enough to say yes it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC) So, if enough American politicians make an allegation...proof or evidence is irrelevant, according to Wiki? Ffs...lmfao So..we are back into Iraq's "WMD" territory...only now it's not just the WP and NYT peddling propaganda...but Wikipedia as well? Sarah777 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, so yes, this is being treated just like the WMD allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC) That's hardly a defence! If the Russian Parliament - or the Governments of numerous other nations - decided that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, Wiki would be prepared to name the article on the murderous illegal invasion of Iraq..eh... The Illegal Invasion of Iraq ?? Sarah777 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC) What?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The Iraq Resolution 2002, approved by Congress, said, "Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated."[32] Wikipedia policy does not mean that police reports and statements by politicians are treated as truth, but instead treat sources such as mainstream media and published academic papers as reliable. The problem you face when using official announcements as truth is that the truth is no longer dependent on evidence and changes according to political expediency, which was the approach of the Soviet Communist Party in the 1930s, satirized in 1984. TFD (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The point is that almost everyone, form the Republican party to his most vehement political opponents agree this happened. About the only people who deny this are Donny's inner circle (that is to say those who have had (or might have had) access to any evidence). Thus I do not think we are in beach of NPOV by not calling this an allegation. We are in fact going with virtually everyone else. If anything the idea that this is not true might well fail Fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC) So, what you are saying is that if the US political establishment agree on something...proof or facts don't matter? Kind of - Iraqi WMDs revisited? The FACT that the Russian Government has denied any involvement can be ignored, even though there is NO PROOF whatsoever of their involvement? And this is Wiki NPOV! Sarah777 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC) No, what I am saying is that when the US political establishment and the media and the intelligence services (well all those who deal with foreign espionage) all agree on something then we need some very good counter evidence to dismiss it (and the accused deny it is not that). As I said to give equal weight to those who say this did not happen is violation of Fringe in my opinion. The difference with WMD's is a lot of experts (including the team sent in to find them) said the evidence was iffy, not just those who supported Saddam. Yes there is proof the NSA, the FBI, the CIA have said so, Congress has said so. Hell even Trump has said they might have done [33].Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Our opinions are irrelevant. We just say what RS say. That's why the article has its current title. Objective3000 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC) What is "RS"? And "we" regard the uttering of "the intelligence services" as a "reliable source"?! Even though their very function is to advance the interests of the US establishment by any and every means?! Any of you folk every check out the history of the CIA? This is pathetic Sarah777 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The media do not agree it happened, they merely report that intelligence say it happened. The reason we treat news media as reliable sources is that they are best placed to determine whether claims should be treated as facts. TFD (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC) What do you mean: What is RS? It’s what WP:RS says it is. No, intelligence services are primary sources. The RS are stated in the article. The respected news sources have overwhelmingly dropped the word “alleged”. I think the BBC is about the only paper still using the word. Objective3000 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I guess if you dismiss everything but the Western MSM as "reliable sources" you get the Pentagon take on things! (Despite their history of lies, disinformation and "false flags"). The BBC is not a "paper", btw. "Respected news sources"? Would this include the media that the President of the United States dismisses as "Fake News" and that most of the non-Western world regard as propaganda of the Western Establishment? "Proof" depending on "intelligence sources" who won't publish their "evidence" is simple bulls*it. The decision to privelage such propaganda is the complete trashing of WP:NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The irony here is that both the title of this article, and particularly the rationale being used to defend it, are hugely undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. When Wiki is quoted as a "reliable source" all anyone has to do to refute that is point to this article. Sarah777 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Deja vu much, right down to the Daily Mail: [1] [2]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC) This has been discussed to death. Even Trump has acknowledged the Russian election meddling. [34] Bringing it up repeatedly is a disruptive timedrain and characterizing other editors as “pathetic” is uncivil. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC) So, you reckon the CIA is a more "reliable source" than the Daily Mail! Doubly LMFAO! And..while I appreciate that censorship is probably your only option when you are trying to maintain the incredible...I must point out that I DID NOT call "other editors" pathetic...I called a particular argument pathetic...which it manifestly is...Sarah777 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC) First, do not put words into the mouths of other editors. I suggested no such thing. Secondly, in no manner have I called for censorship. Thirdly, I consider my cat more reliable than The Daily Mail. And my cat is dead. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Lucky cat then...."Bringing it up repeatedly is a disruptive timedrain and characterizing other editors as “pathetic” is uncivil" - I'd regard that as a dogwhistle for some admin to censor Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC) OK can we close this now, it is not productive..Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Only in the sense that a highly biased article name still exists despite a complete inability to justify such manifest political bias and clear breach of WP:NPOV .Sarah777 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC) No, but this is not the place to discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) This is not the place to discuss the title of THIS article??? Sarah777 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) No, this is not the place to discus other editors or their actions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Even Trump has acknowledged the Russian election meddling." Trump still doubts Russia meddled in the 2016 election - http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-still-harbors-doubts-about-1500825343-htmlstory.html - .................not sure if the LA Times is a reliable source in your universe?Sarah777 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, you have made the point that Trump is not an RS for what Trump believes as he contradicts himself. You really need to stop using words like: in your universe. Stomping your feet and making snide remarks will never convince anyone of anything. Objective3000 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "'Hey, you know, this is — maybe they did it. Maybe they didn’t do it.'", as I said even Donny is not sure they did not do it. Even he is not sure the evidence disproves it (or to be more precise the evidence does not prove it). This is the man whose carrier rests on being able to prove there was no interference, and even he is hedging his bets.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I'm just pointing out that "even Trump admits" isn't reliable. No more than the claims of alleged Russian interference are reliable. Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC) So which RS then say the Russians did not do it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC) That's not the issue. It's whether any source claims to have proof that the Russians did it. None do. Citing US spooks isn't proof. Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Yes it is the issue, NPOV means we have to represent all POV. If no RS say there is no proof of this, and lots of RS say there are we cannot say there is no proof. If N=no RS say the Russians did not do it we cannot infer they did not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The camp claiming no interference/not Russian interference is a beleaguered one, indeed. GABgab 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC) This is going nowhere and should be closed. User:Sarah777, I'm sorry you feel this title is POV, but your use of phrases like "fake news" and "propaganda of the Western Establishment" suggests that your comments here are based on your political opinion. You are of course entitled to have an opinion, but most of us try to edit in a neutral way unaffected by our politics. The bottom line here is, Wikipedia operates on consensus, and the longstanding consensus has been that the current title is appropriate. The article itself begins by attributing a source of the information in the lede sentence, which is appropriate, but the fact of Russian interference in the election is as well established as it can possibly be considering that the actual evidence is classified. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Inclined to agree with MelanieN. Sarah777, I suggest that Wikipedia does not deal in "proof" but in the propensity of what reliable sources say, as decided by a consensus of editors. If you're still unhappy with the content or title of this article, you need to collect good sources that back up what you want it to say, suggest an approximate wording and discuss it heree, via an RFC or an RM as appropriate.--John (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2017 (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. Public Opinion Is there any way we could condense the Public Opinion subsection? Currently it's just a six-paragraph-long list of polls going back to January 5th. It's questionable as to whether individual polls as of late March, or early June are at all notable now, and they certainly won't be in the long run. Ideally we could find sources that track, analyze, and summarize the various opinion polls on this question, which could be used to replace the current repetitive list. But if that isn't forthcoming then I'd suggest we cut the opinion polls down to 2 paragraphs, using some method of choosing the most significant of the polls (perhaps simply comparing several of the earliest on the subject with the most recent ones). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I agree that this is a good idea. Keep only enough of the old polls to provide historical context. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I agree also.- MrX 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Agree that it is too long, and that there should be some kind of agreement reached as to which polls are notable and which are not for this article. Pinging BenWitt who is probably the sole author of that section and so needs to be onboard with the process. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry, that was Benwitt. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Hi, yes. I agree- There are many repeats of the same info that can probably be deleted or condensed. Thx Benwitt (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Benwitt, would you be willing to undertake the trim? You probably have a much better handle than most of us on which polls are regarded as particularly accurate or significant, and you could pick out a few highlights and delete the rest - and continue to add significant new polls as appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC) On Operation Infinite Reach, I created a table of polls. Maybe we could do something like that here, provided we use polls which ask the same questions. GABgab 22:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Most of the "public opinion" section is primary sourced -- publications describing their own polls. That stuff should all be removed. WP editors should not be deciding which of these polls is noteworthy and weaving a narrative from them. The good content in this section takes secondary RS discussion of the findings and trends demonstrated by significant. The rest would be like WP editors making a list of an author's best works, citing only the works themselves rather than any critical evaluation of their importance. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, of course. I think one reason for the length of the section is not only the repetitive listings of polls from the same month but also repeats of polls from the same pollsters. I think some good resources for this section could be PollingReport.com's Russia and Trump admin sections (http://www.pollingreport.com/russia.htm, http://www.pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm) as well as 538's pollster rankings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/) for ideas on which polls to use. There are also some polls from after the election but before the inauguration on the topic that could be useful. And then perhaps maybe having a mix of polls from across the political spectrum. I could work on it tomorrow ET. Thanks Benwitt (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Hello again, I think we could shorten up the section by having no more than say 3 polls a month, and maybe no more than 2 types of polls per month (media orgs, colleges/universities, Pew/Gallup, online companies etc) to have a mix. I also think maybe only having polls w a 538 score of a C+ or above to ensure reliability. I don't want to change anything unless there's agreement. Thanks! Benwitt (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC) We can't cite a poll to the polltaker. That is a primary source. We need a touchstone to establish noteworthiness and due weight for inclusion on WP. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Many times outlets like NYT or WaPo will write about other polls on the topic. We can use those. Benwitt (talk) 17:00 25 July 2017 (UTC)