Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Comey dismissal

[1] Since Thucydides411 and I disagree that this needs to be changed, I'm bringing it here for some discussion.

ORIGINAL

• Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, giving various reasons but ultimately admitting he had done it because of the pressure he felt from the FBI's Russia investigation. A few days later, the FBI reportedly widened its investigation to examine whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Many FBI insiders believed the real reason Comey was fired was because he had refused to end the investigation into Russian connections to the election. In his June testimony Comey said that Trump never asked him to stop the Russia investigation. The special counsel's office took over the investigation. ABC News later clarified that the special counsel is gathering preliminary information about possible obstruction of justice, but a full-scale investigation has not yet been launched.

THUCY's EDIT (The "admitting" line is a serious breach of NPOV. It's a disputed interpretation of Trump's words.)

• Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, giving various reasons, calling the latter a "nut job". A few days later, the FBI reportedly widened its investigation to examine whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Many FBI insiders believed the real reason Comey was fired was because he had refused to end the investigation into Russian connections to the election. In his June testimony Comey said that Trump never asked him to stop the Russia investigation. The special counsel's office took over the investigation. ABC News later clarified that the special counsel is gathering preliminary information about possible obstruction of justice, but a full-scale investigation has not yet been launched.

Sources

Please comment below...DN (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that Comey himself denied the following (see quote below), it is impossible to come to any other conclusion but that this weasel-worded text constitutes speculation/conjecture, however ostensibly sourced. This is far too important an article to allow this to go unresolved. Quis separabit? 23:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Many FBI insiders believed the real reason Comey was fired was because he had refused to end the investigation into Russian connections to the election."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation-refuse-end-fbi-insiders-director-hillary-a7729691.html|title=Donald Trump fired James Comey because 'he refused to end Russia investigation', say multiple FBI insiders|last=Roberts|first=Rachel|date=May 11, 2017|work=The Independent|accessdate=May 11, 2017}}</ref>

If you read the sources, you will see two things: 1) Comey has said repeatedly that he believes Trump wished him to curtail the investigations, gave signals to that effect, and fired him because he would not cooperated. 2) When asked if Trump ever specifically demanded that Comey shut down the investigation, Comey answered "no". Thus, Comey's statement is not denial that Trump fired him to stop the investigation, and the opinion of other FBI officials on the matter in not speculation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what the NY Times article (cited in the above text) about Trump's statement says:

President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

The article does not say that Trump "admitted" the firing was because of pressure from Comey's investigation. That's a plausible conjecture from Trump's statement, in my opinion, but it is just that - a conjecture. The claim that Trump "admitted" the firing was because of Comey's investigation appears to come from a synthesis of the NY Times article and another article from The Independent (also cited in the above text), which reports that FBI insiders believe Trump fired Comey because of the investigation.

Including this sort of synthesis to essentially put words in Trump's mouth is a serious breach of WP:NPOV. I think it's plausible to believe that Trump fired Comey because of the investigation, and Trump's statement hints at that possibility, but he didn't "admit" as much. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the first sentence of that paragraph - I think we discussed this recently, and there seemed to be consensus to remove anything along the lines of "ultimately admitted", since no source uses that language or anything to that effect, and it's definitely not neutral wording. This section is purely about the obstruction of justice inquiry, and as we already describe Comey's firing in greater detail just a few sentence prior, it's unnecessary to reintroduce the topic in this paragraph. I'd push to remove that sentence entirely, and just modify the start of the next sentence, "A few days after Comey was fired, the FBI reportedly widened its investigation... [etc.]". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Red Rock Canyon's suggestion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RS says the official document of Trump's Oval Office no-US-press meeting with Lavrov states that Trump fired Comey to take the pressure off the Russia thing. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what that document says, it's not what Trump said, it's not what sources say, and it is already discussed in the article just three paragraphs before this section. You might wish to read it before commenting. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what the Times says the document said. If you have a slightly different wording, that would be a better contribution than snarkophilia. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Notice: here Trump DOES NOT SAY he fired Comey in order to take the pressure off, merely that after firing Comey, the pressure is off. One could reasonably infer that getting the pressure off was part of his goal (as some people do), but that's not what he says. I apologize if I sounded snarky. We discussed this exact topic two weeks ago, and agreed to change the wording in the section about Comey's firing to better represent the actual language in the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Trump associated all those assertions, so it's not WP editorial OR or SYNTH. He also spoke to NBC news on the matter. The reason we have 2 yards of type on this thread is the endless attempts to reinstate one or more false rationales that Trump himself abandoned. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove "admitted" - POV word. Remove "nut job" - a trivial, throwaway comment. Focus on what Trump ACTUALLY said: that he felt a lot of pressure because of the FBI investigation, and that firing Comey had (he thought) taken that pressure off. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph is very biased towards a narrative that gives more weight to Trump mind-reading than to actual documents and citations. Not very surprising: we just had a similar debate at Talk:Donald Trump#Muslim ban or travel ban? comparing the "anti-Muslim" rhetoric to the "security concerns" official line. Trump often gives multiple rationales for his decisions, some of which do not appear to make sense, but this fact does not constitute license for Wikipedia editors to pick the "worst-sounding" rationale only. To the text:

• Pretty unencyclopedic tone here: Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, giving various reasons, calling the latter a "nut job". I would suggest Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, citing recommendations from the Department of Justice and expectations that it would relieve pressure of the Russia probe on his presidency.
• The phrase Many FBI insiders believed the real reason Comey was fired was because he had refused to end the investigation into Russian connections to the election. should be removed entirely. It is sourced to an Independent article of May 11 which itself calls this "speculation" and refers to now-debunked claims that Comey had been asking the Justice Department for more resources to expand the investigation. A more sober description of what happened would be Trump was suspected of trying to curtail the FBI investigation into collusion of his campaign with Russia. Soon after Comey's dismissal, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to take over the Russia probe.

Comments? — JFG ^talk 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly support the changes you outlined, for the reasons you outlined.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, and sounds much better. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

POV language suggests Trump hired Mueller. Please do NPOV proposal if you wish to change language. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed text doesn't suggest that Trump hired Mueller. We could say "Rosenstein appointed Mueller" if you feel better that way. — JFG ^talk 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to concede it does, but please give some more thought and propose an article-ready solution that we can all consider. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? It would take some odd mental gymnastics to read that as saying Trump himself hired Mueller, and then there's the fact that 2 paragraphs earlier, the article says this "On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to direct FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors investigating election interference by Russia and related matters." Please examine this proposal in its context within the article. Not every sentence needs to explain all information if that information is already available to readers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your wish is my command: Soon after Comey's dismissal, Mueller took over the Russia probe. No need to go into details here because we already say a few sentences above who Mueller is and who appointed him (as Red Rock Canyon also noted). Good enough? — JFG ^talk 20:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

New Lede

A proposal. I expect somebody to revert it, but please give some specific objection here.

Full text

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the Russian government or its agents supporting Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Allegations of interference included hacking DNC computer servers, coordinating with Trump campaign officials including Paul Manafort, and disseminating fake news on social media. On October 7, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of e-mails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process.The hacks included those of the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. On October 31, the Barack Obama administration directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face serious consequences. In December, president Barack Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals. Several investigations about Russian influence on the election have been underway: a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI, hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and inquiries about possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump associates, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. On May 9, 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, citing in part dissatisfaction with the ongoing suspicions of his presidency because of "this Russia thing". On May 17, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the investigation.

Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, Manafort's not been convicted of anything yet, and the support of Trump was just one of the aims (the other being to undermine faith in the system). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph states a whole series of allegations as if they were established facts, in the authoritative voice of Wikipedia. That would be a massive violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of stating first what the Russians did, because that's the purported subject of the article. Unfortunately we don't know that much with certainty, so that whatever accusations must be prefixed by "US intelligence says so". In particular, there is zero indication at the moment of "coordinating with Trump campaign officials": on the contrary, practically all of the suspicions cited in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials have resulted in "no collusion found" conclusions. People keep digging wider and deeper until they find something: the typical fishing expedition. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've changed sentence two from "The interference included" to "Allegations of interference included". Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Even the first sentence isn't sourced, and most sources I've read claim not that Russia was attempting to support Trump, but that Russia was attempting to sabotage Clinton - especially in the last several months, where they anticipated she would win and so were working mainly to reduce her legitimacy by sowing doubt about the election. There is too little information about Russia - no mention of repeated denials by the Russian government, or Russian response to sanctions. There's no mention of the widespread propaganda campaign except one line about fake news (which isn't really the same thing), and no mention of the hacking attempts against state and local election databases. And while Paul Manafort and the rest are being investigated, none of them has even been charged with a crime, much less found guilty in court. Describing the allegations as "coordinating with Trump campaign officials including Paul Manafort" feels conclusive on the wrong side - it reads as though Manafort's crimes are already known, and only the Russian participation is unclear. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any of those sources? And a long list of denials is something I'm interested in explicitly not including. They did it, or they're alleged/accused of doing it, or don't mention it at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As a separate suggestion, instead of a lede sentence of "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the Russian government or its agents supporting Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign.", it could read "This article describes various allegations and investigations regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Power~enwiki (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, and Casprings: for some other opinions. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems like yet another attempt to put in as much "alleged" as possible into the lede. We've had this conversation. s. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This is an attempt to put in whatever it is they were alleged to have done. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's an attempt to be accurate, and not to state something as fact that we don't know to be a fact. It's not that complicated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see how this is superior to our current version. Neutrality^talk 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." is, in my opinion, the worst lede sentence in the entire Wikipedia. Why can't the nature of the interference be mentioned? Or its effects? As it is, we simply have "The US government said X and the Russians denied it. The US government also said X+Y and the Russians denied it." Power~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty decent lead sentence. Of the Five Ws, it hits four (who, what, when, where). As to "how" — that can be (and is) discussed later on in the lead section and the article. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really hit the "what" question. This is a general problem I see in the article. What was the alleged interference? It's primarily the claim of hacking emails and promoting the spread of "fake news." The lede should give some context - the email release, which hurt Clinton's campaign. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine sentence. It's grammatical. It's crisp. It gets right to the point. It's easy to understand. I wish more Wikipedia article lede sentences were written like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To me, looks like a classically well put lede. Introduce the reader to the pertinent points of the article, succinctly and accurately. Objective3000 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that "Russian interference" is the object of the sentence, not the subject. The subject-verb part is "US Intelligence Community concludes." The sentence shouldn't be about the US government saying that the subject of the article definitely is a thing that really exists, it should be about the subject of the article. Which means a sentence saying "Russia interfered in the election by doing X", or "Russia allegedly interfered by doing X". Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Official Russian statements and Putin interviews as sources

An editor persists in adding references like official statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry and an exclusive Putin interview by a Russian government-owned website. Both are Putin’s word, i.e., OR, and we have several English-language secondary sources for the denials/categorical denials/rejections/denouncements mentioned in the article, including Peskov calling a report "garbage." As far as I can tell from the Google translation, the lengthy interview mentions the subject of this article only in this one sentence: "Instead of beginning to work constructively, we only hear groundless accusations of interference in the internal affairs of the United States." There are currently more than 300 sources on the reference list, and I’m removing these two plus the paywalled Financial Times that let’s you read only the headline without a subscription. Please, do not reinstate without discussing the merits of the references in Talk first. We do not have to give equal space to the "accused", and endlessly repeating variations of "no, we didn’t" isn’t an argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: We cite official US documents on multiple occasions, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]. In this context it is not unreasonable to cite "official statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry" or "an exclusive Putin interview by a Russian government-owned website," especially since our article mentions Putin twice in the article headings, and repeats his name 65 times, before the references.

Furthermore, in this article we currently cite Radio Svoboda, which is funded by the US government. We also cite NPR and PBS. But while this article is titled "Russian interference..." I don't see a single reference to Russia Today, even though they've published extensively on this topic. At WP:RS in the section WP:BIASED, the text reads,

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Given that we have 343 references in an article that purports to be about Russian interference in the US election, what percentage of these references should derive from Russia? and how many from the United States? How many should come from other countries (the UK, France, China, Germany, Spain, etc) with their own substantial media presence? -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE We don't choose primary sources to give equal weight to their POV and mainstream NPOV. I think this has been amply discussed on this talk page over the past many months. Let's deal with specific improvements rather than general discomfort about the mainstream narrative on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The classification of the views of the Russian government as WP:FRINGE is a statement of extreme political bias, and "their views have no place here" is a totally unreasonable position for an international encyclopedia. I'm asking a few specific questions: should we cite official US documents, but not official Russian statements or interviews? What percentage of sources should derive from Russia, Russia today, other countries, etc? -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's an observation of the amount of weight their views are given by reliable sourcing. If Russia wants more respect, they could start speaking the truth. Unfortunately their viewpoint appears to be (here comes my OR) that because they have 20,000 or so nuclear warheads at their disposal, they are therefore worthy of the same respect that any other gets no matter what absurd things their propaganda outlets say or how many foreign territories they annex. Luckily, the Wikipedia guidelines would have to be considerably revised to accommodate that point of view. Geogene (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Where's OJ's denials? #implausible denial per RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene and SPECIFICO: What you're proposing - that we dismiss the statements of one government (Russia) while taking the statements of another government (the US) essentially at face value - is very disturbing from the point of view of WP:NPOV and writing an international encyclopedia. I hope your editing here is not motivated by political animus towards Russia and Wikileaks, but from your comments on this talk page, it appears to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clearly siding with US intelligence in particular instance. Therefore this article will be biased in that direction. It's disingenuous of you (and some others) to read anything more into it than that. I'm sorry that the Neutrality policy disturbs you, but this is not something that can be negotiated. Ultimately it will become a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statements from editors implying that 100% of official documents cited here should be American, and 0% Russian, or that 0% of sources should derive from RT or other (presumably) "pro-Russian" sources, ignore the WP:RS stipulation that

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

They also ignore the WP:NPOV guideline that we present

"fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Where in WP:RSN has it been demonstrated that Russia Today is a fringe publishing outfit, and that they not only should be used with caution, but should not be used at all? That was not the conclusion of this RSN discussion, for instance, nor this one. How, based on the topic of this article, and RSN records, can we maintain that neither official Russian positions, nor RT statements, are so trivial as to not constitute a "significant view?" -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the editor that took the lead in defending RT in the two discussions you linked to has been indeffed. Two other editors supporting RT as RS in those discussions have also been blocked, one indeffed and later suspected of heavy socking, and the other a one-year block. Having said that, there is no ban on RT as a source. Just use with care as it is a voice for Putin. The U.S. intelligence community is clearly not a mouthpiece for our current President as he so often disagrees with them. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'll also note that one of the users leading the charge against RT was indeffed (Sayerslle - an event that was long overdue). Some defending RT in some context (Viriditas, Ubikwit, Herzen) were and remain members of the community. Other editors - Gruban, Ian.thomson, TheBlueCanoe, CaroleMooreDC, Kmhkmh - argued it was a biased source, perhaps equivalent to VoR depending on who you ask - that might be used in certain contexts and not others. I think it's a biased source and should be used in some context. Also I'll note that most of the editors who argued vociferously against RT in those discussions - without any nuance at all - were a part of that EEML scandal where editors were emailing one another to edit war specifically against what they perceived as pro-Russian editors / viewpoints. In the discussions those who had nuanced positions definitely had the most interesting things to say, in my view. And nuance doesn't mean 100% of one thing, 0% of another. I'll ping @Bob K31416: below since in my view, their comment is below their normal standards. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, I was expressing, but not too well, my feeling that some editors were trying to suppress Russia's views, which reminded me of reports of Russia suppressing dissenting views in their country. In situations like these, I think of Orwell's Animal Farm, where the animals took over the farm from humans and claimed that two legs bad, four legs good. Then when they were in power, the dominating pigs started standing on two legs and said four legs good but two legs better.

On another point, I think that there are too many editors here who don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example misusing terms like fringe, undue, reliable source, and OR. So I don't think it's worthwhile for me to edit here. It's too much work for the amount of article improvement that might be obtained. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Bob K31416 In general I've felt the same way about this page - that the hostility level is too high to have productive editing, and that there isn't much concern for application of policy. Anyway I'm traveling so I won't be able to edit here for a while either. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, ad hominem thinking is unproductive and corrosive and is not consistent with WP site policy. Do you have a substantive editing concern. Otherwise step back and let others voice their views. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was responding to Objective3000's comment that some editors arguing in favor of using RT as a source had been blocked. I pointed out that many weren't, and some arguing against RT had been blocked, including for EEML in the past. What's alright with their comment but wrong in my response? Your comment otherwise appears conveniently hypocritical. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I've noticed this sort of hypocritical accusations to be somewhat of a pattern on your part. For example, after MPants launched a series of vulgar personal attacks on me above, and I reported those attacks to GoldenRing, you piped up not to condemn MPants' personal attacks but to ... wait for it ... attack me, the target of the personal attacks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "proportionately" and "reliable sources". Where are all the reliable sources that make the positivist claim that Russia did not meddle in the election? There are none! Therefore.... Geogene (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I've noticed you state this before. However, "did/didn't interfere" does not represent the broad spectrum of human ideological positions that exist for an unproven but possibly true allegation. For instance, I've pointed out that two of the most respectable news outlets in the world - Reuters and the BBC - remain consistently agnostic on every single one of their platforms. They don't do this for simple facts: rather, just for the allegation or possibility (their terminology) that Russia interfered in the election. Also, your comment doesn't address the fact that the Wikipedia community has never concluded that RT is such a biased source that it cannot be used. -Darouet (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The US Intelligence Community isn't a journalistic outlet. It's a collection of US government agencies, which may have their own political agendas. RT is a news source that one can use with caution. US Intelligence isn't a news source. There's a clear distinction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant because we're using reliable sources that consider the IC credible. If you want some kind of false equivalency between the US and RF viewpoints on this, then you need to take it up with the sources. Complaining about it here is a waste of time that should have ceased months ago. Again, this is a core policy that is not negotiable. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Some sources are more credulous about US intelligence agency claims, some are less credulous. My impression from reading both American and international papers is that the NY Times and Washington Post are much more credulous than large international news agencies like BBC, Reuters, Le Monde or the Süddeutsche Zeitung (not to even mention Russian news agencies). What I really object to is the blurring of lines between US intelligence agencies and reliable sources, which several editors here have been engaging in. If reliable sources agree on some point, then that's fine and it can be treated as factual. If reliable sources report that "Senior US intelligence officials said X," we can report that "Senior US intelligence officials said X." However, we absolutely cannot go from that to claiming that US intelligence agencies themselves are reliable sources, that their claims should be presented as fact, and that anyone who disputes their claims is WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, or any of the other acronyms regularly used to exclude such material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Calling RT biased is fair game, they don't even pretend otherwise. Calling them fringe is absurd. They may have been fringe 5 years ago but they have stepped up their game as a news channel, they have received journalism awards and they now command a significant audience worldwide; that doesn't happen by chance. The only reason to exclude them systematically would be ideological bias. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting off-topic sub-thread which doesn't add to the discussion. Jdcomix (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like some editors are suggesting that Wikipedia editing should move towards the approach used by the Russian government regarding news. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) This comment has no content and doesn't address or answer any point I raised, including any point about policy. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Do you honestly believe that RT is a reliable source under the Wikipedia definition? Just trying to determine what exactly you are trying to argue. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC) My actual position is similar, I think, to Ubikwit, Gruban, Ian.thomson, TheBlueCanoe, CaroleMooreDC, Kmhkmh. I think that it's a biased but important source. Personally, if I were writing an article and RT were relevant as a source, I would consider it as a source capable of conveying the official or semiofficial position of the Russian government, or various/powerful Russian interests, as a source possibly containing reporting that Western outlets would not, or could not cover, but also as a source that is likely to be biased, especially considering points 1-2. I think this is more or less consistent with what has emerged as a consensus from RSN discussions in the past. Part of this consensus is that if RT's reporting is in doubt, but there's reason to cite them (there isn't always), then RT should be used with attribution. I think when RT is relaying statements from Russian officials, there's no reason to doubt the veracity of the fact the statements were made, even if the statements are questioned by us or others. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I don't understand point #2. Are you saying that the Western press is unable or unwilling to report on some viewpoints? Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) @Objective3000: Both - that in some instances RT might be physically/infrastructurally capable of reporting on something that the Western press cannot, and that in other instances it might report report on something that the Western press (or most of it) chooses not to cover. Obviously in both these cases, depending on the event / claim at issue, RT's coverage might be too controversial, impossible to verify, and therefore might not be used. If the claim was picked up elsewhere it might be used but briefly and with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Can you provide sources that the Western Press has failed to report stories of interest to an encyclopedia that RT has covered? Objective3000 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting nonsense. Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is beyond absurd, a general assertion that RT is a good source completely leapfrogging the concrete article improvement issues at hand. Citing unrelated RSN threads from the distant past is cute. I mean, RT is a great place to write serious journalism, as long as you don't get shot, poisoned, abducted or have a garbage bag tied over your head. And I for one am sure I could still type on deadline gasping with a bag over my head. SPECIFICO talk This is a place to discuss article improvement. You can take comments like the one above to your political discussion board or chat room of choice, but hyperbolic such comments just clutter up the thread here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion of Russian interference wrongly attributed to "United States Intelligence Community" at large, in opening paragraph.

On May 23, 2017, former CIA Director John Brennan revealed to the House Intelligence Committee that only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment, relying on analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the oversight of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

John Brennan said the report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies..."

Wikipedia's opening paragraph misleadingly states — I quote — that "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Both Wikipedia's opening paragraph and the reference to The Washington Post article, dated 10-07-2016, are outdated and incorrect (and most certainly misleading) in light of John Brennan's more recent report (dated 05-23-2017) on the topic.

Quidnovis (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The Office for the Director of National Intelligence directs all US intelligence agencies. It speaks on their behalf. This has been discussed in the talk page before, and nothing has changed since then. I'd suggest reading that thread, since it addresses an argument identical to yours. Additionally, this article summarizes the arguments very well. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the relevant section of the article gives details about who produced the assessment. But the fact remains that it is the official assessment of the US intelligence community (if you read it, the document itself refers to the author as "the Intelligence Community" and it's titled an "Intelligence Community Assessment") and which specific agencies produced it are only details. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is misleading. Furthermore, the three agencies were not actually involved, but the NSA head hand-picked members from them for the report. The wording is reminiscent of the "Coalition of the Willing," where numbers are used to overstate support. TFD (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed misleading. And, with all due respect to Red Rock Canyon, "specific agencies" cannot be considered "only details", very specifically not when the term "United States Intelligent Community" in Wikipedia's opening paragraph on that page is highlighted to link to another Wikipage that defines "United States Intelligent Community" as "a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together...". And most certainly not, when "United States Intelligence Community" on that Wikipage is presented with a note to a Los Angeles Times' article by Nina Agrawal stressing - I quote - that "There's more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community." There is no denying that such a narrative is at the very least, extremely misleading, and not up to par with Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. The fact that section 4.6 of the Wikipage belatedly gives details about who produced the assessment does in no way excuse the equivocating opening paragraph.Quidnovis (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please do note that both the the AP and the LA Times considered the clarification important enough (and not just "only details") to warrant the publication of a "clarification" on the part of AP, and a "correction" on the part of the LA Times.Quidnovis (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've read those corrections. They say "We were mistaken when we wrote that this is an assessment of all 17 agencies". Nowhere in this article do we claim that this is an assessment of all 17 agencies. An earlier version did claim that, and when corrections from newspapers were issued, that text was removed - thus responding to the corrections. What we do claim is that it is an assessment of the intelligence community. The ODNI directs the intelligence community. Its conclusions are the conclusions of the intelligence community. When they put out a document claiming to be an "Intelligence Community Assessment", with the author described as "the Intelligence Community", they are speaking on behalf of the intelligence community. Here is the current Director of National Intelligence explaining that "there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election — despite comments by his boss, President Donald Trump, that have seemed to cast some doubt about the unanimity.... the reason only four of 17 intelligence agencies signed onto the January assessment describing the Russian effort is that the other agencies were not involved in gathering and analyzing the intelligence."

Yes, the intelligence agencies work "separately and together". This was a case of them working together. You simply do not understand how the intelligence community operates. The Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and Energy Department's intelligence agency don't contribute to writing about Russian interference in an election because that's not their focus, not because they disagree with the conclusion. Besides all that, and most importantly, reliable sources call it "intelligence community assessment". Often they also describe which agencies produced it, but most of the time when it is mentioned in newspapers and such, it's just called "intelligence community assessment" or some equivalent thereof.

Business Insider: "The US intelligence community has been unanimous in its assessment that Russia did indeed interfere."

USA Today: "Even as President Trump continues to equivocate on Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, his new chief of staff as recently as last week took a strong public stand affirming the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that the Kremlin tried to influence the election in favor of Trump."

Politico "Now, to the further frustration of some intelligence officers, there is little indication that, for all Trump’s bluster, he’ll be tougher on the Kremlin. In his first months in office, the president has signaled a willingness to work with Moscow on several fronts, and has pushed back hard against his own intelligence community’s assessment that Russia actively worked to elect him to the presidency."

CNN (quoting the current NSA Director, who presumably knows how the intelligence community operates and the correct terminology for assessments): "The NSA director said he stood by the intelligence assessment that Russia used hacking in an attempt to influence last year's election, something Moscow has repeatedly denied. 'I stand behind the intelligence, intelligence community assessment that we produced in January,'"

These are from the last month, long after newspapers issued corrections about the "All 17 agencies" line. Yes, the document was produced by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI. But it was produced on behalf of the entire intelligence community, its findings represent the entire intelligence community's assessment, and everyone calls the "Intelligence Community Assessment". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not change it to "the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI concluded that...no other US intel angencies offered comment on it's veracity".?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily wordy and less accurate, as most sources say "the US intelligence community concluded". There definitely is place in this article to discuss the details of who wrote the assessment itself, but that shouldn't be in the lead. These are the conclusions of the US intelligence community as a whole. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's called compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be making the article worse due to a single person's unfounded complaint. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't bend over backwards to accommodate a bad suggestion. ValarianB (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC

I appreciate slatersteven's suggestion — thx. Contra Red Rock Canyon, it's more accurate, not less; and it's more than "a single person's unfounded complaint”. It fits quite well with my intent in raising this issue earlier. Humanengr (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

From the sources I linked above:

• 1) The principle document released to the public is titled "Intelligence Community Assessment".
• 2) The current Director of the NSA refer to the allegations of Russian interference as "the intelligence community's assessment", the current CIA director said "I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community", and the current Director of National Intelligence said there is "no dissent".
• 3) Reliable sources generally refer to Russian interference as the conclusion of the intelligence community - without adding exceptions or clarifications.

The current language in the lead, "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded" reflects primary sources, secondary sources, and the opinions of experts. The language "no other US intel agencies offered comment on its veracity" is a gross distortion - it's undue as it implies that one would ordinarily expect them to comment, which is simply not how these agencies operate. However, I agree that there could be more information about who produced the January assessment and how, in the body of the article, as currently there's only really half a sentence about it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The title of the principal document is not "Intelligence Community Assessment"; the title is "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". "Intelligence Community Assessment" is a document category, not a title. The term "Intelligence Community" is not used in the body of the report. The body of the report begins: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies." Anything else is unwarranted muddling shorthand. Humanengr (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The false implication of the wording is that all the agencies reviewed the intelligence and came to the same conclusion. In fact no agencies reviewed it. It's not good enough to say it does not explicitly say that if that is the impression readers will take away. It's not the purpose of the article to persuade readers about what happened, especially through misleading them. TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see an issue with the current wording. It is basically word-for-word what a vast number of RS say, and there's no real evidence of officials within the intelligence committee casting doubt on Russia's role anyway (quite the opposite). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It’s ‘basically’ misleading shorthand and not what the official WRITTEN REPORT says. Humanengr (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I do understand Red Rock Canyon's concern here, "no other US intel agencies offered comment on its veracity," while objectively correct, does indeed imply more than is warranted. I also do understand Quidnovis's point: "United States Intelligent Community" does link to another Wikipedia entry dedicated to the said Intelligence Community, which is presented right off the bat with a note directing the reader to a Los Angeles Times' article by Nina Agrawal stressing that "There's more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.", all of this, while also being "objectively correct" does also imply more than is warranted, and is misleading. Section 4.6, to which both Red Rock Canyon and Quidnovis referred, does address the issue by making it clear that "the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI" are "the agencies" that "concluded", but the clarification does come a bit late and is buried into the body of the article. An easy fix could possibly be to turn the word "concluded" in the lede into an hyperlink to Section 4.6. Veratessa (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I severely object to the current lede, but not on these grounds; using "The United States Intelligence Community" metonymically to refer to 4 agencies as opposed to 17 is fine from my point of view. Attempting to explain that distinction in the lede sentence is impossible. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not impossible. Easy (by shortening slatersteven's suggestion): "the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI concluded that …" Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the vast majority of RS say though, and it's not our place to reject what they say because of how you interpret the WRITTEN REPORT (as you so helpfully capitalized it above). Also, the original DNI and DHS statement literally started by saying that "the US intelligence community is confident that..." There's not much to debate here. Where are the sources saying that any part of the intelligence community isn't confident? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The October letter was updated by the January report and should not be relied on as authoritative. A strong case can be made that it has no place in the lede. (Btw, I quoted; I did not 'interpret.) Humanengr (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read through past discussions, including archives ones, before bringing up issues that have been previously discussed to death. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss it or was slatersteven's suggestion discussed? Humanengr (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps anyone who claims issues currently under discussion have been previously discussed should provide specific pointers rather than trying to quash. Yes, the lede sentence has been discussed. But afaics neither slatersteven's suggestion nor my derivative has been addressed. (Others have introduced pertinent dimensions that, again afaics, have not been discussed; but for starters I continue on the instant one,) Humanengr (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove Oct 2016 statement from lede

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.

---

The page is listed at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national with a banner: "Archived Content: In an effort to keep DHS.gov current, the archive contains outdated information that may not reflect current policy or programs." Humanengr (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's boilerplate, it goes on all kinds of archived govt pages. Should not be interpreted as a sign the content is inaccurate. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

OR that indicates words have no meaning. To be consistent, I propose we ignore all words used by these agencies. Humanengr (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oct 7 2016: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

Jan 6 2017: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

Confidence was upgraded to 'high confidence'. Oct 7 is outdated. Citing it in the lede sentence is a blatant misrepresentation. Humanengr (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The way I read it, the lead says that on Oct 7 the ODNI and the DHS were "confident" that Russia was interfering with the election. Later, with more research and analysis, the Intelligence Community upgraded their confidence level. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all. We're reporting what they said early on as well as what the current assessment is. Also, the Oct 7 report isn't cited in the lead sentence - it's cited in a sentence about the Oct 7 report. As far as I can tell the Oct 7 report is only cited in a sentence about the what Oct 7 report says. Even if it is out of date, and policy has been updated, it's still relevant as a record of what policy was at the time. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Is the article about an (alleged) act(s) or an investigation into such act(s)? Humanengr (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Both.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article title identifies an act; the lede sentence refers to an investigation. At minimum, that is confusing. Humanengr (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Only to the same degree as any article about an (alleged) criminal act will be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Stays in lead, recommend Humanengr be warned against OR. Geogene (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment - How is it OR? He provided a reliable government source. Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misconstruing a primary source to support one's own minority viewpoint is textbook OR. When it's part of months of civil POV-pushing, it should be actionable. Geogene (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so. Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@slatersteven: A google search for <site:wikipedia.org "intelligence community has concluded that"> yields only Democratic National Committee cyber attacks which has a lede:

The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks took place in 2015 and 2016, in which computer hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network, leading to a data breach. Some cybersecurity experts, as well as the U.S. government, stated that the cyberespionage was the work of Russian intelligence agencies.

In that article, the title refers to an act; the lede sentence to an act. Consistent.

A google search for search for <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "federal bureau of investigation" OR fbi> yields Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack which has as lede:

Several official investigations have been completed, are ongoing, or are under consideration, regarding the 2012 Benghazi attack.

In that article, Title: investigation; lede: investigation. Consistent.

Google searches for <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "central intelligence" OR cia investigation> and <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "homeland security" OR dhs investigation> yielded no articles with an act identified in the article title. Humanengr (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You are using google searches as evidence? I think we can close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Corresponding WP advanced searches yield the same results. Do you have a counterexample? Humanengr (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not need to provide a counter example, as it would also not be a valid piece of evidence. Searches do not provide any clue as to anything other then the specific search criteria you have put in (and unless you check every hit (have you?) you cannot be sure that the search results reflect what you think it does). Your point is that this page is confusing because it is both about the crime and the investigation, all out entries on a specific offence tends to be both about the crime, the perpetrators (unless they achieve notability outside of the one notable crime) and the conviction (as well as the sentence and release). I see no reason why this should be any different (and your search hits for a term do not make one jot of difference to this, we are not arguing about a term, but how we write articles about criminal allegations).Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I raised the issue of what the article is about in the context of discussing the lede sentence and your helpful suggestion re that. [Adding:] The incongruity of the lede sentence with the article title is a problem I noted in considering your 'Both' "Only to the same degree as any article about an (alleged) criminal act will be" response, by which you made an assertion regarding other pages. Humanengr (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

re "Your point is that this page is confusing." To be clear, my point re 'confusing' is not on the page in its entirety but on the lede sentence in relation to the title.. Humanengr (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a condensed version of (and a reflection of) the page. It is clear there is no consensus for this change, so I think this is just now wasting time. Lets close it shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 21 August 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 Associate Boasted That Moscow Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’

https://nyti.ms/2wbW0ni

“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

Needs to be added here.Casprings (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Mr. Sater, a Russian immigrant, said he had lined up financing for the Trump Tower deal with VTB Bank, a Russian bank that was under American sanctions for involvement in Moscow’s efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine. In another email, Mr. Sater envisioned a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Moscow."

No evidence of fact-checking of Sater's claim above appears in the article. Yet, it's the foundation for the article's headline. The New Yorker fact-checks every word in its articles. Judging by the Jayson Blair/Howell Raines episode, we shouldn't take it for granted the New York Times does.

We ought to wait a while before adding this, because WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. Sater's claim to have arranged the Trump Tower deal with a Russian bank under Federal sanctions might be authentic. But it wouldn't be the first time a claim of this nature was printed in The New York Times without fact-checking or similar verification. I'm sure that if it is a valid claim, other publications of comparable reliability will publish it.

When we include that excerpt from the Sater Emails, we ought to weight the allegation properly by adding this quote from the same New York Times article:

"In a statement on Monday that was also provided to Congress, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater’s comments as puffery. “He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to ‘salesmanship,’” the statement said. “I ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”"

Note that this doesn't whitewash Mr. Cohen. Evidently, Cohen didn't just send Sater's Email to Trash - he ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible. "Ultimately determined" seems to mean he may have considered the idea before rejecting it. This, of course, doesn't indict President Trump at all. As a private citizen, he hires lawyers to ultimately determine lots of offers, and who knows how many are like this, and go straight to Trash, without an ultimate determination? loupgarous (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

needs updating

[6] [7], there's more out there obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm losing sight of what this article is about. Is it about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election, or is it about every news story that mentions "Trump" and "Russia" together? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "getting elected" not part of the election in your opinion? I think a number of people (pretty much everyone else who knows what an election is) would see it differently. I can't imagine how anyone could fail to see the connection, here. IMHO, this still should wait a few days because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, but the claim that this is unrelated except through "...mention [of] "Trump" and "Russia" together." is just bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A businessman tried to pitch Trump on the idea of building a Trump Tower in Moscow, arguing that it would make Trump look like a savvy businessman and thus help him win election. How is this related to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 US Presidential election? I'll grant that the headline on the NY Times article is easily misread. "Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Business Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’" suggests that the plan might have involved the Russian government helping to "get Donald Trump elected," but if you read the body of the article, that's not what it's about. Sometimes newspaper headlines are misleading, either because they're too short to be unambiguous or because the editors writing the headlines are not the same people as the journalists writing the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This does seem to be linked directly the the election.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Linked to the election, yes. But how is it linked to the alleged Russian interference? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Errr, they were talking about getting aid to win it, thus interference?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Aid from whom? The NY Times and Washington Post articles are about a businessman trying to get Trump to license his brand to a real-estate project in Moscow. That businessman tried to argue that if the project were successful, it would reflect well on Trump, helping to win the election for him. The articles don't document any Russian plans to interfere in US elections, and I don't see how they're relevant to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election. The only relevance seems to be that the articles mention the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Mr. Sater said he was eager to show video clips to his Russian contacts of instances of Mr. Trump speaking glowingly about Russia, and said he would arrange for Mr. Putin to praise Mr. Trump’s business acumen."

“If he says it we own this election,” Mr. Sater wrote. “Americas most difficult adversary agreeing that Donald is a good guy to negotiate.”

Well reads to me like this is a claim that he would try to get Putin to make comments designed to aid Donny. Now to be fair it also seems like he was overstating what he could so. That does not alter the fact he said he could arrange it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Sater told Trump that if he licensed his brand to a real-estate deal, Sater would be able to get Putin to come to a ribbon-cutting ceremony and make some generally positive comments about Trump's business. What does this have to do with the alleged Russian interference in the US elections?

The supposed connection gets even more pathetic when one looks at the outcome of Mr. Sater's business pitch:

"There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov’s direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

"The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later." -[8]

Unless there's some connection with the accusations that Russia tried to interfere in the US Presidential election, this content is unrelated to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it’s too early to add this anyhow. With additional clarification over time, the degree of election connection may become clearer. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What Thucydides411 said: off-topic unless something more juicy emerges. — JFG ^talk 19:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Thucydides411 and JFG. Any connections here are tenuous at best. There's no evidence this story has anything to do with actual Russian interference in the election, planned or carried out. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• The connections are made explicitly by the sources, if nothing else. The argument that there's no connection between Russian interference in the election and an individual attempting to use Russian connections to steer that very election is spurious enough, but the refusal to acknowledge that the sources are making the connection (for the blatantly obvious reason I just gave) is enough to pretty much make it clear that this is going to be another POV pushing contest. That being said, I still think it's too soon to be throwing this in. We need to give it time for both sides of this inevitable (if ridiculous) debate to play out in the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Attempting to use Russian connections to steer" the election doesn't describe the story in the articles at all. Mr. Sater said Putin might say some nice words about Trump - hardly "steering" an election.

The NY Times wrote a headline that's easy to misinterpret. Maybe that was an oversight on the NY Times editors' part, or maybe it reflects the biases of the newspaper. Regardless, what the article describes doesn't seem at all related to the accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.

The connection is only "blatantly obvious" if you think that every mention of Trump, Russia and election should be included in this article. Someone said a long while back on this talk page that this article was becoming "Russia, Trump, you connect the dots." Including the Mr. Sater story would only make it more so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mmhh I feel a move request coming: Russia, Trump, connect the dots has quite a nice ring to it! — JFG ^talk 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Second-guessing NY Times' editors and lobbing charges of bias will only ensure that you're taken less seriously in this discussions. There may not be enough coverage out there to warrant mention right now, but it is likely coming soon. ValarianB (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL I doubt anyone is going to take this "logic" seriously. I know I sure can't.

@JFG: Honestly, I think Trump, Russia, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! is the best name, but I suppose I could get behind that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you don't actually respond to any of the points raised. You just leave an insulting comment. You should have been permabanned long ago. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway. Go ahead, make it happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Include A trump associate works with the Russian government over a business deal and states in an email that this could get Trump elected. I think the connection is clear and it belongs in the article. Casprings (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least Felix Sater needs to be mentioned in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there some other issue that he's involved in that is relevant to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but this is enough [9]. Are we gonna play the "I'm gonna pretend I can't see what's in the sources" game now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a game. There doesn't appear to be any connection between this story and the alleged Russian interference. I didn't chose the article title, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," and you know I think it's highly POV. But that's the article title, and it seems completely unrelated to Mr. Sater's apparently fruitless email to Mr. Peskov's public email account about getting help with Russian government approval of a real-estate project.

If you want to include this material, I suggest you go ahead and formally propose we rename the article "Russia, Trump, you connect the dots." There appears to be some support for that title change, given the above comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The title of the source is "Felix Sater Is the Third Potential Channel of Trump Collusion With Russia". The first sentence of the article is "There are three known channels for potential collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russian influence operation on its behalf". And you're saying that there's "no connection between this story and the alleged (sic) Russian interference". So the game's afoot, eh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is clear that this is relevant to the article and should be added. However, I don't think there will be consensus without a formal RFC.Casprings (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As a general point, I think it's unfortunate that what could be a perfectly fine article about Russia's alleged influence operations during the 2016 election cycle, the forensic and other circumstantial evidence that supports those allegations (as well as any skepticism/rebuttals), and the broader history of American and Russian attempts to influence foreign elections around the world contains almost no substantive information about any of the above. To the contrary, this article is a WP:COATRACK of unrelated accusations directed primarily against Trump, not Russia, along with political bickering from many sides. That the "Russian involvement" section is among the shortest sections of this article is really rather disgraceful; if anything, our presentation actually understates the evidence for Russian involvement by asking readers to merely trust the CIA/FBI/NSA and carefully avoiding a detailed account of the findings of cybersecurity professionals. Our approach may seem convincing when preaching to the choir, of course, but skeptical readers will likely come away with a distinct impression that "Russiagate" is a politicized witch hunt and that the only real "interference" was Trump preventing Clinton from assuming her rightful place as President—which, to be clear, doesn't negate the very real evidence against Russia. The paragraph I authored on "Russian interference in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election" is almost unique in concisely laying out specific ways that Russia is alleged to have interfered in a foreign presidential election, and the evidence supporting those allegations, with minimal editorializing. That should be the model, but until we, as a community, are capable of writing so dispassionately about an election that deeply affected all of us, Thucydides411's proposal to change the title to Trump, Russia, you connect the dots is one I am ready to support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RE:the broader history of American and Russian attempts to influence foreign elections around the world -- kind of a weak-form passive deflection. Adds nothing to article improvement here. The balance is WP:SOAPBOX whining. There's nothing to prevent any editor from proposing RS-cited text that presents additional evidence as to the Russians' scheme. That could be forensic or other evidence, but it can't be the fringe talking wowee fake news "revelations" and "analysis" that have already been rejected. If, as you say, you know of additional RS discussion of the Russians' culpability, let's see it. We might be able to squeeze it in. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, just for starters, SPECIFICO, I went through this article again and I'm not seeing any of the technical evidence supporting the attribution of the Podesta phishing hack to Russia. Here is an overview of the evidence that Fancy Bear was behind the hacks/attempted hacks of Podesta, Colin Powell, and a wide range of both Republican and Democratic targets; here is a note of caution explaining that there is no "smoking gun." The key detail is that the hackers forgot to set their Bitly account to private, meaning that researchers were able to see all of the hackers's targets and thereby connect various hacks already associated with Russia or consistent with the "Russian hacking" thesis. Maybe this sort of thing goes unmentioned because editors find cybersecurity analysis boring, but I can't help but suspect that other motivations could be at work: Concealing the incompetence of allegedly sophisticated state-sponsored hackers that left their account public, downplaying the hacking of Republicans, ect.

I also think it's highly relevant that Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation may have been influenced by Russian disinformation, although I'm not sure if the RS agree. Any thoughts on that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not clear why you pinged me just to rehash the same garbage that's repeatedly been rejected on talk here. You may ping me again if you decide to reply to my comment, otherwise let's not waste any more time on it. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, are you thinking that we should include something about The Intercept's opinion on this? Also, there are RS which indicate strongly that Comey was indeed acting under duress and made statements, well knowing that he was dealing with disinformation, but felt forced to do something quickly. All in all he was in a terrible bind; damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. His testimony is pretty clear on that point. No one was happy with what he did, and it's pretty clear that his action cost Hillary the election, that's how many votes immediately moved. That wasn't the only factor, but, because of the timing, it was the "last goal", so to speak, and decided the outcome of the game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This should absolutely be included. It easily meeds WP:DUEWEIGHT and is entirely relevant to the article subject.- MrX 22:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude The article does not say Russia interfered in the election in fact in this case they failed to help him in the slightest way. TFD (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

off-topic nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Russians be messin' w/ his mind -- it's their specialty. According to RS, that is. Interference doesn't only mean stealing the ballot box. The Russians be messin' w. Trump's mind. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Russians be messin' w/ his mind -- it's their specialty. According to RS, that is. Interference doesn't only mean stealing the ballot box. The Russians be messin' w. Trump's mind. By compromising a US candidate, a foreign adversary can influence that candidate's behavior. That is what's known as "psy-ops" and while the other details have yet to be revealed, that was clearly reported in the current instance. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the source, "We do know that the principal figures in all of them took the premise of accepting Russian help for Trump’s campaign as an obvious backdrop assumption." and "Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." It seems to me that third party attempts (known to Trump's own lawyer) to get Russia's help with getting Trump elected falls well within the scope of this article. Sources do not need to say "Russia interfered" (although most everyone knows they did).- MrX 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Interference takes many forms and RS convey the understanding of Russian methods to influence the behavior of native actors such as those in Trump's circle. This article is not about boots-on-the-ground Ivan stole the ballot box interference. That really seems so widely discussed in RS reporting that it's hard to know where this thread could possibly end up excluding this bit of news, which RS treated as highly significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: In this story, as far as has been reported so far, the Russian government did not even take any action. How can it be related to "Russian interference"? It looks like a story about a business associate of Trump arguing that getting a real-estate project off the ground in Moscow would help Trump's image. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: That sort of off-topic, colorful language about "Ivan" and "be messin' w/ his mind" is really disruptive here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you don't understand the issues here, please try to contribute on points where you can help advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Salting your posts with derogatory terms for Russians and rambling about Trump being under mind-control doesn't have anything to do with advancing discussion on article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: We are well past establishing that the Russian government took actions. It's rather absurd to suggest otherwise. - MrX 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Can you cite from a news source on that? All the reporting that I've seen says that Mr. Sater's email went unanswered. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note that Casprings is simultaneously arguing that "a business associate of Trump arguing that getting a real-estate project off the ground in Moscow would help Trump's image" is a form of "election" "interference" by "Russia" and that the Clinton administration arranging a carefully timed $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan to ensure Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election (among other initiatives) is not "directly about the US interfering in the election ... is not WP:N and ... apprears (sic) to be WP:OR." Requiring different standards of evidence for accusations against Russia versus accusations against the U.S. is an example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you think there's some sort of contradiction or inconsistency there? No such thing. Details are pesky things, they require structured interpretation. These are not "different standards" and RS do not support your POV on this. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A rough draft of some suggested wording.

In 2015 and 2016, Trump's company pursued a plan to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump's business associate, Felix Sater, attempted to negotiate the building with the Russian government. Sater wrote a series of emails to Cohen about his relationship with Putin and stated “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it...I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

References

Casprings (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your proposed wording that has to do with Russian actions to interfere in US elections. The phrase "attempted to negotiate [...] with the Russian government" could give the impression that Russia replied at some point, but the reports that I've seen indicate that Russian officials did not reply to Mr. Sater. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) that this was (and still is, because it's ongoing) a two-way operation of collusion, cooperation, and conspiracy between Russians and Trump campaign officials. They have repeatedly lied about many proven meetings, and they have been caught in those lies. Why lie if it all was a nothingburger? This isn't just about a one-way, Russia toward America, operation. It involved parties on both sides of the Atlantic.

RS describe how this all began years before the election and continues as a cover-up. ALL such material belongs here. The only reason some of it isn't in the article already is because we exercise caution and deliberately stay "behind the curve".

This article has essentially the same scope as the Mueller investigation, and it deals with politics AND business. While we will likely break it up in a couple articles, anything related to plans and efforts to subvert and affect the election is fair game. To understand why we would even be concerned about Trump's business dealings and see any connection to the election interference, one must realize that, for Trump, this is not political, but purely business. He is a businessman, not a politician in the traditional sense. That's also why Putin has dealt with him on a business and monetary basis. (Illegal Russian bank loans and money laundering have kept Trump afloat for years, and the 19% of Rosneft, $11 billion, is the promised reward for lifting the sanctions.) The politics is for improving business. This presidency is about personal profit. That's the picture described by RS. Fringe/unreliable sources won't tell that story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the lengthy political essay above, but this article is titled, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." If you want to expand the scope of the article to issues beyond the alleged Russian interference, then I seriously suggest you propose that formally. Such a change should go along with a change to the name of the article, to reflect that the article is about all accusations of any interaction between someone connected with Trump and someone connected with Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not going to respond to the lengthy political essay above" - dude, that's not a "lengthy political essay", that's a well thought out and detailed comment. Another editor took their time and trouble to address your concerns in good faith in a respectful manner and you can't be ass'd to read it after YOU brought it up? I'm sorry but if you're not even gonna bother reading other editors', obviously good faithed and constructive, comments, then just don't edit this page. It's simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, I'm sure it is purely confirmation bias and not bad faith that causes you to cherrypick only the sensationalized Sater quotes and ignore the thrust of what the RS are actually stating, but here are some additional choice quotes from The New York Times article on this matter:

• "The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin. He predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump's savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his candidacy."
• "There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries."
• "The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later."
• "The emails obtained by The Times do not include any responses from Mr. Cohen to Mr. Sater's messages."
• "In a statement on Monday that was also provided to Congress, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater's comments as puffery. 'He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to "salesmanship,"' the statement said."
• "The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails."
• "As a broker for the Trump Organization, Mr. Sater had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen."
• "On Sunday, The Washington Post reported the existence of the correspondence between Mr. Sater and Mr. Cohen, but not its content." (In other words, Wash Post omitted Sater's hyperbole altogether—maybe we should take note?)

The Sater quotes have no encyclopedic value and are, in context, being used as a form of synthesis to heavily imply something contradicted by the sources themselves. I'm sure that Casprings and Volunteer Marek can write a summary more in keeping with the RS before this goes to RfC—as I suspect and hope it will.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's just stick with the quote that The New York Times used in in the lead of the article and in a pull quote. Their emphasis of the quote id further emphasized by use in many other sources [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. In fact, almost every source repeats this same quote. Did you do any research at all before you recklessly reverted Volunteer Marek's edit?- MrX 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• For now exclude: it seems like the project never got off the ground, and Felix Sater was largely a braggart. Just like it was suggested with the VIPS story, I would recommend waiting for some time to avoid WP:RECENTISM. If some other juicy details that actually connect Sater to the alleged Russia interference are discovered and the story keeps resurfacing, we can include it; otherwise it will likely die off because for now it seems like another minor story that rose to prominence on the media wave of "Russiagate". --S. Roix (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

While we are at it

• Russian lobbyist testifies to Mueller grand jury
• Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe

Casprings (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

MrX I've reverted your addition for now, agreeing that the content doesn't describe alleged Russian interference in the election, and not seeing consensus here for adding the material. I'm not 100% against inclusion - I actually think this is a minor point compared to the many bigger problems this article has - but it isn't right to add the material without consensus, given the emphasis that's been placed on that procedural policy here over the last 1/2 year. -Darouet (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that "no reinstatement without consensus" restriction has long since been removed from this article (after extensive discussion) and so it's just garden-variety edit-warring to remove it a second or third time. I hope you'll consider a speedy self-undo in light of your evident respect for comrade X. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

With that consensus required removed it would default to WP:BRD would it not? PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy, but "don't WP:EDITWAR" is a policy. Anyway, since Darouet removed RS article content, cited and discussed on talk, Darouet's repetition of the removal against consensus was not constructive and did not support collaborative editing or article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's why we have to work hard for nice things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. Just seems to happen with every new addition. PackMecEng (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

But yes, this is reliably sourced with wide coverage, and the only place where people are making the patently absurd claim that it's unrelated to the Russian interference in the US election is this place right here (I don't know, maybe the Crazistan on twitter is too). All sources that report on this link it to Russian interference since, you know, it sort of wouldn't be much of a story without that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We can wait and see a little bit... Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• EXCLUDE for now, because WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. Sater's claim to have arranged the Trump Tower deal with a Russian bank under Federal sanctions might be authentic. If it is a valid claim, other publications of comparable reliability will publish it, and more substantive material may appear.

When we include that excerpt from the Sater Emails, we ought to weight the allegation properly by adding this quote (from the same New York Times article Marek cited):

"In a statement on Monday that was also provided to Congress, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater’s comments as puffery. “He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to ‘salesmanship,’” the statement said. “I ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”"

Note that this doesn't whitewash Mr. Cohen. Evidently, Cohen didn't just send Sater's Email to Trash - he ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible. "Ultimately determined" seems to mean he may have considered the idea before rejecting it. We'll know more, one way or another, later. We're not on a news cycle and no encylopedic purpose is served by throwing stuff hot off the NYT and WaPo's presses into our article. loupgarous (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Move cite for lede sentence to 1st sentence of 2nd para

The placement of the cite is confusing as it discusses the Oct 2016 letter and does not reference the Jan 2017 report (the source of the 'with high confidence' phrase). It's suitable as an additional cite (if needed) for the 1st sentence of the 2nd para. If a cite is needed for the lede sentence, would this suffice? Humanengr (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

New report in The Nation

Lawrence, Patrick. "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack", The Nation (August 9, 2017): "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news. Belongs in that article. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's being discussed elsewhere at Wikipedia, see Talk:2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#New_Report. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it was unbonked. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg. There is no indication that the story is fake, nor, AFAIK, a reliable source saying it is fake. As you have already been warned on the other discussion, please refrain from POV pushing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality I don't see how it is promotionally worded, but if you think it is, then please contribute to the encyclopedia by rephrasing it instead of removing the content (same goes for claim of not addressing a supposedly fringe characteristic of the view). Why is it WP:UNDUE? It would be extremely WP:NPOV for this article - already one-sided - to not present an alternative view by experts in the area, covered by a reliable source. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not "new". It's not a "report". And "The Nation" is just an opinion piece by one guy who's got a long history of Putin-apologia ("US organized the "coup" in Ukraine" and other idiotic nonsense). It's WP:FRINGE. It's gibberish. It's based on some conspiracy website claiming they know some guy, who's anonymous, who assures them, anonymously, that s/he found something, that no one else has been able to find, because they "peeled through the top layers of meta data" or some shit like that. It's an embarrassment. There's no reason to include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim was made by a group of experts in the area, and was reported in a reliable source (see discussion in this section). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I seriously doubt whether inclusion in this article would be due weight at all. VIPS is best known for its fringe claims (denying that Assad used Syrian chemical weapons) and just plain wrong predictions (e.g., warning several years ago that Israeli strike on Iran was imminent).

But, even assuming for the sake of argument that some form could be included, the text as inserted was terrible and just plain false.

• The Bloomberg report is an opinion column ("Bloomberg View") not straight news, but was presented without attribution.
• The wording in at least one case was straight-up not supported by the cited source ("Unlike previous intelligence professionals who served as sources for media reports, VIPS professionals are open about their identities" - appears nowhere in op-ed, and in fact contradicted by it - note that article says that sources for the VIPS claims went by "pseudonyms")

• Seriously, shame on people for adding and then restoring(!) something flatly incorrect.

• Fails to make clear that VIPS claim is a fringe one (WP:EVALFRINGE - we should accurately explain the level of acceptance of a view when we present it).

--Neutrality^talk 01:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia for all of the above. Objective3000 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that really a fringe view, or just an alternative one (made by experts in the area in this case; see below)? And one of the two possible outcomes of the process of predicting something is getting it wrong. I don't see how the text was "plain false":

• The assessments were duly attributed to the group who made them (diff)
• I think you misinterpreted the sentence (or perhaps it was bad wording on my part). Some quotes: Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names ... VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials ... Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter, has pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refute that Guccifer's material constitute the spoils of a hack. To me, the text seems to reflect that. If you believe it doesn't, you could have mentioned the pseudonyms or merely removed the phrase, which isn't central to the text that was added.
• Again, I fail to see what as incorrect, given the clarifications above. Saying (again) that "it's wrong!" only wastes both yours and mine time.

Thanks for your input, though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone actually engaged in hard science would be incredibly unlikely to say that "...hard science demonstrates..." anything. Mostly because scientists know this little secret; there are different kinds of science. A report by anyone with actual expertise would say something more like "...forensic analysis of logs of several events associated with the transfer indicate with a high degree of certainty that..."

Plus there's the fact that I highly doubt these guys have access to any of the logs they'd have had to examine to make that kind of determination. And of course, that's assuming they even exist (I'll tell you this much: they wouldn't exist if I'd been the one who took them, and I'm about as much of a hacker as I am a potato). And of course, there's the problem that these guys have a history of just stealing random conspiracy theories off the web and claiming them as their own... Yeah, this is pretty much the definition of a fringe view. That being said, given the size of this article, a fringe view might merit a single sentence.

A short one.

With an appropriate mainstream response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a critique of the prose is relevant here. As for the existence of the people, please see William Binney (U.S. intelligence official) and Scott Ritter. How are the views of these people or professional affiliates from the group fringe, when it concerns their area? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the key indicators of Fringe in current events is when people start advocating to mention that one source that says something weird or contradictory to the entirety of mainstream opinion that hardly any other source cares about. This is a textbook example. It's fringe, as well as a minority viewpoint that is too small to even merit mention. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, as already explained. Moreover it's not necessarily that "no other source cares about", but rather that it goes against their narrative (there has been a clear and open agenda by different segments of the media - both pro Republican and pro Democrat - ever since the candidates were announced). This lack of reporting is also mentioned in the Bloomberg article (also here), although the report has been getting some attention; MSN picked it up (attributed, again, to experts), and includes a reply by Wikipedia the DNC calling it a conspiracy theory. Fox News also picked it up and attributes it to Bill Binney, former NSA technical director (pff, who cares about these guys right?). But even if we were to concede to a somewhat fringe characteristic, as long as it is explained that it is a minority viewpoint (possibly with reply by the DNC), and as long as it is attributed it is fine, and it is my view that it should be at the very least mentioned. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Puh-leeze do not trot Ritter around the track again. What does snooping for bombs have to do with electrical engineering and data encoding? And btw, it's former "experts". Not everyone who works in the butcher shop is a chef. Anyone with a web domain can flash their resume. So what? If this were a significant view it would be widely covered and would be endorsed by multiple vetted individuals with the expertise to make such claims. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Puh-leeze, read the discussion and the sources more carefully to know who are the people involved.Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you would find getting agreement easier if you resisted taking partisan shots. Just say that unless the story gets wider coverage it lacks weight and in the meantime the few sources that have commented on the report have questioned some of its assumptions. TFD (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see how a critique of the prose is relevant here.

1. I did not critique the prose. I critiqued the competence of the author based on the wording.
2. Aside from actually composing text, our biggest responsibility here is evaluating sources. If you aren't interested in the community's evaluation of this source, then don't propose or defend it as a source.

it's not necessarily that "no other source cares about", but rather that it goes against their narrative Simply being a fringe view does not make it notable enough to be given an undue level of weight; that is utterly nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was notable because it was fringe, and no one so far evaluated the source for the information (experts on their area). Bloomberg, MSN and Fox News reported on it. Those are all reliable sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You were told that it was undue, you responded by pointing out that it goes against "their" narrative. If that's not arguing that it's notable because it's fringe, I dunno what is. Furthermore, the consensus on this is clearly against you. For you to go ahead and add it back in with the edit summary "Per TP..." is disruptive and dishonest. So far, I've been your only "supporter" here in that I advocated for a single short sentence with an appropriate rebuttal. But you're really starting to convince me that this is a POV push, which is only going to make me more resistant to including it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was told that it was undue, yet no one explained why a report attributed to experts in the area and covered by Bloomberg, Fox, MSN, (below the NY Post and The Washington Post) is undue. The closer to an explanation was: "Only a few sources sources". I responded to that, that some mainstream outlets may not wish to publish it because it goes against what they have been reporting on the case so far. As for the edit summary, I did not intend to be dishonest (I presume you assumed I was pointing out to an unexisiting consensus?), but rather to indicate the discussion regarding editing the text to point out it is a minority view as editors said it should be pointed out in the tp, as well as the response by the DNC that I mentioned here and in the edit summary. As for the support of a mention, I would rather have it because the content merits a mention regardless of who is proposing it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It was explained why; Neutrality linked to WP:EVALFRINGE which provides guidance on this. Furthermore, as TheTimesAreAChanging pointed out in their followup edit, any such inclusion would need to include a rebuttal. The problem with the state of the text as of TTAAC's edit were merely that it gave too much WP:WEIGHT to this fringe view. I might remind you that "Bigfoot is real" is a fringe view that is covered in literally thousands of reliable sources; that does not mean that we present that view with any undue weight at Bigfoot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was this ridiculous report added back to the article? I don't see anything close to consensus for this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I did include a response by the DNC and mentioned it was a minority view... Perhaps using the text from The Washington Post that says it goes against the current consensus would be better? I tried to adjust it in other ways also, see below.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for this either. Neutrality^talk 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't added back, as the edit summary showed the text was modified to point out it is a minority view, the critical response by the DNC was added, as well as extra sources. No editor has yet provided a valid reason for removal, a report by experts in the field including the former director of the NSA which got covered by reliable sources not only is due weight, not including it leads to serious neutrality issues in this article. I intend to start a request for comment for the community if we cannot reach a compromise on this. It is ridiculous that this is not even mentioned in the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that it should be included (and I don't make that assumption), it is incredibly WP:UNDUE for it to get its own subsection, directly following the subsections for "Dismissal of FBI director James Comey" and "Investigation by special counsel." That is simply ridiculous. The firing of Comey and the special counsel investigation are highly significant, groundbreaking, historically rare events that received sustained and detailed news coverage. This poorly received report by a small group is not even in the same galaxy of significance. Neutrality^talk 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's a matter of placement or text length then that's easy to adequate, and I welcome any suggestions. Although I think the sources added were sufficient, here are some more that covered the report: New York Post, The Washington Post. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That WaPo link doesn't do you any favors, it says the story is subject of a "post publication editorial review" at The Nation (ie, might be subject to corrections/retraction) and notes that the story's author subscribes to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory (ie, probably is unreliable and/or heavily biased on this subject). All of this adds to the "red flag" nature of the claim. Absent broader evidence and coverage, this obviously shouldn't go in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it and I don't see how any of that - a contributer to The Nation not involved with the report believing in X or Y, and the fact that that paper wishes to review the article - is relevant to the merits of the report itself, from experts in the field and having received coverage in rs. The argument is still "not broad enough coverage". Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @The Four Deuces: SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Except The Nation and Bloomberg, there's also an article in Salon dedicated to this. --S. Roix (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So now the story is that The Nation is now having second thoughts about whether they should have published that fake news in the first place? This is pretty cut and dry for our purposes. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed (reworked) text

After editor's feedback mentioning that this wasn't worthy of a section (I can agree with that), that it failed to point out it was a minority view (I mentioned it, but perhaps not stressed it enough) and that initially there were not enough sources (there are many more now), I believe all these issues have been addressed. Consider the following addition under the exisiting United States Intelligence community subsection (seems fitting). I also added another rebuttal (besides the DNC's) as suggested by another user:

A group of former intelligence professionals including former technical director of the National Security Agency Bill Binney claim, against the current consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, that the emails stolen from the DNC could not have been downloaded remotely from a location in Europe, suggesting a leak rather than a hack. The DNC responded to the group's allegations calling them "a conspiracy theory". John Hultquist of FireEye stated: "The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims."

This gives more emphasis to the rebuttals than to the claim itself. Yet, the claim was made by professionals in the area and received a fair amount of coverage, in my opinion being more than worthy of mention under the United States Intelligence community sub-section - to the point that not discussing it would be an omission. What do editors think about the proposed text at the proposed place? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

May I assume there is no opposition to the proposal? Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fair and balanced to me. — JFG ^talk 09:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --S. Roix (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE omit. SPECIFICO talk 11:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Does not belong in the article. Numerous people pointed out above why the report is UNDUE, and your proposed text is still misleading. Eg, you should not be using Bill Binney to lend authority to this when he's a regular guest on infowars lately... All signs point to this being a very unreliable "report," unworthy of inclusion. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Violates WP:UNDUE. Jdcomix (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now. This got some news coverage right after being released, but it doesn't look like something that will have any lasting relevance. It doesn't make sense to put in a paragraph about a highly criticized fringe report unless it really does turn out to be influential or important in some way. If this keeps turning up and being talked about in the future, then it should be included. But as is, it hasn't even been two weeks and this story seems to be dead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree. Just yesterday it was covered by Washington Times. --S. Roix (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You might be right. I just think it's worth waiting a bit longer to see if this story is actually something with persistent relevance. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Time helps with these things, I agree. That's why it's often pointless to dive too deep into news events. Eventually the truth becomes clear. In this case, I'm pretty sure it's fake news. It's definitely of no intrinsic merit, but it's conceivable that it is good-faith error. I think the great thing about WP is that it gives us the principles that we can use to reject fake news. Problem is that there are the small minority of folks who are snared by it and when we lose sight of policy there are endless discussions until their position eventually becomes so clearly untenable that it's decisively rejected. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's now also on Philadelphia Media Network and The Federalist. The story doesn't seem to be dying off really. --S. Roix (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So we have three opposes and three supports (myself included). Anyone else has anything to say or perhaps suggest some alterations to the text? The story is being discussed for at least 20 days now. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's being discussed for 20 days due to the insistent repetition of various non-policy-based arguments. Just like "there's no Russian interference" has been discussed for 9 months. In neither case does the obstinacy of the discussion make up for the lack of reasoned argument. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to agree if it didn't seem like everything written about this was either a quick reaction to the Nation or just an opinion piece (including the ones in The Federalist and Philidelphia Inquirer). Of the few actual news stories written in reliable sources, almost all of them appeared within a week after the Nation's article, and a large portion of them questioned its premise, some even stating that the Nation considered retracting it. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the language in your proposed text, but it still seems like this would be giving too much credence to a fringe theory, something that made some minor waves when it initially came out, and is currently disappearing into obscurity. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. 🌟🌟🌟🌟

• Leave it out. There is no reason to cite a minority opinion, from people who are speculating and don't have access to any actual data, even if we ironically expand their coverage by including a couple of responses saying their comments are BS. The way to deal with BS is to leave it out. We keep being offered non-reliable sources as if they might give this minority opinion some credibility. So far it isn't happening. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a very important and elucidative point. That is how fake news works. Many many nonsense sources make nonsense narrative familiar to casual or uninformed readers. WP site policies are very well-honed to keep this stuff out of the encyclopedia. There are no extenuating circumstances that will make us better off deviating from site policy. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You've made this argument a number of times, that only the views of people with "access" (i.e., those who currently work within United States spy agencies) should be represented here. I think that would be a really incredible stand for Wikipedia to take. The report by VIPS has received enough coverage that it deserves some mention here, even if you personally think it's BS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt I have made that argument a number of times. That's because I do happen to believe that people who are working with actual data are more likely to be accurate in their assessment than people who are just theorizing. You have made the counter argument a number of times also, apparently because you feel all opinions need to be included, even those who are winging it without data - or because you have some kind of built-in assumption that "spy agencies" cannot be trusted - or both. As for the "coverage" of this report, in Reliable Sources it was mostly dismissive (so it's not just my opinion that it's BS), leaving non-reliable sources like the Washington Times and various op-ed pieces which keep being cited here as if they carried some weight. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• INCLUDE Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation, went into considerable detail explaining why she published this story. She summarized her remarks "We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members. With that in mind, we asked Drake and those VIPS members who agree with him to present their dissenting view. We also asked VIPS members who stand by their report to respond. Their comments are also below. In presenting this follow-up, The Nation hopes to encourage further inquiry into the crucial questions of how, why, and by whom the DNC e-mails were made public—a matter that continues to roil our politics. We especially hope that other people with special expertise or knowledge will come forward."

This published forum of VIPS members is a highly technical, nuanced analysis of the forensic evidence with members of the VIPS panel explaining why they support the present press and intelligence community's consensus that the DNC memos were hacked by Russians over the Internet and other VIPS panel members explaining why they are convinced that those pages were obtained by other means than Russian interference over the Internet.

One of these arguments struck me as persuasive, given that there is evidence of when and for how long those files were accessed in server logs: “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” and “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

The Nation article cannot be honestly be dismissed as "fake news". The article questions the idea of the release of the DNC Emails being Russian interference in a magazine which has never in its existence been described as either a fake news outlet or a right-wing propaganda source. Anyone who calls the Nation "fake news" either doesn't understand "fake news" as it is defined in our artlcle Fake news or is seeking to circumvent WP:NPOV.

The Nation did the exact opposite of publishing "fake news" - they gave members of both dissenting factions of VIPS on this question space to make their points. The second post of this article where this happens is a principled presentation of both sides' story. I can't think of a good reason not to include it, and a very good reason to include it - it exemplifies WP:NPOV.

Where does an article in a politically-progressive publication whose reliability on matters of fact is not in dispute which questions Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections belong, but in "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? loupgarous (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The quotes from vanden Heuvel argue for excluding this, not including it.

The transfer rate thing has been discussed previously - the simple explanation is that the files were moved/copied at least once after being obtained and before being leaked. The metadata actually says nothing about what speed they were obtained at. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation, went into considerable detail explaining why she published this story. She summarized her remarks... So in other words, even The Nation thought it was bullshit. Just... Interesting bullshit. Well there ya go, it's undue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)=+================

Read what she said again, MjolnirPants:

A magazine or newspaper's way of saying something something they published is bullshit is to issue a retraction and apologize to anyone whose reputation may have been dinged. The editor of The Nation did neither.

What she did do was observe that the VIPS' original memo was the first one released when several members had "substantive objections" to its content. In other words, VIPS' original view that the release of the DNC Emails wasn't Russian hacking (or that such had not been proven) was made with an unprecedented level of dissent among VIPS staff. Then she invited the pro and con sides of the dispute to further share their views on the matter. That's not "this is bullshit", but "Hey, there was a disagreement. Let's hear what everyone has to say."

Your assessment that either the original Nation article or the follow-up article are bullshit is irrelevant to the purpose of making an encyclopedia. Opposing views on the central topic of this article from reliable sources should be presented, according to WP:NPOV, but you say we ought to set the NPOV ethic aside because your WP:OR says the article is bullshit. The original article was printed in a reliable source. The editor who decided to publish it didn't retract the original article - she expanded it to present the views of the VIPS staff who disagreed on whether the leak of the DNC Emails was Russian interferemce in the 2016 United States elections.

Quoting again from Katrina vanden Heuvel's foreword to the follow-up to Lawrence's article:

• " The most recent VIPS memo, released on July 24, whatever its technical merits, contributes to a much-needed critical discussion. Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”
• "As editor of The Nation, my purpose in publishing Patrick Lawrence’s article was to make more widely known the VIPS critique of the January ICA assertions, the questions VIPS raised, and their counter-thesis that the disseminated DNC e-mails resulted from a leak, not a hack. Those questions remain vital."

That doesn't sound like "it's bullshit" or "it's interesting bullshit" to me. You can call it any name you wish, but what this is, is disagreement with the fundamental thesis of this article that there necessarily was Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, made by a notable journalist editing a notable reliable source. Your argument that it is "bullshit" is WP:OR. It's not WP:UNDUE at all, it's central to the reader's being able to read all notable, verifiable thought on the topic of this article. Suppress it and WP:NPOV goes out the window, because some of us would like to cherry-pick notable comment from WP:RS loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Nation, HuffPo, Daily Caller, National Review, and others are not happy hunting grounds for WP source material. Not surprising they would go off the edge and not surprising that their retraction doesn't sound like one issued by a more mainstream organ. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of better sources already listed above. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, first, The Nation did not retract their original article. They presented the views of several VIPS members in addition to those who were interviewed for the original article to foster a more complete discussion. That's not a retraction.

Now, show me where "(the WP:RS you named) are not happy hunting grounds" is mentioned at all in WP:NPOV. WP:BIASED applies to them all and the New York Times and Washington Post as well. Its guidance:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. "

Just because The Nation doesn't support your preferred narrative in one if its articles doesn't make them unreliable on the subject of this article. It doesn't make them, as you called them at the beginning of this discussion, "fake news". In fact, the editor of The Nation described in detail the care they took in fact-checking and the reason they issued a follow-up article which gave everyone, whether they supported the "inside leak" hypothesis or the "Russian hack" hypothesis, as well as critics of the methodology of the original VIPS memo space in her magazine to be heard. That entirely fulfills the guideline in WP:BIASED, and does it to a greater degree than your "more mainstream organs". How The Nation responded to concerns regarding the first version of the article in question was more faithful to our own WP:NPOV ethic than any of the other sources you tried to tie it to, and also the "more mainstream organs" you seem to wish us to rely on in writing this article.

Limiting our sources of information to "more mainstream organs" you or someone else chooses goes against WP:BIASED, especially when a source you wish to suppress from use in this article complied completely with the guidance in WP:BIASED in presenting all relevant viewpoints on the matter of whether the available evidence supports the idea that the release of the DNC Emails was necessarily a Russian operation. The author of the article in The Nation and the magazine's editor didn't "go off the edge" - they set an example for honest, ethical investigative journalism by making a determined effort to present all relevant viewpoints in the follow-up article. loupgarous (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It's fake news, and a tiny minority viewpoint that has been largely debunked, and it's staying out of the article. We have discussed, you can dissent, but please quit trying to filibuster with endless discussion and walls of text. This is has been discussed for nearly a month now. Obviously nobody's mind is being changed on this. Review WP:EXHAUST. Geogene (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: You and SPECIFICO are misusing the term "fake news," and it would be helpful to the discussion if you would stop misapplying the term to real news. The Nation correctly reports that VIPS issued a memo on the DNC email hack/leak - there's nothing fake about The Nation's article. The Nation correctly describes what the VIPS memo states - again, nothing fake.

The question is simply whether this real news is WP:UNDUE, and whether including it would violate WP:NPOV. It looks to me like there's been enough coverage of the VIPS report for a short mention (perhaps three sentences) in the "Commentary and Reactions" section. We can briefly state what VIPS claimed, and what the criticisms of their memo were. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The nature of fake news is that some small minority of the population believes it. But WP is dedicated to present the mainstream view, not the fake news. Pretty simple. So no matter how many fake news advocates appear on a WP talk page, it's the fakeness of the news, not the enthusiasm of its advocates that determine its exclusion of the content. That's why we say, "comment on content not contributors. Stop making personal remarks on the article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You're using the term "fake news" the way Trump does: to describe news you don't like. Neither you nor he should be applying that term to news stories that aren't demonstrably falsified. -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, your assessment of what proportion of the population believes that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections is WP:OR. A poll in July 17th by Washington Post/ABC News shows 60% of those polled accept the Russian interference theory. 30% don't. That's not tiny, that's a third of those polled. You can't shut me up with a WP:OR determination of what a "tiny minority viewpoint" is, and shame on you for trying. loupgarous (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, let's visit our own article on fake news for a definition.

• Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[1] Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically, often with sensationalist, exaggerated, or patently false headlines that grab attention."

The endless discussion and walls of text you're referring to are coming from those who are insisting that an article which was fact-checked, then expanded to include both sides' perspective on the subject of this article is "fake news". It's not "fake news" by the project's own definition. The net effect of excluding a summary of the follow-up article from The Nation is to limit presentation of notable comment in WP:RS to the narrative preferred by some of the editors in this discussion, but just as many other editors want an NPOV presentation, not a one-sided one.

WP:EXHAUST says "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion". You and others who want to banish the follow-up article from The Nation which gives the pro-Russian interference view and the opposing view can't criticize anyone else on WP:EXHAUST grounds. You should review WP:OWN because you and your friends satisfy most of the behavior patterns listed there, and it's resulting in an article with the POV you are pushing. loupgarous (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While the community is still discussing what FAKENEWS (as opposed to our article Fake News) should have in it, Zimdars' fake news list is well-thought of and under consideration to serve as the basis for a list of fake news sources, in the same way WP:PUS gives editors guidance on when the be wary of a given source. I looked in Zimdars' list. The Nation is nowhere to be found, because it's a respected political magazine with a known point of view. It does not engage in behaviors listed in our article Fake News. Calling the articles on the VIPS memo fake news is an error. This has evolved into a content dispute which we can't resolve by consensus. Referring each other to project guidelines means we're not talking to each other any longer, but at each other. Outside help is clearly needed. loupgarous (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've taken this question to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard under the section ""A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo" Fake News? Is The Nation a Fake News Source?" since we cannot reach a consensus among us. loupgarous (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What

A very good resource about this subject from an expert:

• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

BullRangifer (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How is companies buying ads on Facebook relevant to this article?

Please explain. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you even read the source? It says:

"Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election"
"The acknowledgment by Facebook comes as congressional investigators and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III are probing Russian interference in the U.S. election, including allegations that the Kremlin may have coordinated with the Trump campaign."
"The U.S. intelligence community concluded in January that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election to help elect Trump, including by using paid social media trolls to spread fake news intended to influence public opinion."
— The Washington Post

- MrX 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant. Words like "admitted," however, come off as WP:POV. I've tried to rephrase the section in an accurate and neutral manner, based on the Washington Post and NY Times articles: diff. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Facebook sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election". How is that relevant? A company that sells ads sold ads. Extra! Extra! Call The Washington Post! Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware that that would be illegal? Foreign companies can't buy election ads, and the fact that they did so kind of is "Russian interference" in the election. I'm having trouble understanding your objection. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Except it wasn't "election ads" and neither the NYT nor the WPo say anything about any charges against Facebook. NYT: Most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates but instead focused on divisive social issues such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration WPo: the ad spending from Russia is tiny relative to overall campaign costs. WPo mentions in the last two paragraphs that it is illegal for foreigners to influence an election, but nowhere does it say the ads did that, and certainly not that Facebook is being charged with anything. So yeah... No, I don't see the relevance. Facebook sold ads, so what? It's funny as a non-American who also opposes Trump to read these discussions on his election and the Russia boogie man. Reminds me of the political climate from a few decades ago. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Obviously the story will develop - to include more about who was behind the advertising, the objectives, etc. - but this sounds more plausible than plenty of other stuff described in this article. Even if whatever happened turns out not to have been illegal, various Russian interests purchasing political ads can be described as "interference" or "involvement" in an election. By the way, the U.S. does this in Russia too. -Darouet (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

WTF "by the way the US does this in Russia too" Really? "This???" And how could that advance the improvement of this article? SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You can... calm down? I'm guessing that Saturnalia0 probably knows / recognizes that the US does this in Russia, and am pointing out the parity to convince them it's not so crazy to accept Russia / Russians might try the same in the US using similar methods. Also it would be strange to believe US efforts to influence Russian politics are irrelevant to an article about Russian efforts to influence US politics. -Darouet (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just say no to Whataboutism. SPECIFICO talk

Goes right alone with the ONDI report. To quote page 2 Moscow’s use of disclosures during the US election was unprecedented, but its influence campaign otherwise followed a longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state- funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”. The fact that they paid for adds on Facebook to magnify their other efforts is extremely important because the influence had many aspects.Casprings (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep how can focusing particular issues that differentiate the candidates possible be favoring a candidates?Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are candidates that would benefit from widening political gulfs between groups. Consider the opposition to Hillary coming from the political left in the most recent election. The Bernie Bros were well know for this. Now imagine if the political landscape at the time had been less divisive. It's completely arguable that without Bernie there to be compared to, Hillary would have won the election.

Then there's also the issue of fence-sitters. Conservatives who are not committed to a particular stance with respect to numerous social issues, such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration. If political ads helped to sway some of them in a more divisive (i.e. further to the right) manner, that would have benefited Trump. This is why political science is a subject you can get a PhD in. We all think we know politics, but the truth is that it's way more complicated than most people think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Except none of the sources makes this "link", which is your personal take on it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

We need to see how this develops. But, looks pretty clear that Russians buying ads in social media to sway US elections fits this article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Except none of the sources makes this "link", Have you read any of the sources? I've yet to see one that doesn't make the link between this and the Russian interference. Hell, the first words of the NYT source say "Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election..." It's amazing you would even say that. Did you honestly think that none of the rest of us would check the sources, and just take your word for it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian troll farm

I've corrected the language concerning facebook's admission that it carried Russian propaganda. The language and narrative in RS accounts is uniformly more concrete than what I replaced, and so I conformed the language to RS accounts. An effort to cherrypick a couple of words from facebook's own admission did not convey the weight of RS reports on this development. A side negotiation was attempted on a user talk page, but any discussion of article content should be done openly for all on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The "discovered" is actually important to include. That's what RS say. They didn't know it at the time. Please restore that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Checking, thanks. OK... NY Times says facebook revealed, but it does not say they just now discovered. WaPo cites facebook stating they "discovered" but does not say that the discovery was after their previous denials. If discovered goes in there it will be tricky not to imply they uncovered this and immediately ran to the authorities in horror and surprise. They are in the business of selling targeted political ads, according to RS accounts. Washington Post's repeated use of the word "acknowledgement" and NYT "revealed" and "disclosed" seems worded to allow for the possibility that facebook knew but did not volunteer this information until the investigation required them to share this information. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You were aware of the discussion here when you made this edit, because you lobbed some inflammatory, off-topic comments into the conversation.

The wording "likely operated out of Russia" is not "weaselly." It's found in Facebook's press release:

"Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia."

Reuters accurately summarizes the Facebook statement:

"Facebook Inc said on Wednesday it had found that an operation likely based in Russia spent $100,000 on thousands of U.S. ads promoting divisive social and political messages in a two-year-period through May."

The version that Darouet wrote (diff) is accurate and neutrally worded:

"In September 2017, Facebook reported to congressional investigators that it had discovered that accounts, likely operated by a troll farm out of Russia, had bought $100,000 in ads targeted at the 2016 U.S. election audience, primarily referencing divisive social issues."

There was agreement between three editors (Darouet, MrX and myself) that this was an acceptable wording, and I think it should be reinstated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course you think your version is nice. But editorial discussion belongs on the article talk page, not in a private tete-a-tete on user talk. Quoting facebook's own self-serving language gives preference to the primary source. But RS have consistently adopted the presentation I reviewed above in my response to BullRangifer here. I corrected the flawed version you guys came up with and I've provided a reasoned explanation as to why. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not my version. It's a version written by MrX and modified by Darouet. It's supported by the noted reliable source Reuters. Your version is simply not accurate, because it states the case with much more certainty that Facebook and Reuters do. You're also aware that your version has less support among editors here than the version you removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: would you mind doing a quick source analysis (link1, quote1, link 2, quote 2, etc., proposed text) to explain why this should be written up with more certainty than the Facebook press release or Reuters article? -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing, even if you do it openly on the article talk page, is not permitted here. First you go off to a user talk page to negotiate a private version w/o notifying the talk page so others can comment. Now you solicit a specific change from BullRangifer, instructing him what to say? Really? Please let the talk page process work as it's intended. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Cool it with the wild accusations. Darouet asked BullRangifer to clarify and ground their (BR's) suggestion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't use just one RS. Please give a careful read to half a dozen prominent sources -- I cited NYT and WaPo and CNN but there are others. We don't give preference to Reubers and Lord knows not to a primary source facebook press release when they are participating in an investigation. Anyone who is talking to investigators in any capacity gets carefully and precisely scripted by their attorneys. Even facebook. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's back up. The version currently in the article is:

In September 2017, Facebook told Congressional investigators that in 2015 and 2016, it sold ads to a Russian troll farm with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda. The ads sought to amplify divisive social issues and some were targeted at specific geographic groups. [51] Previous to the discovery, Facebook had denied that fake news on their platform had influenced the election.[52] Facebook was contacted subsequently by Special Council Robert Mueller and the Menlo Park-based company has pledged full cooperation and handed over the ad buy data related to the Russian influence effort.[53]

I haven't been following all the ins and outs here, so I don't know "whose" version that is and don't really care. But it is not acceptable. It clearly implies that Facebook knew the identity of the buyers all along and previously "denied" it. The sources - Facebook itself and Reuters - do NOT support that implication and it is OR for us to do so. Is there a previous, neutral version that can be restored? --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think this version is worded much more neutrally. I'd add the Reuters article in as a source. I also think the two final sentences of the paragraph on the Facebook story go into too much detail, and also come off as too accusatory towards Facebook ("Facebook had denied [...]"). They should be merged into one sentence that simply says that Facebook has provided evidence to Mueller. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, it does not imply any such thing. Please read the language used by the cited WaPo, the NYTimes, and other sources such as CNN etc. They do not stick to facebook's own words -- they say Russian troll shop -- and they do state that facebook earlier denied this. They do not imply any deliberate misrepresentation, but neither do they state that facebook just found out and voluntarily approached the authorities. They appear to be choosing their words carefully to leave a neutral impression, pending development of facts in the various investigations. We must do the same, and they have given us a model for that. Facebook -- in the event either that it knew or that it had an affirmative responsibility to have determined, the origin of these ads -- could face some penalties. Therefore we would expect them to choose their words wisely so as not to give any more information than they have been asked for. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you seem to be endorsing Thuc's POV that we look no farther than Reuters and facebook's self-interested primary statement. If that's not your intention I think it would be helpful for you to clarify that, because Thuc seems to think we don't need to evaluate the weight of RS reporting and can just assert that this single source is NPOV and due weight. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care whose version is whose. Thuc's is better but I think we can do better. We currently have three sources in the article and we should continue to use all three. The WaPo article clearly says that they discovered this information as a result of an investigation that began a few months ago: ""Representatives of Facebook told congressional investigators Wednesday that the social network has discovered that it sold ads during the U.S. presidential campaign to a shadowy Russian company seeking to target voters." "Facebook discovered the Russian connection as part of an investigation that began this spring looking at purchasers of politically motivated ads." In other words, according to WaPo, they carried out an investigation over the past few months and are now releasing what they found out. The NYT article says "Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin." "In its review of election-related advertising, Facebook said it had also found an additional 2,200 ads, costing $50,000, that had less certain indications of a Russian connection." The mention of a "review of election-related advertising" also suggests that this is the result of a recent review. Our current paragraph, which I quoted above, suggests the opposite - it suggests that they knew who they were selling to in 2015 and 2016. That is an outrageously unjustified implication and I think we need to get it out of there. I'll see if I can come up with a suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to improving the wording, of course, but we should discount the use of Facebook as a source for reasons that have already been discussed. Their press release is rather transparently self-serving.- MrX 22:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, please! I did not personalize whose version is which's. What I said was that you seem to be endorsing Thuc's insistance on a single source, Reuters. Very different matter. If you want to contribute to this topic, please do your own survey of the dozens of sources that have reported and commented on it and share your findings with us. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't know much beyond Facebook's description, since the story is based, so far, purely on Facebook's own research. Reuters is a perfectly acceptable source, and it accurately conveys what the Facebook press release states: that the accounts are likely operated out of Russia. There isn't any additional information known to go beyond that. Whether or not Facebook's statement is self-serving, we essentially don't know more than what Facebook has said - which is the information Reuters has reported. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think we know a fair amount. The following supports the current wording in the article:

"Facebook’s Wednesday disclosure was an about-face after months of public denials that Russian money was behind political ads on its platform."
— Politico

- MrX 23:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional details here.- MrX 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think that this is one of those breaking developments that become easier to deal with after a little time passes and more reporting is in the file. Here are a few more:

The Atlantic

Intriguingly, after several outlets reported on the ads—and Facebook acknowledged them—Reuters reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had obtained “copies of advertisements and data about the buyers of the ads” from Facebook. Yet Facebook said in a statement earlier on Wednesday that “Our data policy and federal law limit our ability to share user data and content, so we won’t be releasing any ads,” suggesting that Mueller might have subpoenaed Facebook to obtain the data.

Business Insider

Wednesday's announcement by Facebook represents a sharp turnaround from the company's previous remarks on its role in the spread of fake news during the election.

For example, Facebook said in July that it had found "no evidence that Russian actors bought ads on Facebook in connection with the election."

The social network was widely criticized after the election for its role in the proliferation of so-called fake news, which many believe helped Donald Trump win the election. CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially called that notion "pretty crazy," but Facebook has since made significant strides to eradicate fake-news stories from its platform.

Politico

Facebook has been under the microscope for months to explain how its platform was exploited during the last presidential campaign. That race remains under investigation for potential collusion between Trump’s team and a Russian government that U.S. intelligence agencies stated earlier this year had a “clear preference” for the Republican.

In May, Oxford Internet Institute professor Philip Howard and colleague Robert Gorwa co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post urging lawmakers to force Facebook’s hand and produce any underlying metadata about questionable social media accounts that may have played a role in the election outcome.

Politico

Facebook’s vice president for News Feed, Adam Mosseri, wrote. “We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we’re approaching this problem carefully.”

Mosseri has publicly characterized those efforts as effective. In April, he said in an address, "We’ve seen overall that false news has decreased on Facebook," but the company did not provide proof of the claim. "It’s hard for us to measure," Mosseri had added, "because we can’t read everything that gets posted."…For now, many fact-checkers are taking Facebook’s claims of success with the proverbial grain of salt.

Bloomberg

“I’m glad they came through with some information,” Senator Mark Warner told reporters Thursday, a day after Facebook said it found about $100,000 in ad spending connected to fake accounts probably run from Russia. “But there’s a lot more questions.”

Warner said the company had earlier “pooh-poohed” suspicions that Russians manipulated postings on Facebook and other sites as part of a campaign to meddle in last year’s U.S. campaign for president.

Washington Post

The acknowledgment by Facebook follows months of criticism that the social media company served as a platform for the spread of false information before the November election.

Huffington Post

A Facebook employee said Wednesday that there were unspecified connections between the divisive issue ads and a well-known Russian “troll factory” in St. Petersburg that publishes comments on social media.

Ellen Weintraub, a member of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, said U.S. voters deserve to know where the ads are coming from and that the money behind them is legal.

“It is unlawful for foreign nationals to be spending money in connection with any federal, state or local election, directly or indirectly,” Weintraub said in a phone interview.

She declined to comment on the Facebook ads, saying she could not discuss subjects that could come before the agency.

Facebook declined to release the ads themselves, prompting a sharp rebuke on Twitter from Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of First Look Media, a producer of feature and documentary films, television and podcasts.

“Facebook keeps the targeted political ads it publishes secret, emboldening criminals,” wrote Omidyar, the eBay founder who also provided funding to launch media organization The Intercept. “I don’t see how that can possibly be legal.”

Facebook’s disclosure may be the first time a private entity has pointed to receiving Russian money related to U.S. elections, said Brendan Fischer, a program director at the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington nonprofit that advocates for more transparency.

“Whoever may have provided assistance to Russia in buying these Facebook ads is very likely in violation of the law,” he said, adding that Facebook has a legal duty to act if it is aware of similar activity in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The Politico article discusses the reactions to Facebook's press release, but it doesn't add any new information about the accounts that bought the ads. The reactions by politicians and media figures to the Facebook story may be due here, but our knowledge about the actual ad buys is still limited to what's reported by Reuters: the accounts were likely operated out of Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed wording

This is kind of synthesized from the two previous versions I have looked at. I was originally going to leave out the previous denial, since the two out of the three existing sources do not mention it and NYT mentions it only in passing. However, the Politico source supports it well enough to include.

In September 2017, Facebook told congressional investigators it had discovered that hundreds of fake accounts linked to a Russian troll farm had bought $100,000 in advertisements targeting the 2016 U.S. election audience. The ads, which ran between June 2015 and May 2017, primarily focused on divisive social issues; some were geographically targeted. Facebook has also reportedly turned over information about the Russian-related ad buys to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Facebook had previously denied that fake news on their platform had influenced the election and had insisted it was unaware of any Russian-financed advertisements.

Sources

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How is that different or improved from the previous versions? SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because it doesn't imply that Facebook knew, back in 2015 and 2016, who it was selling advertisements to. This uses the wording of the sources: Facebook told investigators it had discovered this. We don't say WHEN they discovered it; sources imply but do not state that it was due to an investigation conducted over the past few months; we just leave out when they discovered it since sources don't tell us. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Seems good to me. Thanks for catching the 2015-2016 thing. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, it rewords the denial sentence, which in the current version says "Facebook had denied that fake news on their platform had influenced the election." None of our sources support that wording. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN that's not the case. Our wording is an extremely close paraphrase of the NYTimes source:

• NYTimes: "After initially denying that fake news on the service had any influence on the election,..."
• Our words: "Previous to the discovery, Facebook had denied that fake news on their platform had influenced the election."

BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was looking at the wrong source. And I just now found a contemporary (Nov. 11) report on WaPo titled "Mark Zuckerberg denies that fake news on Facebook influenced the election." (Like he could even know? None of us knows what influenced the election.) OK, I'll go back to that wording. But I'd like to keep the "unaware of any Russian ads" claim too. Give me a minute to come up with a new last sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, got it. New sentence in the article with both denials. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the proposed wording above is simply inaccurate. Facebook has stated that the accounts were "likely" operated out of Russia, but the proposed wording makes it seem as if they know precisely who was operating the accounts. The wording also implies that Facebook had previously concealed information ("had previously denied knowing [...]"), which is, again, something we don't know at this point. What we know is that Facebook previously said it wasn't aware of evidence that Russia had manipulated its platform, and that it now says it's uncovered ad buys that likely came from a Russian source. Our wording should reflect both the present state of knowledge about the ad buys (i.e., not overstate what we know), and it should not imply that Facebook was previously concealing something, since that's not known. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That view has already been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Rejected by you, but you're not the arbiter of truth here. I'm proposing something pretty obvious: that we stick to what's presently known, rather than pretending to magically know details that Facebook hasn't confirmed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, you seem to be saying we should base our article on a primary source. That's not how it works. This proposed wording is based on secondary Reliable Sources. As it's supposed to be. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying we should base the section on the Reuters article (a reliable secondary source), which has the advantage of actually accurately stating what is now known - unlike the proposed wording above, which falsely expresses certainty about who is behind the advertising. Doesn't it bother you that the wording "fake accounts linked to a Russian troll farm" is at odds with what we actually know at the moment, "an operation likely based in Russia" ([17])? You can support the more confident (and incorrect) wording by pointing to articles that sloppily paraphrase Facebook, but the Reuters article accurately paraphrases it.

Simply put, the proposed text above unnecessarily conveys a level of certainty that isn't actually warranted at present. There's no reason for Wikipedia to get out ahead of the present state of knowledge. If it comes out later that the accounts were not just "likely" run out of Russia, but certainly run by a Russian troll farm, then the article can be updated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RS express no doubt. Read another half dozen sources. Read WaPo and others. WP isn't facebook's mouthpiece. Unless you have a new and different criticism, we seem to have consensus for MelanieN's version. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The RS Reuters expresses uncertainty, which directly contradicts your point that "RS express no doubt." We're not in any danger of becoming Facebook's mouthpiece. The available information, right now, indicates that the pages were likely run out of Russia. That's an accurate statement, and there's no rush to go write as if we knew, with certainty, that the pages were run by the Internet Research Agency.

You're quick to declare consensus, despite only four editors commenting on this proposal so far. At least six other editors who have discussed the Facebook issue have not yet commented. By the low bar for consensus you're trying to set here, you should have held off earlier replacing a version agreed to by three editors with your own personal write-up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the final sentence. The source points out "the company’s past denials to media outlets including Time, McClatchy and CNN that it had found any Russian-bought ads." Maybe "Facebook had previously insisted it was unaware of any Russian-financed advertisements"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, sounds good. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I like it better too. I have now substituted this for the previous, slightly more awkward version. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

BBC. Facebook uncovers 'Russian-funded' misinformation campaign -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC article adds one new piece of information, which is that

"The company [Facebook] said elsewhere it believed, but could not independently confirm, that the accounts were created by the so-called Internet Research Agency, a St Petersburg-based group known for posting pro-Kremlin messages on social media."

What we know from the reporting so far is that:

1. Facebook has said that accounts likely operated out of Russia bought $100,000 in advertising targeting the US election audience.
2. Facebook has said it believes, but cannot confirm, that the Internet Research Agency created the accounts.
3. The advertising was primarily about divisive social issues, rather than the political candidates directly.
4. Facebook has handed over information to Mueller.

We should write something up that contains that information, which correctly conveys the current level of certainty. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

PRIMARY. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not advancing the discussion by citing random policies. What I'm proposing is based on reliable secondary sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We also need to keep our eyes open for news of who actually paid for these accounts. Was it the Trump campaign? According to the dossier, Trump paid the Romanian hackers who hacked the DNC. They did it, but he paid the bill. Is there a parallel here? Did the Russians do the deed, but Trump paid the bill? Let's keep our eyes open. This question isn't answered yet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, normally I just ignore your personal commentary imploring your fellow editors to "read the dossier!" as if it is a holy text, but this time I'll take a moment to engage with you. Even if you consider the Steele dossier generally credible or at least worthy of more serious consideration, why would you uncritically accept an extreme claim like "Trump paid the Romanian hackers who hacked the DNC" in the absence of any evidence to support it? I would have thought that Putin could afford to pay his own hackers, but there is a more fundamental concern, here. Steele began briefing reporters on his work in late September 2016; the Russian government was aware of the dossier by at least October 31—when David Corn broke the story in Mother Jones—if not earlier. As you doubtless know, the specific allegation "that the operatives involved had been paid by both TRUMP's team and the Kremlin" is from a report dated December 13 and that contains "by far the most inflammatory intelligence in the dossier": "Many things suggest this particular report should be read with great skepticism, not least that it post-dated both the disclosure of the existence of the dossier and the election, and that this intelligence was offered up to Steele, not solicited, and was offered for free." The provenance of the dossier as leaked by BuzzFeed is questionable for numerous reasons; for example, even if the dossier is largely accurate, has it occurred to you that the Russians may have fed Steele disinformation to discredit it? Could a source within the U.S. intelligence community itself not have invented the December flourishes to neatly make the case for "collusion," and ultimately Trump's impeachment? There is great danger in simply believing assertions without evidence, regardless of one's personal feelings about Trump.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, Siphers is just one of many who analyze the dossier. Here's another POV from an expert. He offers tips on how to read the Russia investigation: How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, by Benjamin Wittes. While some who offer commentary are obviously running interference for Trump and Putin, as well as engaging in historical revisionism which defies many proven facts, Wittes doesn't do that. Enjoy!

Your point about Putin possibly feeding Steele or his sources some disinformation is well-taken. This has been a part of interpretation by many for a long time, and I too believe that's possible. There are a few parts of the puzzle which haven't been confirmed (most have been confirmed), and the disinformation might be part of the unconfirmed part. (It's hard to confirm something that didn't happen. ) Interestingly, the only salacious part (the pee pee tapes) has been independently confirmed by numerous other sources and intelligence agencies. That story, and others, are not dependent solely on the Steele dossier. The salacious part is not the most important part, at least when it comes to allegations of collusion. It's value is only related to possible blackmail, but the rest of the dossier actually contains more serious charges, many of which are also fuel for blackmail.

The "December memo", which is the two pages about the payments to hackers, was written by Steele under special circumstances, nearly as an appendix two months after the previous report. It is pure speculation that anyone else might have written it. It reports events which happened late, and was written after the original 33 page dossier had already been seen by David Corn of Mother Jones and many journalists. Pages 34-35 were written and added to the existing dossier much later, in December 2016. It will be interesting to see what's in those 40,000 pages of in depth documentation for those brief 35 pages. The reliability of the dossier has only been increased by deeper investigation, and it is therefore still the road map for the investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is more information, but maybe should have its own section:

• Facebook sent its employees to Donald Trump’s campaign office to help with online marketing

DISCLAIMER: I am well aware that Palmer Report is not a RS. It's kind of like Louise Mensch, but it does mention some RS. I'm just not sure this is relevant in this article, or belongs in another one. -=- BullRangifer (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention me? btw I think BBC is not very good reporting on these American Politics matters. They just don't have the boots on the ground connections of the major US news organs. BBC is always getting it a bit wrong, what? Lots more detail on the facebook bit is going to come out within the next several days. Facebook has said it felt an obligation to protect the privacy of its advertisers. I think it's clear they were not forthcoming with what they knew, possibly out of this ethical concern. The information that's now coming out is only after news of it was leaked and the investigators moved in. Then facebook put out its blog post and other catch-up PR statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think BBC has been more accurate and neutral in its reporting than many major US news outlets. Being based outside the US can encourage a greater level of neutrality when reporting on US politics. The BBC's record here is better, for example, than that of the Washington Post, which has had some major breakdowns in its reporting over the past year (e.g., the PropOrNot and Vermont utility hack stories). -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. Not how journalism happens. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, please stop trying to claim that the ONLY source of information about this is the one blogpost statement. Newspapers like NYT and WaPo do not reply on a single statement or press release for their reporting; they develop their own additional sources, in this case within the company. Both the NYT and WaPo credit "Facebook officials" as their source for naming the Internet Research Agency, and for the other additional information which is reflected in this proposed wording. WaPo additionally cites "several people familiar with the company's findings". --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's how the "Internet Research Agency" comes up in the Washington Post article:

A Facebook official said “there is evidence that some of the accounts are linked to a troll farm in St. Petersburg, referred to as the Internet Research Agency, though we have no way to independently confirm.”

Again, there shouldn't be any rush to state more than is actually known. We're stuck at the highly POV wording that SPECIFICO wrote at the moment. The version prior to that is accurate and written neutrally:

In September 2017, Facebook reported to congressional investigators that it had discovered that accounts, likely operated by a troll farm out of Russia, had bought $100,000 in ads targeted at the 2016 U.S. election audience, primarily referencing divisive social issues.

What's wrong with that version? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, so is your main objection here against naming the "Internet Research Agency"? This proposed version doesn't do that. Is your objection to saying anything at all about "a shadowy Russian troll farm" as sources call it? Is it just that you want the word "likely" inserted - although our sources seem more positive than that? You have raised so many points I am having trouble understanding what you want us to do. I have found it is always best to focus discussion on the actual wording of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. About the WaPo article: you cited a line, from about two-thirds of the way down the article, that quotes directly from the statement. But you ignored the first couple of paragraphs, which use additional sources and make direct positive statements: "Representatives of Facebook told congressional investigators Wednesday that the social network has discovered that it sold ads during the U.S. presidential campaign to a shadowy Russian company seeking to target voters, according to several people familiar with the company's findings. Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian "troll farm" with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said." No hedging there, not need for us limit ourselves to "likely" or "probably" or some other qualification. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and in general it highlights the distinction between generic PR spin statements and statements made under an obligation of completeness and truthfulness. Interesting that facebook, a reasonably well-run corporation, wanted the more accurate version to be published in its voice after investigative reporting amplified what was only suggested in the rather weaseled blog posting. Anyone who has not yet done so will enjoy reading the article linked by @BullRangifer: below [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

(ec) And here's the NYT article, our other main source. It goes even further, directly naming the Internet Research Agency without qualification: "Facebook officials said the fake accounts were created by a Russian company called the Internet Research Agency, which is known for using “troll” accounts to post on social media and comment on news websites". That article's lede says "Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin." Again, no hedging. Based on our cited secondary sources, there is absolutely no need for us to fudge our reporting with a "likely" or "probably" or "possibly" or some such qualifier. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There's been no additional comment here for three days. I am inclined to go ahead and put my proposed revision into the article - to replace the current version which among other problems gives the false impression that Facebook knew, back in 2015 and 2016, that it was renting ads to Russians. I've modified the proposed version several times in response to discussion here, and there has been no substantive objection to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion...

... at Cyberwarfare by Russia. Please comment here. The content under dispute involves allegations that the Russian government attempted to hack Vermont's electric grid, based on a report in The Washington Post that was later retracted: "Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation." Two editors have argued that the initial claims belong in the article despite Wash Post's retraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Flynn and son

Some reporting that should be added:

• Mike Flynn’s Son Is Subject of Federal Russia Probe

• Flynn Promoted Nuclear-Plant Project While in White House

Casprings (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We could add a sentence about Flynn's son to the paragraph about Flynn. The nuclear plant project doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of this article, which is Russian involvement in the election. It could be added to the biographical article about Michael Flynn. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. I see it already has been added to the Flynn article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that there's any rush to add this to the article, but if this is correct, there's clearly a connection to the topic of Russian Interference. Psy-Ops, Kompromat, messin' w. their minds. How could the guy advising on the entire range of global security issues be objectively serving the USA while he stands to have any personal interst at all in cooperation with the Russians on this or that private project? SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But it's not about the election. Maybe we need a new or expanded article: "Russian interference with the Trump administration". (I'm kidding - mostly.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I tend to think we should err on the side of omitting new developments and trivia. But Flynn was heavily involved in the Trump campaign effort and he's a man who has a keen business sense. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You've left several talk page comments above about Russians "messin' with" the minds of Trump and others on his staff, and about them being controlled by Russian "psy-ops." I think that's a WP:BLP violation, and you should remove those comments immediately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Noop. "Russians" is not a "living person" although there are many living persons who are also Russians. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, Trump and his associates are the ones you're attacking. If you don't remove these comments, I'm going to have to bring the issue to the BLP noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and asked for comment on WP:BLPN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempted Hacking of State Databases

Here's some information about the Department of Homeland Security's messages to state election authorities. From NPR, NY Times, and the AP:

1. ) The DHS informed 21 states that hackers attempted to get into their elections systems - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington.
2. ) The hacking attempts targeted voting registration databases, not software systems having to do with vote counting or tallying.
3. ) The attempts failed, except in Illinois, where some voter registration information was accessed (nothing was added, changed or deleted, but the hackers may have acquired voter data for 200,000 people - more here)
4. ) In DHS messages to the states, they did not say who was behind the hacking, but the many of the state elections boards said that the attacks came from Russia.
5. ) The DHS first said that there were hacking attempts against state elections systems 1 year ago, but had not informed any of the individual states until now, despite many of them repeatedly asking whether their systems were among those targeted.

From reading the articles, these seem to be the key points. I think this definitely should be in the article - it's already partly covered in the section Intrusions into state voter-registration systems, which looks like the natural place to add the newer information. Attempted breaches of 21 state election systems seems like an unnecessary addition, since it's basically covering the same event again simply because more information has been released. I think this is part of a systemic issue with the article, which is that it's organized chronologically based on when certain information was made public, even when later announcements simply expanded upon earlier ones about the same events, and therefore it covers the same ground repeatedly according to some confusing and non-intuitive logic. But that's a separate issue. Where should we add this information? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is important information and you have summarized it well. My feeling is that most of what you have summarized should go into the article - obviously, in prose paragraphs rather than list form like this. I don't think we need to name the states, or if we do let's put it in a footnote. Someone has already started a (one-sentence) subsection called "Attempted breaches of 21 state election systems" under "U.S. Intelligence analysis". I'd leave out the number 21 but otherwise that seems like a good place for it. Actually on second thought I agree with you that it should be an expansion of the "Intrusions into state voter-registration systems" section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

They have since backtracked on Wisconsin.[19] TFD (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Commentary and reactions - Donald Trump

Substituting one POV for another? Here's the direct quote as cited by the Bloomberg source:

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said in a brief statement late Friday, referring to now discredited U.S. assertions during the George W. Bush administration that Iraq had such weapons, which became a key rationale for the U.S. invasion in 2003.

“The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on,” the team said in the statement.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

AP & business insider article - Spain extradites Pyotr Levashov

[20] AND [21] published 10.3.2017

Perhaps keep an eye out for more on this...DN (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing/POV-push

@AmYisroelChai: you should not have made this edit without asking first. [22]. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

im asking now didn't know i had to AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversial edits on this type of article are best avoided. Run your ideas past other editors on the talk page to avoid problems. Otherwise be bold. As you get more experience you'll figure it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So does the source say that there is no proof for this reason?Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The source given for this is a primary source - the entire transcript of Comey's testimony - and I did not read through the whole thing to see if it supports this edit. But in any case, something Comey said months ago might not accurately reflect the situation now. So I think we should leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comey said that no US Intelligence or law enforcement agency has seen the servers so until they see those servers there is no proof to the allegation that they were hacked let alone by the russians we only have the word of a company hired by the DNC as proof which is like someone saying he was attacked but the only proof is on the say so of someone he hires to testify as such without law enforcement doing any kind of investigation AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:03, September 24, 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to state your personal opinion. Wikipedia can only use content that's supported by the weight of mainstream, reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How is that a personal opinion? There is no verified proof of the russians hacking the DNC serversAmYisroelChai (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because your allegation is that "there is no verified proof" (I'm not sure what "verified proof" is supposed to mean, but the use of that qualifier here looks weaselly) and the source you gave doesn't say that. Even if it did, as a primary source, it would have to be presented as someone's opinion. That would look like, "Senator _____ said that there was no proof." Then we get into an issue of whether that random opinion carries enough weight to justify the mention. After all, there are senators that believe all kinds of bizarre and counterfactual things. That would require reliable secondary sources covering it to demonstrate that it's even worth mentioning. Finally, we have the fact that this is a fringe opinion that most reliable secondary sources would seem to refute. If the statement were true, why is Congress concerned about it? What is Mueller doing? Why don't we just delete this article and be done with it? So this is both editorializing and a POV-push. Geogene (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

no US intelligence or law enforcement agency has actually seen or investigated the servers that the DNC claim were hacked.

That is a fact. Perpetually excluding it for months is POV pushing, editorializing and shameful. Particularly since the article is largely nothing more than negative hyperbole and unsubstantiated rumor.

This is your personal, unsourced opinion. We have plenty of RS that speak on the subject, and we document what they say. The idea that just because the servers may not have been examined by others (they have been examined) does not exclude various other ways to verify what was on them, what was then leaked from them, who did it, who was secretly recorded describing who did it, who paid them, what country the hackers were from (the dossier says they were Romanian), and many other possibilities. BTW, remember to log in and not edit under your IP address. Use your registered account. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No it is not my personal opinion. It is an encyclopedic fact cited in numerous sources including the one the editor employed above. No US intelligence or law enforcement ever investigated the server that the DNC claimed were hacked. One security company did at the employ of the DNC. The fact that this security company has been grossly wrong in the past attributing hacks is immaterial to the encyclopedic continually withheld from this page for eight months fact that no US security or intelligence agency ever examined the hacked DNC servers. Using US intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies unsubstantiated information while withholding the material information that they never actually examined the hacked server is POV pushing, editorializing and deceiving by omission. BTW, remember some were here hoping they find collusion not so long ago making it difficult to assume good faith editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:02 29 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, remember some were here hoping they find collusion not so long ago making it difficult to assume good faith editing. Irony, thy name is random IP address. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the opinion of mainstream IP SPA pop-up posts on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

not addressing an editors argument, but instead dismissively snarking about about how gauche the arguer is.... a Wikipedia tradition for well over a decade. 2600:1002:B11B:5FEC:FD09:2991:2BBF:FE6A (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia 2600:1002:B11B:5FEC:FD09:2991:2BBF:FE6A. your keyboard seems to besticking. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In point of fact, I was snarking about how gauche the argument was, not the arguer. The personalization inherent in the statement is an inevitable (and frankly, rather obvious) byproduct of the idiomatic reference I used. Damn, you people are so sensitive! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're a returning sockpuppet then? I suspected as much. After all, in various articles I watch, other suspicious accounts have been trying to say the same thing with that particular New York Times URL for months. There are many places the transcript can be found, why that URL? Geogene (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

maybe because thats the first one that pops up when you google comey transcriptAmYisroelChai (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's far from the first: https://www.google.com/search?q=comey+transcript&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

yes it is https://www.google.com/search?q=comey+senate+testimony+transcript&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS754US754&oq=comey+senate+testimony+transcript&aqs=chrome..69i57.16719j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Google search results vary by your past searches. That hit doesn’t come up on my first two pages of results. Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Verifiable data

[Prompted by MelanieN's reference to 'data'; thx]

1) Per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Per WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event …"

Agency heads are not primary sources as they, presumably, did not conduct the purported 'research'; they are, at best, secondary sources. News media are further removed.

2) Re ODNI report: "the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods."

Without supporting information — "including specific intelligence and sources and methods" — claims cannot be verified.

Suggest removal of all claims made in agency 'reports'. Humanengr (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion makes no sense. We routinely report material from (what we consider to be) Reliable Sources where the supporting information is not given. We often cite reporting from the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. which is based on anonymous sources known to the reporter but not revealed to us - "White House sources", "sources close to the investigation", "Justice Department sources", "three people with knowledge of the situation". We report such material without any hesitation. The requirement is that the source "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". There is no requirement that the source show us their "sources and methods", and in fact we usually don't have that information. But we report it, sometimes in Wikipedia's voice, most commonly attributing it the reporting agency. As we do at this article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia lends no presumption of accuracy to statements made by any national intelligence service. It doesn't consider the Russian FSB to be a reliable source for anything but uncontroversial statements, and likewise would not consider the CIA or NSA to be reliable for anything beyond straightforward, uncontroversial statements (e.g., country statistics found in the CIA World Factbook). Unlike newspapers, intelligence agencies aren't in the business of providing the public with accurate, unbiased information. Unlike newspapers, they don't "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." In fact, it's entirely plausible that intelligence agencies might intentionally deceive the public for strategic reasons. In short, they're unreliable sources.

That does not mean, however, that we should leave what they say out of the article. Even unreliable sources may be used when their statements themselves are important to the subject. In such cases, statements must be clearly attributed to their sources, and should not be made in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. The claims made by US intelligence agencies about Russian interference in the Presidential election are central to this article, and they must be covered. It's important that those claims be presented in a way that makes it clear who is making what statement, and which does not imply in Wikipedia's voice that those claims are true. We couldn't write this article without referencing claims made by US intelligence extensively. However, those claims should not be treated in the same way as if they had been made by a reliable source - a newspaper, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN — 1) re "The requirement is that the source 'have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy'.": Were any facts presented to the 'Reliable Sources' that they could check? 2) Re "Wikipedia's voice": The article title is in Wikipedia's voice, declaring that Russia interfered, rather than "attributing it [to] the reporting agency. As we do at this article." Humanengr (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411 — 1) re "Unlike newspapers, they don't 'have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.'": From Gallup Sept 2016 poll: "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media 'to report the news fully, accurately and fairly' has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year." http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx. (That poll was not linked to by WaPo or NYT.) 2) re "statements must be clearly attributed to their sources, and should not be made in Wikipedia's authoritative voice.": See #2 above in my reply to MelanieN. The title is Wikipedia's voice. Humanengr (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In this article, intelligence agencies are cited only as evidence of what intelligence agencies say, and even then only sparsely, to supplement secondary sources (as according to policy on use of primary sources). The vast majority of sources are reliable secondary sources as defined by wikipedia policy. If a large portion of reliable secondary sources say something in their authoritative voice, it is not our place to question their sources and methods. If you're arguing that this Gallup poll should be used as evidence in changing the way reliable sources are defined, or that we should start examining reliable sources' use of data ourselves (which would generally be considered original research), then this article's talk page is the wrong place to bring it up. Go to the reliable sources discussion and see if you can get long-standing policies on reliable sources changed. Until those policies are changed, you should stop bringing up this same complaint over and over again. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1) Re "reliable sources discussion": thx for the suggestion. 2) Re "to supplement secondary sources": Is there any data in the article that was checked by secondary sources news media? 3)Re "this same complaint": As I wrote to Slatersteven below, the goal here is different. Humanengr (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is now tendentious editing, it did not work the first time nor will it work the next time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CON: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal …" is n/a. Goal as stated: "removal of all claims made in agency 'reports'" not raised previously. Humanengr (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

" Re "Wikipedia's voice": The article title is in Wikipedia's voice, declaring that Russia interfered, rather than "attributing it [to] the reporting agency. As we do at this article." ". Your words,this is what this is all about (again).Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet another demand for an OR fishing expedition to undermine what RS say. Sorry. Not going to work. We report what they say and don't bow to opinions which are clearly inspired by unreliable sources. This is not going to be turned into Trump's and Putin's pulpit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon Thx for the feedback, which prompted me to work my way through the article more thoroughly. One upshot from that is a minor adjustment (see here) that would have been relatively non-controversial if done when the lede was redone. My fault for missing it then. Humanengr (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN Thx for the feedback and I agree re citing reports based on anonymous sources (as long as such reliance is explicitly declared). And I'll accept that agency reports (as they implicitly carry a declaration of anonymous employees) can be cited if they carry the caveat re methods and sources (as done,e.g., in the ODNI report section of the WP article). So I'll withdraw my proposal.

But your cmt did lead to some interesting finds re 'reliable source' I'll address separately. Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Re Thucydides411 "statements must be clearly attributed to their sources, and should not be made in Wikipedia's authoritative voice": Except that the title violates that policy. Humanengr (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: {{u|BullRangifer]] "... a fishing expedition to undermine what RS say... We report what they say and don't bow to opinions which are clearly inspired by unreliable sources." That begs the question of how reliable news sources which ordinarily are considered RS are in a tight news cycle where the sources go to press with minimal fact-checking - the precise situation covered by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER WP:SENSATION and WP:NODEADLINE. This entire article gives blow-by-blow coverage of on-going investigations, which is deprecated by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This article isn't encyclopedic, it's weighing in wikivoice on an on-going controversy - and that's necessarily WP:NOT what we're here for.

It's hard to see the title of this article as not taking a position on a politically partisan controversy. If the special investigator and other impartial sources conclude after their investigation that significant Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections did not occur, which is still a possible verdict, then the statement we're making in wikivoice by saying it did occur in the title of an article, underpinning a conclusion still under investigation doesn't just make the project vulnerable to charges that it violated WP:NPOV. It'll be evidence we're clearly guilty of the charge. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, moving this article out to article space with the title "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is taking a position on a charge still under investigation. It is anything but an encyclopedic article - it's abuse of the project to push one particular POV. loupgarous (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)