Jump to content

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge these two pages. FallingGravity 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Democratic National Committee cyber attacks to be merged ---> into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election

I propose that Democratic National Committee cyber attacks be merged into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election. I think that the content in the cyber attack article provides additional detail and can easily fit within the article on Russian influence. If there is too much content, I would suggest that the cyber attack article becomes a sub article of the Russian influence article. Casprings (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality, Casprings, and Sagecandor: I've long thought these articles should be combined into one comprehensive article. They don't make a lot of sense on their own. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, though I'm not sure how all these articles would mesh. FallingGravity 21:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with MrX about merging all these into here at Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election and condensing some of the other ones. We don't need to discuss all the "content" of the leaks, etc. Agree with MrX that Guccifer 2.0 should remain its own article. The rest can all get merged into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election. Sagecandor (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Against - I think the DNC cyberattack has a different scope to this article. The scope of this article is much wider - it includes things other than hacking. Additionally, the DNC page includes the contents of them, while this page would only be concerned with the Russian involvement. Stickee (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

*Oppose (again), what's emerged on this thread is that this is a classic example of the propaganda model of assertions being parrotted and the parrotting being taken as evidence of notability. The exposure of DNC-Clinton Foundation corruption was an inside job because Craig Murray's assertion has the same standing of the CIA assertions. Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Keith, please try to stick to the topic, refrain from off-topic rambling, and avoid calling other editors propagandists. And you already put your !vote above, commenting again further down, with a second bolded "oppose," makes it seem as if you're trying to "double vote." Neutralitytalk 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh I do apologise but it's getting harder to take this thread seriously. Thanks for the AGF and the sneer but I suggest that my comment was the most on-topic (sic) since the thread began. If you were paying attention, you would have realised that I was describing the process by which the CIA "revelations" are legitimised by the corporate media, rather than laughed off the front page with questions like "Evidence please?" I have no views about the other contributors, only the calibre of the comments (except for your unpleasant insinuation, that is). I didn't know that this was a vote and I don't care; I thought it was an expression of opinion and I had something to add. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2016 (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.

Wikipedia violation of policy exposed

Without verifiable content, information cannot be posted as factual according to Wikipedia policy.

Absolutely no factual references were used or cited to draw the conclusion the "2016 United States election interference by Russia" should be treated as a factual statement. At best, the intelligence agencies "believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts" that the leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." No actual evidence exists to implicate Russia and, to the contrary, the source of the leaks, Julian Assange, clearly stated that Russia was not involved. The fact remains that the DNC was hacked four months before the Republican Candidate was chosen. The Russians didn't even know that Trump would be the candidate when the "hacking" occurred, so it is highly illogical to assume that they intervened to benefit Mr. Trump when he had not been made the candidate and was actually expected not to be the republican candidate.

The Intelligence Technology employee of the Democratic National Committee, Delevan, openly admitted that he instructed the Podesta staffer to allow the unauthorized access to the documents to proceed and blamed it on a typographical error <1>. An equally plausible explanation would be that it was an intentional, inside job, performed by disgruntled democrats who were angry about the treatment of Bernie Sanders. Another Democratic National Committee staffer, similarly motivated, Seth Rich, was implicated as a source for leaked emails and was allegedly preparing to turn over Hillary Clinton's emails to the FBI when he ended up getting two bullets in his body,<2> "consistent with the methods and motivations of (Clinton)-directed efforts." With equal justification, it can be said that some "believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts" that Vince Foster's experience can serve as a role model for a Clinton implication.

Therefore, the title should be changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia."

67.161.43.34 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)William T. O'Connor

@67.161.43.34: This is a longstanding issue we've been trying to address. You're correct that the vast majority of sources do not refer to Russian interference as a fact. Hopefully the problem will be resolved in the coming weeks. Feel free to help with that if you are still editing here at that time. -Darouet (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM (and washington times is not a reliable source).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ 1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/hillary-clinton-tech-staffer-typo-precipitated-joh/
  2. ^ 2) http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

Hasn't the FBI spoken for itself?

I was surprised to read in this article, under the FBI section, that it was Brennan (the CIA Director) who published in a memo that the FBI agreed with the CIA (after there had been questions about it). But apparently, other than not having publicly denied the claim, the FBI has not affirmed its agreement. I did go to the provided sources, two of them are essentially the same text and all three say just that, that Brennan made the claim... and that's it. I couldn't find anything by the FBI itself expressing agreement with the CIA. If such a source exists, it should be included.2001:8A0:F009:9A01:4407:1AC3:DFE9:E4A9 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion polls about this topic?

- 0x5849857 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@0x5849857: Fox News did a poll on this. Politico/Morning Consult did another poll more recently. FallingGravity 02:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: Any way to introduce this to the text? - 0x5849857 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I would be opposed to including any opinion polls in this article. Polls are notoriously unreliable and really have no bearing on the factual veracity of the subject.- MrX 19:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It is worth putting in. BTW polls are very reliable, it's just that they are not precise enough to predict close elections. In the U.S. presidential election for example, they showed Clinton beating Trump in the popular vote by 4%, she beat him by 2%, which was within the 4% margin of error. TFD (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The polls in question ask whether members of the public think the interference made any difference, which is a notoriously difficult question to answer (despite most folk's willingness to try). A poll of political science experts would be better, but still asking a basically unanswerable question because no-one truly knows what would have happened absent the interference. The fact is that we don't know the extents of the interference, we don't know the specific tactics of those engaged in it, and the vast majority of us don't know what effect those tactics would have, or how they would play off each other. "What would have happened if..." is one of the most hypothetical questions ever, which rarely produces answers which are in any way useful.
Hell, the very numbers of the polls might be telling. If just under half of the 1/3 of voters mentioned (the number who, in the polls, believed the interference affected the outcome divided by the percentage of voters who supported Clinton, a highly conservative estimate given what I'm figuring) had turned to Trump over Clinton as a result of the interference, then Clinton would have won by an absolute landslide if not for the interference.
At the end of the day, the public lacks the expertise and information necessary to draw an informed conclusion on this, and informed conclusions to such a hypothetical question are extremely unreliable, anyways. MrX is absolutely right that the polls have no bearing on the 'truth' of this subject. That being said, I'm not convinced that invalidates them from being used in the article. I think a brief mention would be quite acceptable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of the polls isn't to determine the correct answer to the question but to determine what people's opinions are. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That's correct, and it has very little to do with the subject of this article which is is Russian interference. Mentioning the polls is a red herring that attempts to lead readers to believe that Russia was not able to influence the election, so their attempts to do so should be dismissed. If Russia was able to influence the election, polling the people who were influenced would tend to produce meaningless results. Show me a poll of Canadians and then we will have something to talk about.- MrX 12:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: Mentioning the polls is a red herring... That's certainly possible, but not necessarily inevitable. I think a single sentence, at the end of the Experts and scholars subsection would sufficiently contextualize the information. something like "In contrast to the expert reaction, public polls taken by Fox News and Politico showed that only about 1/3 of the general population felt that the interference had an impact on the election."
Also, it is relevant precisely because it is a reaction to these events. Which is a different way of saying that it is only relevant as a reaction to these events. It barely warrants a sentence, but barely counts, IMHO. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants, I guess I could live with that, but no more.- MrX 13:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Do the "experts and scholars" even agree that it "had an impact on the election"? For example, just because an expert believes that Russia interfered doesn't necessarily mean that they believe it made a significant difference. FallingGravity 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
We may not be able to say, "In contrast to the expert reaction" unless there is a reliable source that makes that comparison. (WP:NOR) Maybe someone can find such a reliable source? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@FallingGravity and Bob K31416: Do the "experts and scholars" even agree that it "had an impact on the election"? From my exposure to the RSes, it seems so. That being said, I admit that it's an assumption on my part based on the nature of the opinions the experts have given. However, there's a case to be made for contrasting the certainty expressed in the polls vs the ambiguity of the exact quotes from the experts. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in your message addressing the problem re WP:NOR, which I mentioned in my last message. You need to address that before continuing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You should have read the last sentence of my comment, then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I reread it and it doesn't address the previously mentioned problem re WP:NOR. This may be my last message with you regarding this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it directly addresses it. The sentence preceding it directly addressed it as well, though in a completely different sense. If you would like me to explain, I'd be happy to, but since you've indicated otherwise, I don't see the point in going ahead with doing so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Title change proposal: Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election

I'd propose this article be renamed "Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election." The terms used, interference, intervention, influence, etc are too general and when used as umbrella terms they dilute what's documented by the WP:RS. - Scarpy (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Though that is accurately what happened, a vast majority of the WP:RS sources use the words "election", and "interference", the most out of all the descriptors. Let's keep the title short and not large and burdensome. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The proposed title is not very concise, so I'd be reluctant to support such a change. The current title seems to suffice. Dustin (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Both the proposed title and the current title are egregiously POV. We don't know who hacked the DNC.
Sagecandor, unless you have access to information that none of us in the public are privy to, you don't know if there was Russian interference in the US Presidential election. Reliable sources are reporting on claims made by American intelligence and government figures, and on denials by the Russian government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make insinuations or assumptions in reference to individual contributors, and instead keep the discussion focused on content. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor, I made no personal attacks or insinuations, and I don't see how you could possibly interpret the above as a personal attack. But now that we're on the subject of you, I am interested to know how a new editor is so familiar with Wikipedia policies, noticeboards, arbitration, article deletion procedures, etc. Forgive me, but something just doesn't click here. Maybe you can clear this up for everyone here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's stop the off-topic accusations and inquisitions, please, thanks. This article talk page is for talking about improving this article. Let's discuss that together, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me just come out and ask you the obvious question: how do you know that Russia hacked the DNC? We don't have reliable source backing for that claim, despite the title of this article implying that we do. You took very quick offense at my above statement, that the origin of the hack is not publicly known, despite accusations that have been leveled by various American intelligence officials and politicians. It's just strange to me that you took such personal offense at a comment that wasn't a personal attack, and your touchiness reminded me of your curious editing history - so forgive my asking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The proposed title is too verbose in my view. WP:TITLE advises to use titles that are concise and natural.- MrX 18:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: Assuming I remember my English, it's a more common way of speaking to start the title with an adjective (Russian) rather than suffixing with an adverb and noun (by Russia). - Scarpy (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scarpy: I agree that starting the title with "Russian" would be an improvement. The part I object to is "espionage and disinformation targeting" which can be concisely written as "interference in (or 'with')".- MrX 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything, other than what I've read in secondary sources. We should go by what is documented in the majority of reliable sources about the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and those reliable sources report on claims made by American intelligence officials and politicians. So unless our policy is to trust claims made by the CIA and FBI as fact, this article's title is POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No, not just "American intelligence officials and politicians", but ALL the "intelligence officials" in the entire intelligence community, 17 intelligence agencies, and now, including the FBI. [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
So are you saying that we should treat American intelligence agencies as reliable sources here on Wikipedia? To me, that would seem like an incredible change in policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. Please don't assume what I am thinking. I am saying it is not just a few "American intelligence officials and politicians". Sagecandor (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It's hard not to come to conclusions when you strongly imply something. The important point is this: reliable sources are reporting on claims made by American intelligence officials and politicians. For the most part, reliable sources are not saying that these claims are true. That means that this article should not treat the claims as if they were true, and in particular, the title of the article should not suggest the claims to be true. Do you agree? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Wrong. As our new leader friend says. Wrong. Not claims. Conclusions. Not by random individual officials. By the entirety of the whole of all of the intelligence community. All 17 agencies, plus the Department of Homeland Security, plus the FBI, all coming together to agree on the same conclusion. Sagecandor (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it would help this discussion to clarify the status of the information. Did any reliable source say that there was 2016 United States election interference by Russia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Getting dizzy going in circles here. Agree with Timothyjosephwood, below. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Sagecandor, now you're just confusing me. A second ago, when I asked you if American intelligence agencies count as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. But now that I ask you if reliable sources have stated as a fact that Russia carried out the DNC hack, you say that US intelligence has come to that conclusion. You seem to want to dance around this issue. American intelligence agencies (nor Russian intelligence agencies, or any other government spy agencies) do not count as reliable sources. You can't say you're not claiming they're reliable sources on the one hand, but on the other hand cite them as reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)From your response, it looks to me like the discussion is approaching the point that no reliable source has said that there was 2016 United States election interference by Russia. If that's the case, then the title is implying something that is not verifiable per WP:V. We might then consider changing the title to the less problematic and more concise form: 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
We have a multitude of reliable sources saying this. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Then quote an excerpt here from one of them and give a link to the reliable source that makes that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's focus the move discussion on the move discussion section, above, on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
From your response, it looks to me that you don't know of any. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. But from this discussion, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and doesn't seem likely to progress to a constructive outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
That's enough of this for me. Too bad. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
For some reason the two accounts above seem to be ignoring the multiple other independent entities that came to the exact same conclusions as the 17 intelligence agencies did, months beforehand. Sagecandor (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it doesn't take much effort to make obvious arguments. The title is already too long, and making it even longer isn't a solution. Above and beyond that, (and we really should have an essay on this), these extended arguments that always pop up on articles about unfolding and especially politically charged articles (and has already happened a few times here including a brief move war requiring protect) are nearly always a complete waste of time. Whatever title individuals happen to prefer at the moment, which is usually only a marginal improvement one way or the other, are just as likely to be obsolete in a month as anything else. So have this discussion in a month, when it will almost certainly be more clear what exactly it is we're talking about. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that the title could be made more concise and address criticisms here by making the change to 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: That proposed title would be an improvement. @Timothyjosephwood: I imagine that you before all others would be the first to recognize that a concise but misleading title is far worse than a verbose and accurate one. -Darouet (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this in terms of verbosity and misleading...ness (words?). It is a compromise between verbosity and being WP:PRECISE. Additionally, being somewhat more vague does't actually make your title any less precise, so long as there are no other closely related topics that could be easily confused by your given title. 2016 United States election and Russia probably easily satisfies this. TimothyJosephWood 15:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
So far, it looks like me, Darouet, and Timothyjosephwood support a proposed change of the title to 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is terrible proposal. This article is not about the two subjects "'2016 United States election" and "Russia" as the conjunction would imply. The article is about Russia's interference with the election.- MrX 16:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Using "and" is a routine way of making a connection between two subjects in a title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It's just really bad writing. The connection between Russia and the US election is interference, not "and". - MrX 17:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinions but I don't see much backing them up. BTW, here's an example of a Wikipedia article that uses "and" to connect two subjects in the title, Constantine the Great and Christianity. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Prove to me there's not a big purple gorilla sitting in my bathtub right now. I'm not sure what hypothetical example source would be satisfactory at this point. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scarpy: Crowdstrike's statements are notable, but it is a hired firm with links to the American intelligence community. Treating its statements as a source of truth is a major breach of ordinary editorial policy. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There's, at least, three different definitions of reliable source being conflated in this discussion. (1) A reliable source as a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (2) a person or organization that's reliable on a given topic (3) a source that provides the requested evidence of Russian intelligence agencies breaching the DNC for the purpose of answering the repeated requests for it on this talk page. I'm only providing (3) here because that's what was asked for in this discussion. If you want to insulate that very specific and detailed evidence that CrowdStrike provided in this report is a fabrication because they have "links to the American intelligence community" (which, by the way, you have completely failed to document) then I will use your argument against you. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Scarpy (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
If it's of any help in this discussion, note that for the purpose of writing a Wikpedia article, a reliable source is one that can be put into a citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, stated the leak of emails in the 2016 US elections was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Sagecandor (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goodin, Dan. ""Guccifer" leak of DNC Trump research has a Russian's fingerprints on it". arstechnica. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
  2. ^ Shieber, Jonathan; Conger, Kate. "Did Russian government hackers leak the DNC emails?". TechCrunch. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  3. ^ Rid, Thomas. "All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack". Motherboard. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  4. ^ "Wikileaks posts nearly 20,000 hacked DNC emails online". Providence Journal. July 22, 2016.
  5. ^ "DNC email leak: Sanders calls for new leader as Clinton camp blames Russia". The Guardian. July 24, 2016.
  6. ^ "DNC email leak: Russian hackers Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear behind breach". The Guardian. July 26, 2016.
I oppose a rename to the vague "2016 United States election and Russia" — that's unclear and not very descriptive, as others have noted, that isn't how the reliable sources have framed it. I oppose (mildly) a move to "Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election" — this is, I think, unnecessarily lengthy. I support a move to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as it reads better. Neutralitytalk 17:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Neutrality, and oppose this vague title proposal change, and support move to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I also concur with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. WP:CONCISE, but also, it's in the active voice, as opposed to passive. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV , "*Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

Russian interference in the 2016 U. S. elections is a widespread view in U.S. intelligence agencies [and numerous cyber security firms], but it hasn't been stated as a fact in reliable sources or in the text of our article. So I think we should keep that in mind when considering an appropriate title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Again left out NOT just U.S. intelligence agencies, but also numerous cyber security firms. Sagecandor (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I'll add it to my above comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
We can stop including U.S. intelligence agencies in any discussion of reliable sources. There's no reason to mention their statements in this context, because they're not reliable sources. Now, is someone here arguing that cyber security firms are reliable sources? I think we should stick to reputable media, and almost all reputable media stories on the subject describe "Russian hacking" as a claim that's been made by American intelligence agencies, rather than as a fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment again ignores assessments of Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect. Sagecandor (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither the intelligence agencies nor the cybersecurity firms have published any reports on this that can be cited, much less something that passes other Wikipedia criteria for a reliable published source. The published reliable sources have not stated the results of these organizations as fact. Also, in the text of our article the results of these organizations have not been stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. So I don't think we should imply in the title that it is a fact.
That will be the last thing I say in this discussion, so good luck to everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The conclusions of Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect -- have indeed been covered by numerous WP:RS secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor, you repeatedly confuse two different things: whether reliable sources state as a fact that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails (they do not, generally, state this), and whether reliable sources report on claims made by U.S. intelligence and certain cybersecurity firms (reliable sources do report on those claims). That distinction is very important, because the current title strongly suggests that Russian interference in the US election is a fact, when it is rather something that various organizations and people have claimed. Reliable sources report on those claims, which is very different from reliable sources stating unequivocally that those claims are correct. The current title, as well as your proposed title below, are therefore POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
It's the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies and Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect -- this is not a single individual person who performed a crime. This was another sovereign nation state. We won't ever get an opinion from a court of law. The fact is it is the conclusion of all of these bodies and that is the single strongest conclusion we will get, most likely. This is not opinion or POV. This is concluded analysis. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor, you don't understand what WP:RS means. It's really as simple as that. There could be 100 intelligence agencies that all claimed the same thing, and 20 cybersecurity firms, but as long as reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) did not report those claims as fact, then we would not be able to treat them as fact here in Wikipedia. Unless you can show that reputable newspapers generally state that Russia conducted the hacks and leaked the documents, then we can't treat those claims as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why the ignoring here the conclusions of the Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect. They are not the United States government. These are reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: this was covered in Wired: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/- Scarpy (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

At least one problem is that 'disinformation' implies the information put forth is false. There have generally been no serious claims that the published emails were false. The anger that's been displayed seems rather directed at Russia's nerve in exposing internal documents of an american organisation, and generally using espionage to publicly shame an maerican organisation, than at the specifics of the case. Using the messenger analogy, it's a matter of not of shooting the messenger because we don't like the message, but rather because we think no messaging should be done. This in turn, is hypocritical, since the US doesn't refrain from doing just the same as Russia is alleged to have done here (but it's okay when we do it because we're only trying to spread democracy, not interfere with it!).88.157.194.238 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus for this move, and there are several editors who expressed concern that both names violate WP:NPOV. There are other similar discussions happening on this talk page. (non-admin closure) Bradv 18:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – This title conforms to the five criteria of WP:TITLE more than any other proposal that I've seen. It lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage in reliable sources, and is is written in a such that a reader could easily find it via search and have an immediate understanding of what the article is about. - MrX 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

  1. Support. Agree with the proposal exactly as written by MrX at [4]. The title Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is the most descriptive, concise, and succinct title for this page. It happened in 2016, it impacted multiple elections, not just one, and the word "interference" is the word most used in a majority of secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. More natural language, matches the sources out there; I agree that it is the most descriptive, concise, and succinct title. Neutralitytalk 19:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nomination. The current wording is awkwardly formed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support this great improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per nomination. The current wording is awkward. Coattail effect (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support This is more succinct and seems more likely to match users' search terms. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support This reads much more naturally. - Scarpy (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support – Easier to read title with better form. Dustin (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support Shorter and easier for the reader to find content.Casprings (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support - better stylistically.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support per my statement in the proposal.- MrX 12:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  13. Support. Active voice is preferable to passive. As for the supposedly "alleged Russian interference", there are numerous RS on who, what, and why, never mind how many times Mr. Peskov uses the word "ridiculous". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Attributing the hacks to Russia, as if that were a fact, is blatantly POV. We need a title that doesn't state accusations and claims made by unreliable sources (i.e., U.S. intelligence agencies) as if they were facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Title should simply be 'Interference in the 2016 United States elections' without any reference to alleged offending country until such time as evidence has been presented to be public to be scrutinized by all. Attack seemingly originating from IP address within Russia does not constitute government involvement. In December interview with Edward Snowden, he too questioned why no evidence has been put forward by U.S. Intelligence agencies to support Russian Government involvement but moreover brought up great comparison. When Sony was hacked, U.S. Intelligence agencies quickly came forward and produced evidence to support their findings that the North Korean Government was responsible for the hack. Here, we have no evidence other than a simple allegation. And, not to take pot shots at the U.S. Intelligence agencies, but these are the same people who lied to Congress for years, about bulk date collection, so credibility is an issue that should not be overlooked. Wikipedia should avoid repeating unfounded allegations and not put itself in the position of becoming another 'fake news' outlet. The title can certainly be changed at a later date once the allegations have been proven. -Parajuris —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – Both the current and proposed titles fail WP:POVTITLE. Either we call it Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or we call it Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I disagree with calling it just Interference in the 2016 United States elections because most sources do discuss Russia, either accusing its government or dismissing their involvement. — JFG talk 00:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per JFG.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per JFG. Assigning guilt in article's title violates WP:POVTITLE, especially since the Russian government has denied these allegations. We include these statements in the article, but the article's title tells the reader that these statements are wrong. While that might be true, that's not the job of the article's title. FallingGravity 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    I now think that the article should be titled Grizzly Steppe because that's what US intelligence is calling it. FallingGravity 06:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose – Nowhere in this article's text does it say in Wikipedia's voice that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. Elections, so the title shouldn't say so either. I think that this proposal is for changing something bad to something else that's bad, and reinforces a bad title idea. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Bob K31416, Thucydides411 and JFG. I consider it practically disruptive that Sagecandor is repeatedly proposing name changes that are practically identical, and all suffer the exact same flaw. The effect is that nobody is able to propose a real change - namely, one that doesn't manufacture a fact from an allegation. -Darouet (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Any of the titles offered by JFG and Parajuris work better than the current title or the proposed alternative.LM2000 (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - article titles should not be manipulated into making unproven claims appear to be undisputed facts. The current title is wrong too, obviously, for the same reason. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - There is already an active redirect with the proposed new name, so it matters little whether this article gets a name change or not. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Oppose per JFG. Even the USA government are only making allegations and that without any evidence provided at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not true — "The F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security released a report on Thursday detailing the ways that Russia acted to influence the American election through cyberespionage." (Full text of report here; related article here: "The F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday also released samples of malware and other indicators of Russian cyberactivity, including network addresses of computers commonly used by the Russians to start attacks. "). Neutralitytalk 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

This title change doesn't assign any more or any less guilty the then previous one, it just improves the readability of the title. If you want to have a discussion about POV, have it not within a discussion about readability. - Scarpy (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • For reference, there have been several alternate titles suggested in the Oppose section:
Interference in the 2016 United States elections – Parajuris
Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – JFG
Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – JFG
and there was also an alternate title suggested in a previous section
2016 United States election and Russia – Bob K31416.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Many of the above opposes pertain to the inclusion of "Russia" in the title. These opposes make little sense considering Russia is already in the title. The new suggested title still contains Russia, but why not come up with a reason why it is worse than the current title? It seems more like blocking a better even if still-flawed title just to make a point. Dustin (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: it's not reasonable to ask editors to choose between two more or less equally poor titles. The problem of the title has been discussed since this article was first created, and that is the primary issue that should be discussed. Debating between two deeply flawed wordings, by contrast, would just give them legitimacy they don't have. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you carefully read the oppose remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, Dustin is exactly right. The RfC specifies two alternatives. If you want to do something else, then let's finish up that RfC and you can start another. Your comment is not actually helpful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I would tend to support the last option you listed - your suggestion - because it is pithy and can contain all relevant material. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on these different proposals you've mentioned? -Darouet (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In Dustin's above message he compared the present title to the RfC's proposed title when he referred to the RfC's proposed title as "a better even if still-flawed title". If that's the case, then simply remove the flaw by adding "Alleged" to the beginning of the proposed title, as one of JFG's proposals did. (Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections) Maybe some of the editors who are supporting the RfC's proposal might go along with that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for changing the title to make it more neutral, but I don't think "alleged" is the right way to go per WP:ALLEGED. If we were to go this route, I think a better way would be "allegations," as in Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. FallingGravity 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I think FallingGravity's suggested title, Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, is a good one. It's explicit and NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Re FallingGravity's comment, "I don't think 'alleged' is the right way to go per WP:ALLEGED" – The guideline WP:ALLEGED says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". They are assertions that have not been accepted by reliable sources (publications) as having been determined to be fact. So I think "alleged" is appropriate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
" They are assertions that have not been accepted by reliable sources (publications) as having been determined to be fact" - hmmmmm...
"president Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election" Right there you got a reliable source (publication) accepting it as "determined to be fact". It doesn't say "alleged", it doesn't say "reported", nothing like that, just straight up "Russia () for its efforts to influence the 2016 election".
"how federal investigators linked the Russian government to hacks of Democratic Party organizations." Right there you got another reliable source accepting it as "determined to be fact". It doesn't say "alleged", it doesn't say "reported", nothing like that, just straight up "linked the Russian government to hacks".
So there you go. Anyway, this RfC is not going to change the title to anything that isn't being proposed in the wording of the rfc itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
As more info comes out from the intelligence community, the reliable sources may trend towards stating it more as a fact than attributing it. Although not being able to release highly classified info by the intelligence community may limit that trend. We'll just have to wait and see how the trend develops. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess in the end they mean the same thing, though there is a slight semantic difference in the article's main subject (alleged makes it about the interference itself, while allegations makes it primarily about the intelligence reports). I see a lot of articles that use "allegations" or "alleged" in their titles anyways. FallingGravity 03:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Support from me for Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as the title. It is well worded and seems factually descriptive of the article's subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Support from me also for Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as the title. Factually descriptive as Tiptoe states above. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cold War II

I think this will be fappropriate for Cold War II article and can have its own subsection seeing as how it was referred to "Cold War-like" especially in face of expulsion of Russian officials. Any suggestions or edits to that article are welcome. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Following reference

Is the following reference a left-over from deleted content? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Fixed now? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Yes, thanks. I should have figured out that it had to be a reference from somewhere on the Talk page, but even if I had I wouldn’t have known how and where to make a text box for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Iraq WMD Trump meme DS etc

this edit is the third or fourth time that editors have had to remove this nonsense, which is an undocumented meme of the Trump camp. RS plainly state that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence consensus concerning Saddam's WMD program. Even if this smear could be documented, the preemptive re-insertions of it are a violation of the DS we are all bound to on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it is an accusation made by the president elect. But we already have that covered. But have any RS made the connection with the fact that it was Bush who manipulated the data, if so we need to make that clear.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"RS plainly state that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence consensus concerning Saddam's WMD program." Not a single RS says anything of the kind. That SPECIFICO believes the CIA never said Iraq had WMD only proves that that user knows absolutely nothing about the Iraq War or the CIA, and should therefore not be editing on the topic. Let's examine this edit, in which SPECIFICO "refutes" the Trump transition team's statement about the CIA being "the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" by adding the qualifier: "A 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that the Bush Administration's claims on the subject were 'not substantiated by the intelligence'." Really, SPECIFICO? What an astonishing—one might say highly improbable—fact! Unsurprisingly, the cited Washington Post source says exactly the opposite of what SPECIFICO wants readers to believe:
  • "Before the October 2002 NIE, some intelligence agencies assessed that the Iraqi government was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, while others disagreed. The NIE reflected a majority view that it was being reconstituted." cf. 2008 Senate report: "Statements by the president, vice president, secretary of state, and the national security advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by the intelligence community, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."
  • "The intelligence community consistently stated between the late 1990s and 2003 that Iraq retained biological warfare agents and the capability to produce more." cf. 2008 Senate report: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."
  • "The October NIE said that Iraq retained between 100 and 500 metric tons of chemical weapons. The intelligence community assessed that Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide its capability in its dual-use chemical industry. However, intelligence assessments clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production [emphasis added] was ongoing." cf. 2008 Senate report: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information. Statements by the president and vice president prior to the October 2002 NIE ... did not [reflect] the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing."
  • Michael Morell: "Does the CIA get everything right? Absolutely not. Was Iraq WMD one of our biggest failures? Yes. But the CIA gets most things right."
  • How, then, does SPECIFICO generate the extraordinary conclusion that the CIA never claimed Iraq had WMD? Apparently, SPECIFICO based their edit on the Nancy Pelosi tweet Glenn Kessler is fact-checking: "The intel didn't state that Iraq had WMDs. The Bush-Cheney WH made that misrepresentation." Pelosi's talking point is obviously a revision worthy of Orwell's 1984, but SPECIFICO has a history of uncritically regurgitating talking points from top Democratic Party officials and then demanding that Wikipedia be rewritten based on those talking points: See, e.g., "the Trump team ... endorsed and requested Russian interference" (implying that the release of 19,252 DNC emails on July 22, 2016 may have been inspired by a joke Trump made on July 27—rather than the reverse—a meme Hilary Clinton personally went to considerable lengths to propagate); "Putin's snarky put-down presumably of the campaign of Sec'y Clinton, whom he despises, is not relevant to this article" (is there any actual evidence that Putin "despises" Clinton besides the post-election speech in which she blamed Putin's "personal beef" for her failures?—If not, why does SPECIFICO think Wikipedia should regard HRC's every word as gospel truth?).
  • The rest is simple fraud: The "not substantiated by the intelligence" quote has nothing to do with WMDs, but rather "Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda and by extension the 9/11 attacks, which were thin and nonexistent"—and the source specifically notes "the Trump team kept its complaint isolated to intelligence findings that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
SPECIFICO, please, please stop wasting everyone's time with your manifest ignorance and incompetence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If SPECIFICO hadn't been twice topic banned for systematically misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing, it would be easier to assume good faith when that user makes outrageous and absurd claims like the CIA never said Iraq had WMD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I said nothing about AGF, I said comment on content not on users. You can assume bad faith as much as you like, you just do not say it. If you think they are a problem user launch an ANI, do not insult them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That "meme" comes directly from a reliable source: "Angesichts der Behauptungen der US-Dienste verweisen Kritiker auf deren Lügen vor dem Irakkrieg und in der NSA-Affäre" (SZ). That comes to something like, "In light of the claims of US [intelligence] agencies, critics point to their [the agencies'] lies before the Iraq War and in the NSA affair." This is a prominent criticism that has been made of the intelligence agencies in regards to the DNC hacking affair, and it's covered by reliable sources. Complaining that Trump also made the criticism doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to exclude it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a NYT investigation in 2014 documented soldiers affected by chemical weapons and their destruction during the 2000s Iraq invasion. Don't know how true it is or if there are any criticisms about the investigation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Those WMDs were old, dating back to the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s. They weren't the active WMD program(s) the U.S. was expecting to find when it invaded.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As TheTimesAreAChanging said, those chemical weapons were old and unusable. They were old artillery shells that were found scattered around the country. While still dangerous to handle in person (partly because they were old and sometimes damaged), they weren't a usable arsenal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
How does stale gas justify re-inserting contested content without consensus? BTW the CIA does a heck of a job SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Your Salon article by Sidney Blumenthal cites Tyler Drumheller and two anonymous CIA agents as making the entirely self-interested claim "that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD." Drumheller's account is contradicted by former CIA Director George Tenet and by Senators Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, and Saxby Chambliss, who wrote in a September 8, 2006 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs" (p. 144). Supposing this to be a whitewash and Drumheller to be telling the truth, it's hard to see how it helps your case. Blumenthal writes:

"The CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. 'We checked on everything he told us.' French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps 'validated' Sabri's claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. 'They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war,' said one of the CIA officers. The officers continued to insist on the significance of Sabri's information, but one of Tenet's deputies told them, 'You haven't figured this out yet. This isn't about intelligence. It's about regime change.' ... The information provided by Sabri was considered so sensitive that it was never shown to those who assembled the NIE on Iraqi WMD. Later revealed to be utterly wrong, the NIE read: 'We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.' ... The CIA officers assigned to Sabri still argued within the agency that his information must be taken seriously, but instead the administration preferred to rely on Curveball. ... When Curveball's information was put into Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, McLaughlin and Tenet allowed it to pass into the speech."

In other words, the CIA is perfectly willing to tell the President whatever he wants to hear. I don't know why you are so confident that history can't be repeating itself—especially when that's exactly what it looks like!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW: "How does stale gas justify re-inserting contested content without consensus?" That's not what MonsterHunter32 is saying, SPECIFICO. (You really need to learn how to read things more carefully.) Like you, MonsterHunter32 is trying to "fact-check" Trump's statement about the CIA's past blunders. You are arguing that the problem lies not with the CIA or the U.S. government as an institution, but solely with mean old Dubya—that as long as the man at the top is half-black and a Democrat, we can go back to uncritically believing whatever the CIA says, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is. MonsterHunter32 is trying a different angle—i.e., that the CIA was vindicated—that Iraq had WMDs after all! On this matter, however, neither of you are likely to persuade anyone. The justification for restoring the Süddeutsche Zeitung material deleted by FallingGravity is straightforward: FallingGravity only deleted it on the mistaken impression that it failed verification; that user overlooked the article's second page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The only reason the Iraq WMD thing is relevant is because Trump brought it up. Otherwise it's a bit like saying, "look in the 1880's the Supreme Court supported segregation! That's how much we can trust the Supreme Court today!". Anyway, because Trump brought it up, we mention it, and move on to more relevant and DUE material. Not engage in polemics and COATRACKIN'. So I agree that once it's mentioned once, there's no point in belaboring it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

2003 wasn't that long ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
A lot has changed since then. But anyway, it's sort of irrelevant to the point. Or points.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The reason why the Iraq WMD thing is relevant is because multiple critics have brought it up, and that criticism has been reported on by reliable sources in news articles. How anyone here feels about the reliability or reputation of the CIA is irrelevant to the question of whether the criticism should be included. We go by the reliable sources, after all. At least, that's what someone once told me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Who are these multiple critics? If they're notable then yeah we can mention it, but like I already said, the fact that the critic Donald Trump brought it up is *already* mentioned. And the point about "How anyone here feels about the reliability... of the CIA" is exactly the point - this isn't an article about the reliability of the CIA so devoting to much space to polemics on the topic is UNDUE/COATRACK. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump isn't the only reason. Matt Taibbi writes for the Rolling Stone, "Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco. "It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it. You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect."

Even if Trump said it first, that doesn't mean other authors can't own it. Scott Ritter writes in the Huffington Post, "as had been the case regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union, the CIA had developed a mindset where its analysis was corrupted by pre-ordained conclusions dictated by desired political outcomes, as opposed to reality. The end result was a “slam dunk” (to quote CIA Director George Tenet’s claim to President George W. Bush that there were WMD in Iraq) that was anything but... The case against Russia is far from being a “slam dunk.” As Stella Rimington, the former head of Britain’s MI-5 Security Service, told NPR about the hacks, “But then there are many people who could have hacked into those files, not only the Russian intelligence service. So you have to remember that, you know, there are many people with that capacity and many reasons for leaking. I very much doubt that it’s all as straightforward as it might appear.”" -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Scott Ritter thing. He says, quote, " the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has (according to anonymous sources) authored a report that concludes that Russia actively intervened in the American electoral process for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election in favor of Donald Trump. " Does anyone seriously doubt that the CIA authored a report? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment directly above, Marek. But to the more important point, we've now identified three prominent critics who raise the Iraq War: Donald Trump, Matt Taibbi and Scott Ritter. And we have the SZ reporting on this criticism in a news article. So at this point, I don't see what the objection is. The original removal of the Iraq War criticism from the "29 December Joint Analysis Report" section was a clear mistake (the editor didn't see the relevant paragraph, and so thought the SZ didn't mention the Iraq War criticism), so I think it's high time to re-include this well-sourced content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Thucydides411.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Lookie here. Now please read the DS template, which says "challenged (by revert). The point I made at the beginning of this thread was that edits like yours, which was not reverting my edit btw, (it was @FallingGravity:'s) violated DS and is not the sort of thing that will promote collaboration here. And the soapbox and off-topic personal rumination that's followed only confirms that. At any rate we have a macro-synth of galactic proportions here, fueled by the false equivalence broadcast by Trump and his team. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's another article (from Harper's Magazine) that goes over criticism of the Russian hacking allegations from a whole number of former intelligence officials and cybersecurity analysts: [5].
@SPECIFICO: Yes, I reverted FallingGravity's edit because the edit summary showed it to be a mistake. There's a difference between making a mistake and challenging material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. That's the stuff of edit wars. Please review the relevant policy and guideline pages. Yours is one of the 31 flavors of "I'm right". SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: While my original edit was based on a cursory glance of the source, I still stand beside it. The clause was confusing and didn't seem to have anything to do with the JAR, just a side comment parroting criticism of the CIA. Anyways, this kind of commentary belongs somewhere in the "Commentary and reactions" section, not necessarily in the JAR section. FallingGravity 02:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: I'm afraid I don't understand how you can stand by your original removal of the text. Your edit summary said that the criticism isn't in the source, but it is. We could move it within the article, but removing it doesn't seem justified to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Please have a look at the colorful triangle at WP:TPNO. Unless I've missed something, it seems like you are stuck at the mint chocolate chip layer in the middle. Could you take a shot at the little gray thing on the top? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no objections to moving the discussed text. However, in the section about the JAR, it's just a tangential side comment, regardless if it is mentioned in the source. FallingGravity 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is all off-topic and undue for the subject of this article. There has been a lot of ink spilled on the deceptions and distortions of various Bush Administration officials at the time of the Iraq War #2. But it is only Trump and his claque who have promoted the false equivalence between that willful deception and the current intelligence assessment. Unfortunately, editors will need to set aside their personal quests for new truths and revelations, stop second-guessing the publicly available detail, and stick to what the weight of the RS references tell us. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But it is only Trump and his claque who have promoted the false equivalence between that willful deception and the current intelligence assessment. That's patently untrue. Matt Taibbi, Scott Ritter, William Binney and Pierre Sprey aren't Trump's "claque." Even if they were, I don't see how it would matter - we don't censor out political views of people we dislike here. They're well-known figures, and their opinions have been published in reliable sources.
Unfortunately, editors will need to set aside their personal quests for new truths and revelations, stop second-guessing the publicly available detail, and stick to what the weight of the RS references tell us. I read this as an exhortation to not include "second-guessing" of American intelligence agencies and Crowdstrike. Did I get that right? As it happens, reliable sources are reporting on criticism of the case that's been made about Russian hacking. We have the Süddeutsche Zeitung news article I cited above, as well as a number of columns either written by or which cite well-known figures: Matt Taibbi, Scott Ritter, William Binney and Pierre Sprey. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
"Well known" is not WP's standard for expertise on any subject. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Scott Ritter, William Binney and Pierre Sprey don't have any relevant expertise? We already cite all sorts of non-experts in this article: Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton, Michael McFaul and Robert S. McElvaine, for example. What's the rationale for including their opinions, but not those of technical experts like Ritter, Binney and Sprey? Is it that they're well-known public figures? In that case, Matt Taibbi's commentary should certainly be included as well, since he's a well-known political commentator. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Arstechnica:White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

A good article, I recommend as source for this page [6]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for opinion of non-notable journalist Goodin. Any notable experts cited by any press accounts can be included with the opinions accurately summarized in proportion to their incidence and attributed to whichever notable expert. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
"Dan is the Security Editor at Ars Technica, which he joined in 2012 after working for The Register, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, and other publications." -Darouet (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's right. We already knew that. He's a journalist. Not a cybersecurity expert. He's also not a WP:NOTABLE journalist. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The security editor of one of the most widely read technology news websites isn't a valid source? That doesn't sound like a reasonable position to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Brief mention is fine but let's not give it undue weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(Also SPECIFICO said "not notable" not "not valid").Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunning new anonymous leaks

Although the following claims by anonymous U.S. officials should be taken with a grain of salt, considering the ludicrous fabrications anonymous U.S. officials have promulgated about Russia within recent memory, it is noteworthy that the U.S. Government is finally addressing some of the obvious holes in its story (while presenting President Obama in the most glowing light imaginable). Anonymous U.S. officials now say it was only "after the November election" that "U.S. intelligence agencies obtained what they considered to be conclusive evidence ... that Russia provided hacked material from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks," even though "U.S. officials had concluded months earlier that Russian intelligence agencies had directed the hacking." In addition, we are told, "Obama ... declined to take action" in October because "such a move could be seen as an effort to help Clinton and discredit Republican Trump"—who Obama was lambasting as "singularly unfit for the Presidency" at the time, but whatever. Most importantly, anonymous U.S. officials concede that Russia did not directly provide the emails to WikiLeaks, but rather delivered them through an unnamed proxy, thus casting Assange and his denials in the role of Lenin's putative "useful idiot." "The officials declined to describe the intelligence obtained about the involvement of a third-party in passing on leaked material to WikiLeaks, saying they did not want to reveal how the US government had obtained the information."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell: According to three officials, Russia provided hacked material from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks through a third party. "The officials declined to describe the intelligence obtained about the involvement of a third-party in passing on leaked material to WikiLeaks, saying they did not want to reveal how the US government had obtained the information." This sounds like everything else. -Darouet (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wordfence Security was able to capture a full sample of the PHP malware mentioned in the Department of Homeland Security/FBI Joint Analysis Report (JAR) from the Yara signature provided. It turns out that the malware in question is an outdated version of an open source hacking tool with an "About" and "FAQ" page written in English, that any random nine-year-old can download off a Ukrainian website for free: "The PHP malware sample they have provided appears to be P.A.S. version 3.1.0 which is commonly available and the website that claims to have authored it says they are Ukrainian. It is also several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources." In addition, of the 876 IP addresses listed, "they are globally distributed with most of them in the USA." Where is the Russian fingerprint?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, SPECIFICO, we already know "talk page is for article improvement." Wordfence is a small company, but its software has been downloaded over 22 million times, its employees are experts in their field, and its conclusions can be replicated. Given that most journalists writing about the DNC and Podesta email hacks lack the technical competence to evaluate the data presented in the JAR report, Wordfence seems like a far more reliable source in this context than the staff of the Times or the Post. The Wordfence analysis has also received coverage in secondary sources, such as the tech site ZDNet and the opinion site Bloomberg View ([7], [8]), so I can see no reason why it should be excluded.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a... blog? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Angry Birds has been downloaded two billion times! SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the cybersecurity analyses we mention in the article were originally published on blogs. The question is whether news media has picked up those analyses. Wordfence's analysis has been covered by news media, so it's notable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABLE. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Their analysis has not been picked up by mainstream media so currently lacks weight. There is no deadline, so we can add information about the evidence in this case if and when it becomes reported there. Mind you it's starting to sound a lot like 2003 with the same politicians leading. TFD (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia's reply to the sanctions

Is it okay to add a sentence detailing Russia's reply to the new US sanctions, namely inviting a similar number of US diplomats in Moscow to attend Orthodox Christmas celebrations at the Kremlin? (Or was it already agreed by editors that mentioning the Russian reply is irrelevant?) A suitable reference might be this TASS article Esn (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Political considerations

I dislike to be the one to bring this up, but has anyone considered Murder of Seth Rich? Are we observing the parents wish this not be politicised or has it just not occurred to anyone. I thought maybe we could just add it to the see also section or something, especially given people mentioned elsewhere have already, you know, politicized this thing. Mainly I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts. - 55378008a (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"commentary by non-experts"

"commentary by non-experts" was used by SPECIFICO to delete expert comments by Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America and by Jeffrey Carr, author of Inside Cyber Warfare (what, writing a book on the subject matter does not count these days?). SPECIFICO further questioned a Rolling Stone article cited by Fortune where journalist Matt Taibbi questioned the credibility of the report. Now, Taibbi may not be a cybersecurity expert, but he has his own Wikipedia page and his opinion was deemed noteworthy by another WP:RS. Something does not look quite right here. XavierItzm (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi is a journalist, not a cybersecurity expert. Most important, this article does not really explain why exactly the report by agencies was wrong, unless I am missing something. That's why I do not think it belongs here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We must be on alternate realities here. The article specifically reads: "he highlights extensive sloppy mistakes and limited practical data in the Grizzly Steppe report. A list of names used to identify hacking campaigns, such as APT28 and COZYBEAR, inexplicably mingles in the names of both malware tools and capabilities," content provided by "Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America."[1] If this is not a cybersecurity expert, then who is? XavierItzm (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Z. Morris. "Grizzly Misstep: Security Experts Call Russia Hacking Report "Poorly Done," "Fatally Flawed"". Retrieved 3 January 2017. Jeffrey Carr, author of Inside Cyber Warfare, wrote on Friday that the report "adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible" for the campaign hacks. Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America, argues that the report is of limited use to security professionals, in part because of poor organization and lack of crucial details.
This is a different publication. It tells opinion by Jeffrey Carr, not by Matt Tallibi. He does not tell that reports were wrong. He only tells the reports did not provide enough detail and proof, possibly for security reasons. As about Lee, he "is much less skeptical of the White House, calling the accusations against the Russian government “a strong and accurate statement.” I do not think this edit properly summarizes these different opinions. To the contrary, this edit twists sources in a highly POV fashion. So, yes, I agree with removal by SPECIFICO. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO left a message on user talk and stated "You falsely attributed to me the revert of content relating the opinion of Mr. Lee, former cybersecurity officer" and asked me to clarify here. Per his request, I would like to clarify that yes, he deleted a Fortune ref containing the opinions of "Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America" using as reason for his edit: "This is weakly sourced and WP:UNDUE redundant commentary by non-experts on a technical matter". Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We can do w/o the snark here. This is the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If you read whole paragraph (diff above), it begins from Cybersecurity experts speaking with the Süddeutsche Zeitung stated that the technical details included in the Joint Analysis Report were not sufficient to prove that the Russian government was responsible for the intrusion. That's OK. I think this can be rephrased to make it clear that such opinion was shared not only by experts speaking with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but also by other experts. But that is the essence of the criticism of this report, and it should be summarized in this way (i.e. essentially as already said on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The last objection to the edit as originally entered is: "I do not think this edit properly summarizes these different opinions." Now, the edit that was reverted was «Other experts cited by Fortune called the Grizzly Steppe report “poorly done” and “fatally flawed,”» and observe this came straight from _the_title_ of the Fortune article. Quote the Forbes title «Grizzly Misstep: Security Experts Call Russia Hacking Report “Poorly Done,” “Fatally Flawed”». It is notable that an edit to a Wikipedia entry can be called an improper summary when the title of the WP:RS itself contains the edit! XavierItzm (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, WP is charged with representing the weight of mainstream views and reaching for Suddeutche and Fortune.com and Taibbi on the second-biggest front page story of 2016 is not really very convincing. I know that there's plenty of Reddit chatter and techie inside-sports gossip going on, but we as editors need to stick to the weight of mainstream consensus. To me, John McCain and Paul Ryan trump Taibbi and VC start-up Dragos. And remember, journalists are not experts. They are reporters. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gentleman, citing one of the most respected international newspapers isn't "reaching." It's equivalent to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Do you know what's not convincing? Trying to rule out a major newspaper as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
WP isn't "charged with representing the weight of mainstream views," we're charged with representing the weight of views published in reliable sources per WP:UNDUE. Since these views are published in reliable sources they should be included somewhere. Also, John McCain and Paul Ryan? So the opinions of two political hacks trumps those of journalists who are non-experts because they're "reporters"? Give me a break. FallingGravity 04:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Logic fail, 411. Picture a bell shaped curve of "views" -- we don't give prominence to the ones on the tail merely because they're in RS. If it's nowhere in RS, we don't represent that view at all -- but if it's fringe or if it's minority or if it is uninformed, we give it little weight. This is not Reddit or Twitter, where opinions, armchair history and fake news flow free. You may really be convinced that McCain is a "hack" but he's also a ranking member of Senate committees privy to all kinds of intelligence information and with seasoned judgment. That's not my view, that is the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You're confusing me with FallingGravity. I do, however, agree with FallingGravity that journalists writing for major newspapers are more credible sources than politicians. As far as I understand it, that's also how Wikipedia policy sees it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
411, I was looping back to your comment in the preceding section on this same matter. Journalists are not cited for their own opinions, they are cited for accurate representation of facts including facts concerning the opinions of identified expert or knowledgeable sources. In the latter group, we include even politicians we may not like -- provided their views are cited by a third party with a reputation for accuracy and thoughtful evaluation as to the significance of the cited view. SPECIFICO talk 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we can't cite politicians for statements of fact (except, perhaps, to report their own political views). But when a reputable newspaper interviews cybersecurity experts (and whether or not they're experts is determined by the newspapers, not you), those experts' views are notable. The Süddeutsche Zeitung is eminently reputable, and we can trust them to find experts to interview. It looks to me like your argument boils down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a good reason to exclude a reliable source. You're making the really amazing proposal that because John McCain's views conflict with the reporting of a reputable newspaper, we should exclude the latter. That's simply not an argument you can make here on Wikipedia. We go by reliable sources, like newspapers, not the say-so of politicians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You're making the really amazing proposal that because John McCain's views conflict with the reporting of a reputable newspaper, we should exclude the latter. That's utterly absurd. It wasn't SPECIFICO who brought up McCain, it was Falling Gravity. SPECIFICO clearly put forth the argument that views which fall outside those of the mainstream of views, even if they come from reliable sources, should be given weight commiserate to their agreement with the mainstream view.
Now, I'm of the opinion that criticism needs to be included, because there is criticism out there in the RSes. But this criticism, despite being a minority view, has been added to multiple sections, including the lead. That is clearly undue weight. It's perfectly appropriate to add a brief mention of what a cybersecurity expert said in reaction to the JAR (as opposed to merely noting that he criticized it), but it's not appropriate to salt the article with minority-view criticisms. That's a serious POV shift that attempts to lead the reader to the conclusion that there is not wide acceptance of the common view. To that, I say "hell no." Taking a longer view at the section section about the JAR, I'm also beginning to seriously question if having more than 1/3 of the section being about criticism is due, when the majority of sources are reporting the contents with no hints of skepticism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
[T]he majority of sources are reporting the contents with no hints of skepticism. Reliable sources are reporting that the JAR was released, and what it says. It's not the typical job of a news report to state whether they agree or disagree with the conclusions of the report, and I haven't seen any news articles that state the report to be correct. In that sense, I don't know what you could mean by no hints of skepticism. The only news articles I have come across that comment specifically with the veracity or strength of the report, those in Ars Technica and the Süddeutsche Zeitung, describe it as weak. So I see no evidence that the "mainstream" view in reliable sources is to declare the hacking allegations against Russia true, or to see the JAR in particular as a strong/convincing report.
I think several editors here are perhaps confusing the opinion one reads in many American op-ed sections and sees on American political opinion shows (on CNN and other cable outlets), which I agree are largely believing of the American governments' claims, with the news sections of reputable newspapers, which by contrast generally attribute claims of Russian hacking, rather than treating them as fact (as I showed above with 5 randomly selected news articles). Hence, the mismatch between editors here claiming over and over again that the hacking allegations are proven fact, and suggesting that the Süddeutsche Zeitung is akin to "fake news," and the cautious tone generally taken by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources are reporting that the JAR was released, and what it says. That's right. And there's no skepticism in that. If a dozen sources report "X happened" and one source reports "X happened, and it's some bullshit" then our article is going to say "X happened. One source thinks X is some bullshit." We're not going to say "X happened, and it's some bullshit."
I think several editors here are perhaps confusing the opinion one reads in many American op-ed sections and sees on American political opinion shows (on CNN and other cable outlets), which I agree are largely believing of the American governments' claims, with the news sections of reputable newspapers, I think at least one editor here is confusing op-eds with non-reliable sources for claims about beliefs. Op-eds are perfectly reliable for their own opinions, and their opinions are largely credulous. This isn't just CNN though, this is NPR and a dozen reliable web outlets as well. As is summarized in the criticisms by Suddeutsche Zeitung, the explanation for the problems could be that the evidence is weak, or it could be that the CIA is protecting its sources, or it could be that the report was written by an analyst who doesn't know hacking, or it could be some combination of the above. I never heard any commentary from any expert prior to its release suggesting the report would be a smoking gun; everyone I heard from said it was likely to not add all that much, due to the heavy bureaucracy involved in preparing it and the CIA's interest in protecting its sources. The issue now is whether the preponderance of sources (notable in and of themselves or acknowledged experts) still thinks this or thinks that the report shows how flimsy the evidence is. So far, I've heard a lot of the former and little of the latter, until I come here. On this talk page, and in the article, I'm seeing a lot of the latter and only a little of the former. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not whether reporters are better experts than politicians but whether we can rely on mainstream news media to determine the weight of opinion of experts or whether Wikipedia editors are better able to make that determination. Obviously reliable sources are better able to make that determination. Note also that the issue is not whether there is proof about Russian hacking, but whether the Grizzly Steppe report provides the proof. TFD (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to this edit, which was deleted by SPECIFICO for the reason of "commentary by non-experts" and with whom «My very best wishes» agreed because of does not "properly summarizes these different opinions," I'd like to summarize how each objection has been responded to:

  • (1) The commentary came from "2" experts
  • (2) The edit consisted of the title of the citation (i.e., it was the summary of the opinions by the WP:RS)

The objections then switched tacks and questioned other aspects, which were responded as follows:

  • (3) That the citation does not describe "why" Grizzly Steppe is wrong: it does, with extremely literal examples
  • (4) That Taibbi is not a cybersecurity exp - yes, but his Rolling Stone article is specifically cited by the WP:RS

The objections have now further switched tacks and now the issue is that the original edit is not so bad anymore, but needs to be "rephrased" and that somehow the original edit is "reaching". One finds the goalpost switching quite interesting to see. XavierItzm (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This particular thread has nothing to do with Süddeutsche Zeitung. If there are no further objections, the abusively deleted edit should be re-posted, as all questions have been answered. XavierItzm (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Unless notice is posted that people still disagree with the edit, the edit will be re-posted, as there seem to be no outstanding objections, not that any objections were ever sustained by anyone (apparently people simply had not read the sources). XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the re-posting of the deleted material. JS (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There's plenty of disagreement with your view, so this should not be in the article until there's demonstrated consensus. Putting a note on talk and then reinstating shortly thereafter with no affirmative consensus is at best gaming the Discretionary Sanctions here. We are not all notified by our smart watches, cellphones, or toe implants to reply immediately to "if there is no objection." There was clearly no consensus to reinsert it and numerous objections explained on this page. Despite that, @XavierItzm: reinserted it at 07:36 6 Jan here, This reinsertion of challenged content without demonstrated consensus was a violation of the DS as stated in the template at the top of this talk page. The reinsertion should be removed and any further advocacy of should be made on this talk page, per the requirements of DS. This is the second recent violation of this reinstatement sanction. In general, editors here should be able to collaborate within the rules we are given. If editors here cannot uphold self-governance, the alternative will be to cede this page as occupied territory patrolled by Admins and Arbcom to restore the principles we all must uphold as editors on this Project. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is demonstrably false that "There's plenty of disagreement" with the edit, as each and every actual objection has been addressed as of 3 January. Specifically, the objection raised by User:SPECIFICO (lack of expert commentary) was proven to be quite spurious. Calls for any additional objections were raised on 4 January 2017. On 5 January, it was advised that unless objections are raised, the edit would be re-instated. On 6 January, the edit was re-instated.

If no further objections are raised, this edit will be re-instated. XavierItzm (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I of course agree, but SPECIFICO's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to delete well-sourced material on spurious grounds and then get their opponents blocked on some technicality, so tread carefully.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That "technicality" here would be WP:NPA - discuss content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Taking a quick look, I see statements of disagreement alongside mine from several editors dispute you. I am looking on this thread and also on the thread captioned SZ article. It does not matter whether there are "further objections". There are already objections that demonstrate you haven't achieved consensus for your version. Jn order to show consensus, you would need is to change the minds of those of us who have explained our non-approval. This is simple logic. If you wish to reinsert, don't declare that the default is you will do as you please. You could say something like "will those who have previously opposed reinsertion now please state that you have reconsidered your objections and now agree that the content should be reinserted." That would be the least you'd need to do before you deny all the previously stated objections on this page. Alternatively, you could post an RfC with your proposed edit stated and ask for a record of our current views on the matter. But you can't just declare that you're going ahead in the face of opposition unless those who disagree read your message and repeat their opposition. That's just not the way things are done on WP. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Craig Murray

At what point was there a consensus to reinsert this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't reinsert it, but it looks fine to me. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that Craig Murray's claim about the sourcing of the leaks is not notable. In my humble opinion, it would be absolutely crazy to remove that item from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This should not be in the article. There was/is no consensus to re-insert it. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection to mentioning Craig Murray. He claimed that the emails came from an insider. That claim has been covered by news media ([9] [10]), so it's notable. So what's your objection to it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
For starters, the emails and other documents were published in July, and Murray said that he personally picked them up in a secluded wooded area in D.C. in September (the link to the Daily Mail interview - not a reliable source, but what the hey - is in the archived discussion). Also, Assange kinda disowned him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like WP:OR to me. You may not believe what Craig Murray says, but it is notable. I think Assange's statement that he can't comment on Murray's claims is also notable. To my knowledge, Assange hasn't contradicted Murray's claims, but rather said that Wikileaks can't comment any further about its sources. But again, the fact that someone's statements might be false does not mean that they're not notable. Crowdstrike's analysis might be completely wrong, but we cover it here. Obama's statements about Putin directing the DNC hack might be completely wrong, but we cover it here. A lot of statements that we cite in the article might be completely wrong, but they've received coverage, and are therefore notable. Craig Murray's statement is notable, and that's really the crux of the matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please, please. We do not use the term "notable" to discuss choices regarding WP:WEIGHT -- that is simply not the standard that we use. Please review the policies regarding weight and the definition of WP:NOTABLE. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Craig Murray is currently mentioned in the article (or rather, Assange's refusal to comment on his claims), which is good. All noteworthy allegations from all sides should be included. There should be no room for WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Esn (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Replaced it with current Assange assertion. Murray is irrelevant to the article’s subject, and there was no consensus to reinsert. Multiple unreliable and unverifiable sources, from Murray to the anonymous intermediary to the anonymous source. Cloak-and-dagger handover story in a British tabloid may be a juicy morsel for a mention in a publication that didn’t take Murray seriously, but it’s not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Weakileaks seems to be pushing several alternate storylines to deflect suspicion from their Russian bankrollers/sources. Alleged handover took place several months after publication of tens of thousands of documents in June and July, so it’s clearly not related to DNC server hack. And, if Podesta breach, which is it - the 14-year old spearphisher or the insider with "authorized access" to Podesta’s personal gmail account? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

@SPECIFICO: has repeatedly fabricated sources to push their POV in this article, and it seems they just can't stop. Check out SPECIFICO's latest edit:

An article in The Daily Beast ... stated that, while there is solid evidence of Russia's interference, the incompleteness of the report encouraged skeptics it called "truthers" and those who argue that Trump's and Assange's denials are valid, despite years of cybersecurity industry research that invalidates their claims.

Here is the Daily Beast article in question. I've read it twice now, and used ctrl + f to search for keywords like "truthers" and "Assange"—desperate to find anything even remotely resembling SPECIFICO's edit. But there's just nothing there: Nothing about Assange or his "denials," no mention of "truthers," no conclusion that the "truthers" had been "invalidated." SPECIFICO made it all up (again).

  • SPECIFICO has been topic banned twice for misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing; this is clearly something the user does systematically as part of their Wikipedia M.O. (But even if SPECIFICO is merely incompetent, their manifest need for a baby-sitter still proves they are a net negative to this project.) Are there any admins willing to say "SPECIFICO is allowed to fabricate x number of citations before being topic banned from American Politics"? It would save us all a lot of disruption.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the truth is much more boring. I screwed up and didn't add the second Daily Beast article that verifies the text I edited. I've now corrected my error and Bob's your uncle.

SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

TTAAC, you really need to tone down the battleground language. And let's remember that you were almost topic banned from this topic yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I checked SPECIFICO's new source. Still no "truthers" in the body of the article, although the term was added to the headline as clickbait. While SPECIFICO's edit is still misleading and inaccurate WP:SYNTH conflating two different sources, at least it's not as bad as I thought.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Headlines are not reliable sources and per WP:WEIGHT even if the author used the term we would need sources to establish its significance, i.e., a source that says someone other than the writer had used the term. TFD (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Breibart Joy Reid does [[11]], make of that what you will.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: has intentionally reinserted errors into the article, after both SPECIFICO and I moved to correct them. (And not in a way that helps push his anti-Putin agenda, as he supposes—for example, he deleted mention of a cyber-security expert strongly supporting the allegations against Russia.) This is just sloppy editing; if Volunteer Marek has any concern for accuracy, he should promptly self-revert.

  • As a sidenote, VM, if English is your second language and you are confused by the meaning of English words like "recounted," what follows is the definition I get from Google.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "Tell someone about something; give an account of an event or experience."
    • "I recounted the tale to Steve"; "Gretchen recounted everything she could remember about what happened that night."
    • "Synonyms: tell, relate, narrate, give an account of, describe, report, outline, delineate, relay, convey, communicate, impart."
Jebus Forking Crust, you *really* need to chill out with the battleground language like "intentionally reinserted errors" or other nonsense or no one will take you seriously. I know I won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And I'm perfectly aware of what "recounted" means but in this context it is confusing and sloppy wording. It's about good, clear writing - so please take your condescension and stuff it in your Creative Writing for Dummies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You commented above, so I assume that you read though the thread, in which case you must know you are misrepresenting a reliable source. In addition, you changed Wikipedia's summary of the source, so, again, I assume you read it first—which also implies your conduct is intentional. I am merely assuming that you are competent to edit: Are you really going to plead incompetence? That you routinely respond to comments without so much as skimming them, and routinely cite sources you haven't bothered to read? I hope that is not true. Either way, please fix your error. The intentionality will be incontestable if you refuse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, look. First you accused another editor of "fabricating sources". Now that is actually pretty ridiculous since in the English language that would mean that he made up the very existence of the source. So it wasn't true. I guess what you meant was "misrepresented". Well, that turned out not to be true also. Then you accused them of "just making it up". Also false. All that happened is that there was a slight mistake in the formatting of the ref. Believe it or not, this makes YOU, not the other editor, look bad, because it clearly illustrates your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
Then you go and start raving about how I "intentionally reinserted errors" along with some passive-aggressive condescending crap about English as second language. And you piled on with bullshit WP:ASPERSIONS about a supposed "agenda". I don't think so. If there were errors point out what they were. But really, all this is is just two different ways of summarizing the same article. So, again, if you want to be taken seriously, dropped the hyperbolic rhetoric and approach discussion with other editors in good faith (I guess asking you to assume it would be too optimistic, soft bigotry of low expectations and all that aside).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is your edit. Here is your "source." Try reading them. See the problem?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
So what you mean is that all this time you could've simply added the other DB ref yourself, but instead chose to use this as an opportunity to make hyperbolic attacks (good faith, competence, English proficiency, etc.) on other editors? Sigh. Please, really, read WP:NOT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
EC: I'm not sure if I could have restored the deleted source or not—I might have been accused of a "1RR" violation or "reinstating challenged material" and taken to some noticeboard where my every action would be scrutinized by a hostile crowd. (If they didn't get me on the initial "violation," they might get me on something else.) That's the problem with American Politics: Users live in constant fear of being arbitrarily sanctioned for tripping over one silly regulation or another.
Now that you've fixed the more obvious error, can you explain why you removed almost all of the content of the source in favor of the inflammatory "truther" label found nowhere in the body of either article? Don't you know that headlines are often written by editors and frequently give a very poor or sensationalist account of the original story? Do you sincerely believe that you are contributing to building a neutral encyclopedia with edits like that? Because that's what most of us want (very few users have formed, say, off-wiki cabals to systematically push a given POV, for example an anti-Russian POV).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If you can reformulate your statement in a way which isn't chuck full of personal attacks, nasty insinuations and dishonest rhetorical questions, I might consider replying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, the whole purpose behind bolding some text is to emphasize the parts which are really important or which have potentially ambiguous meaning. When you bold just some random words or clauses in your comments it doesn't do much except confuse the other people in the conversation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent reinstatement of disputed text without consensus

Per DS, I have made the following request regarding a recent edit: [12]. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Great powers frequently deploy partisan electoral interventions as a major foreign policy tool. For example, the U.S. and the USSR/Russia have intervened in one of every nine competitive national level executive elections between 1946 and 2000. Quick question...did you happen to read the actual source at all before misapplying WP:SYNTH? TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes I read it before I reverted and of course I do not believe that I am mistaken as to my revert. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So...you forgot to read WP:SYNTH? TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That material does not belong in this article. It's WP:OR and obviously meant to posit a tu quoque argument in violation of WP:NPOV.- MrX 19:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
How exactly is it OR when it is very nearly a violation of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and would likely be were it longer. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
1. Be civil. 2. That article does not refer to the current situation. The essence of SYNTH is the juxtaposition of two statements to lead the reader to a third statement that was not intended by either source. It's SYNTH and it's UNDUE wrt the subject of this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. That's not what SYNTH is, there is no implication, and the content wasn't stating anything that wasn't explicitly in the source.
  2. Seems a lot to me like the LA Times, NPR, HuffPo, and The Guardian all thought it was pretty relevant. TimothyJosephWood 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Plus Slate, Wash Post, Senator Thom Tillis, ect. There are too many secondary sources making the connection for this to be dismissed, even if facts are inconvenient to ideologists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reflecting SPECIFICO's response as I was just about to respond with the same. In fact, you can toss WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:GEVAL into the equation. This is an article specifically about the 2016 election, not an essay on generalised political practices. Throwing op-ed "background" content not pertaining to the RS discussing the actual event is op-ed nonsense designed specifically WP:COATRACK to manipulate the reader's understanding that, even if the RF did interfere, it's standard practice = it's okay 'cos the US and Russia do it all the time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see above sources referring this research in relation to the event. TimothyJosephWood 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I did... and you are misrepresenting them as being the voice of the sources rather than the handful of op-ed pieces that they are. If they are of value as background info, they must be attributed INTEXT, not represented by a generalised statement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to delete the paragraph but couldn't save my edit because MrX was faster. My reasons: Election meddling by anybody against anybody from 1946 to 2000 is WAY off-topic for an article on one specific election in 2016, two wrongs don't make a right, and nice "Soviet- era punch-line". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems a heckuva lot more encyclopedic for a background section that a particular spat between Clinton and Putin. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's a separate article altogether. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So...let me just get this straight, you don't think that Russia attempting to interfere in 36 separate elections between WWII and 2000 is relevant information to the question of whether they attempted to interfere in the 2016 election? TimothyJosephWood 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems rather commonsense that background information on US and Russian interfering in each others elections. Be included in the background section of the article about Russia interfering in the US election. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rabid lefty who doesn't buy the "Russia is totes innocent!!1!1" line here. I just want to say that this sentence provides context and should stay. This article is about a state interfering in the democratic process of another state. The sentence is about the recent (7 decade or so) history of the two states involved here interfering in the democratic processes of other states. As much as I believe SPECIFICO is correct in that this is an attempt to shift the POV and provide a tu quoque to the allegations, it's not at all undue. Saying it doesn't belong is the equivalent of supporters of evolution saying "No, evolution is not a theory! The problem isn't that the text is undue or SYNTH, it's that it shifts the POV. But since the information is accurate and since the information provides context it's just a POV shift we have to live with. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Note I think it's worth pointing out that this sentence does NOT require its own section. Giving it a new section is so blatantly obviously undue that I'm not surprised this is contentious. Just put the sentence into the background section and be done with it. Yeesh. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we have to have two RfCs and three AE reports before we can do that. TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget about the half-dozen ANI threads and 8-10 aborted mediation requests. And the partridge in a pear tree. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Note 2: The Return I just want to specify that the version quoted at the top of this thread is the one that's not synth. There was another, earlier version that gave specific numbers that didn't appear in the source. That was definitely synth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I knew we would come to this: I never expected Wikipedians to bother reading through the entire peer-reviewed study, as opposed to pressing ctrl + f and searching for "81." For the record, Levin states that 69% (81) of the 117 U.S./Russian interventions studied were committed by the U.S., while 31% (36) were committed by the Soviet Union or Russia. Every single one of these interventions is documented in the appendix; feel free to count them for yourself. Or try one of numerous secondary sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I knew we would come to this... Let me offer you a word of advice: Shut your stupid pie holeStop ranting. The fact that you feel the need to jump in exclusively to whine about a mistake of mine (Yeah, ya caught me. I use Ctrl+F sometimes when I'm at work and don't have the ability to read through a lengthy source) while never once addressing any shortcomings of your own arguments (Still waiting for those RSes claiming Russia didn't do it to back up the repeated claims that these are "merely" allegations) or even recognizing the fact that I'm on your side in this particular issue for fuck's sake accomplishes absolutely nothing but undermining any credibility you may have managed to hang onto with every editor reading this thread who actually bothered to follow the arguments thus far. You're making it crystal clear that you're more focused on contributors than content with responses like these, and it's not only bad for winning an argument here, it's back for your block log in the long term, because (lest you forget) you're sitting at AE right now for this exact type of behavior with a case that isn't about to be shut with no action at this point. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Personal politics and opinions are completely irrelevant to wp articles. This is not an article about the history of the world/the history of what happened between the US and Soviet Russia/geopolitics/global economics/everything you can shove into the subject that is even vaguely related... Read WP:HERE +WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly? Are we actually linking to WP:HERE? Has it gotten this toxic? Should I just go ahead and open an RfC? TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If you feel compelled to do so, then do so. These pie fights aren't going to go away amicably, so it's better to let the community decide than preach at each other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll put one together tonight or tomorrow if no one else does. Doesn't look like there's much collaborative spirit to be had here, not when the MO is to immediately throw out completely irrelevant policies with basically no substantive argument, and go from zero to WP:HERE in four comments. You all need to seriously examine your attitudes and take a good reminder that the purpose of WP:DS is to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment, not...whatever this is. TimothyJosephWood 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
What 'this is' is, unfortunately, typical of all high traffic, contentious articles. Collegiality may be the aim, but it doesn't always work that way. As you can see, everyone thinks that they are correct in interpreting policy. If it can't be worked through, consulting with the broader community is the sensible approach. What I find bizarre is that you haven't even allowed time for the WP:BRD process. Personally, I think you are jumping the gun with an RfC only a couple of hours after the 'bold' introduction of the content... but, then, what would a toxic editor such as myself know about the machinations of wp... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you in particular are toxic; I think the environment is toxic. I think you in particular obviously and overwhelmingly failed to AGF when you linked to HERE, and that you should probably refrain from doing so in the future, or at least stop for one second to check whether you're talking to an SPA or an experienced editor. And with that, I'll disengage with the conversation until I have a proposal. If the environment makes discussion useless, which it apparently has, then I will default to the next step in the DR process, rather than wasting more time here trying to explain what SYNTH is to editors who damn well should know better. TimothyJosephWood 22:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Iryna Harpy, I started my participation in this thread by describing myself as a "rabid lefty who doesn't buy the "Russia is totes innocent!!1!1" line". A quick perusal of this page will show that I have resisted attempts to add the word "alleged" into the article title, and taken the position that the RSes treat the subject of this article as if Russia were guilty. I have expressed at least once here that I lean rather strongly towards the "Russia did it" line. I've elsewhere argued against pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, pro-Republican, anti-Democrat, pro-Democrat-party-line, socially conservative and fiscally conservative positions. For you to link me to WP:HERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because I disagree with you over this particular edit is one of the most ignorant, biased and dogmatic responses I could possibly imagine. You have literally sunk to the same level as banned editors who used to comment in all caps on talk pages about "KILLARY SHRILLS!!!1!1!11!1oneoneone", with the only distinction being that you did so with a tad bit more self-control. I don't know you from Eve (to use what appears to be the appropriate gender in the old idiom), but I would bet hard money that as an active wikipedian with years of experience and a clean block log, you are better than that. Please don't prove me wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I think have the wrong end of the WP:PERSONAL stick and were running with it. I was commenting on the WP:SHOUTing MPants at work was engaging in, and continues to engage in. Shouting and declaring that the other editor is wrong is not a valid argument for the discussion of content. That is the sticking point (and it is not somehow ameliorated by a link to something he has created in his own draft space 'explaining' that "shut your pie hole" is intended to be humorous). That 'qualification' deserves nothing less than a "dubious/discuss" template.
We were not discussing what MPants at work's political beliefs are, what he has or hasn't supported, but the fact that the content under discussion is not acceptable in the form in which it is presented. There is a huge disparity in intent between criticising an editor for an inappropriate MO for interacting with other editors. It is legitimate criticism, not a personal attack. The response to my criticism is most definitely a personal attack. If an editor is unable to accept criticism of their behaviour without screeching about being under attack, that is problematic behaviour down to them, not to me.
I do believe that I was treading on the precarious side of AGF but, that aside, I'll concede fully that you are correct about an RfC this early in the piece. The toxic environment is escalating, and fresh eyes on the content are needed pronto. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy So, you mean to say that you were replying to something I said an hour and fifteen minutes before I said it? That's quite a talent you've got there. Can you tell me what next week's lotto numbers are, by chance?
In all seriousness (a state that would not include your claim to have been replying to my poke at TTAAC); judging by the edit conflict tag you used, it seems highly likely that you were responding to this comment, the edit in which I acknowledged that you and SPECIFICO were not entirely wrong.
Would you mind explaining to me which parts of my comments here you considered to be "WP:SHOUTing"? Was it when I introduced myself to this thread with a self-depricating remark? Or perhaps it was my good-natured banter with another editor, in which we mocked the exact sort of intense emotional drama you are ascribing to my participation here? Was it the playful subtitle I gave to the edit you were replying to?
I think it was the subtitle. I thought that a subtitle of "The Return" was a little vague, but I went with it anyways. Do you think my second choice of "The Blowhard Strikes Back" would have been better? It was actually the first thing I thought of, but I figured "rabid lefty" was enough self-deprecation without calling myself a blowhard, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: The problem with being the elephant in the room is that you've had these jovial banters in so many places that you've lost track of what you've said, when, and to whom. No, I was referring this, and the fact that you feel compelled to keep up this level of interaction... everywhere. Do you understand that, even if you thought you were being humorous, you are leaving comments and responses on a fast moving, egregious talk page on an controversial, high traffic article. Humour has its place in the appropriate context. Do you actually think it's appropriate under circumstances where editors are focussing on the development of content? Editors who don't know you (who would probably constitute the majority, so don't make presumptions about my knowing you from Lot's wife... or that you are known to who knows how many other editors reading this talk page) do not feel compelled, and should not be compelled, to spend time trying to work out whether you are being cute or very, very offensive. Your tone actually comes across as supercilious at best. While I thanked you for understanding what was being said in the RfC !vote section, you seem to have forgotten your own advice... and the 'thanks' doesn't mean that it was okay to tell the other editor to shut his pie hole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with being the elephant in the room is that you've had these jovial banters in so many places that you've lost track of what you've said, when, and to whom. Oooh, mind reading, too. Tell me, at what point did I unlink that 'friendly' page from my first mention of pie holes? Because you made an explicit reference to the link being part of what you were responding to, so I must have unlinked it since there's no link on it now. I seem to have forgotten doing that (or, indeed, linking it in the first place), but since you have the ability to dictate my mental state to me, you should know.
Do you understand that, even if you thought you were being humorous, you are leaving comments and responses on a fast moving, egregious talk page on an controversial, high traffic article. You forgot the question mark. Also, the link you provided clearly states that editors making jokes should indicate it in some way. You know, by.. Maybe... Linking it to a page that explains it's not meant to be taken at face value?
Do you actually think it's appropriate under circumstances where editors are focussing on the development of content? Yup.
While I thanked you for understanding what was being said in the RfC !vote section, Indeed you did.
and the 'thanks' doesn't mean that it was okay to tell the other editor to shut his pie hole. Actually, I referred to both of our pie holes, and explicitly avowed my intention to shut mine. I politely invited the other editor to "join me". But you thanked me for understanding what you were saying, yet simultaneously are berating me for the way I phrased it? If you felt that I understood it, doesn't that imply (well, require logically, but we'll say "imply") that the way I phrased it was exactly the way that you meant it?
In all seriousness: You responded to a comment of mine in which I excused your arguments as understandable shortly after disagreeing with them with a short screed in which you accused me of what amounts to being a POV pushing, right-wing SPA, and yet you think you have the ethical standing to sit here and lecture me because a joke I made was too subtle for some editors to figure out? No, you don't. Climb off your high horse and just deal with it: You posted a knee-jerk reaction to someone disagreeing with you without understanding what they were saying and got called out on it by another editor first, followed shortly by the editor you lambasted. It was a brief (if potent) overreaction and in and of itself, is completely forgivable. But to sit here and make blatantly false claims about what comments you were responding to and completely ignoring legitimate criticisms of your own behavior in favor of focusing attention on me is, frankly ridiculous. It's time to move on and turn your focus back to the discussion at hand. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The point

As I said in my initial edit summary reverting the SYNTHy UNDUE insertion: There may well be some way, either in this article or in another article to provide historical and international context to the Russian interference. This extended thread on the reverted content, which was clearly defective and not well-sourced in relation to the 2016 interference, has exhausted any useful discussion. I suggest editors work on finding appropriate references that could be used to support contextualizing text elsewhere in the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Right now, the background section only addresses the circumstances around the election. Which is a good start, don't get me wrong, but as this incident is merely the latest incident of this type, some historical context for it would be a good way to kick off that section. This one source isn't enough IMHO, due to the fact that it only addresses US and USSR/Russian interference. But other sources exist, covering this. Here's some:
We could use these to write up a lead into the background section that covers the history of foreign interference in democratic elections. That would not be UNDUE or require any SYNTH, and it would properly frame this particular sentence, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that's correct. This can be properly contextualized with RS discussion. The discussion would not however create the false equivalence insinuated by the reverted text here, because I doubt any RS does that. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC) `
I disagree that the reverted text created a false equivalence, but I plan to put together a draft of such a section tonight. I will post a link on my talk page when I do. Would you like me to ping you when I do that? (this offer is open to all editors working here). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The "false equivalence" is that there aren't 81 articles covering the far more extensive and far more direct history of American meddling in foreign elections to complement this article about unproven allegations that Russia leaked true emails to sway U.S. public opinion in 2016. This is a textbook example of Wikipedia's raging WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. Some users evidently feel the bias is not yet systemic enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have anything at all to contribute to this discussion? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see any problem with the text, since it's reliably sourced and considered topical by other reliable sources. A senator recently brought up the study at the hearings on this very issue, thereby bumping it up further in the charts. MjolnirPants might improve this content further, but let's be clear: the edit should not have been removed in the first place. Times is right about systemic bias. We already have to live with the bias inherent our reliance on the Anglo-American corporate press, because quality alternatives are genuinely hard to find. Let's not exacerbate the problem by automatically bleeping out the parts where our "free press" (corporate or otherwise) actually does its job. I've had to deal with this reflexive IDL-ism every time I wanted to cite the The Intercept for anything, no matter how minor or circumspect. But, as we've seen here, when shutting down "alternative media" is not enough, you have to censor the establishment too. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So... One editor stands on the brinks of a topic ban for their ranting, and another steps up to fill their shoes? Really? You're not accomplishing anything except alienating everyone who doesn't already agree with you 100%. Seriously, I agreed with you about 25% at the beginning of your comment, and by the end it was teetering at about 1%. Even that 1% is only because I already made up my mind: If I came into this discussion right now, I'd instinctively oppose anything you support, based entirely on the fact that you took the chance to rant about the evils of WP on WP. There are pages like the village pump and main page talk and even Jimbo's talk page on which you can deliver your screeds against the evil liberals who have turned WP into a bastion of left-wing lies. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to audition for the role of political consultant, you should probably work on your temper and stop taking things so personally. And no, I don't care if the preceding statement makes my favorability rating with you drop from 1% to 0.1%. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
...you should probably work on your temper and stop taking things so personally. Ha! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Back to the topic

@all: Enough of behavioural discourse please.

Back to the disputed content here: is the superpowers' history of political meddling in other countries' elections relevant as background information to this affair? This looks blatantly obvious to anybody even mildly interested in international relations. I would argue that anyone on this thread claiming NO is in need of a serious look in the mirror for eruptions of IJUSTDONTLIKEIT pimples… — JFG talk 04:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the subject is indeed interesting, although it could be described on other pages. Did you find any sources with exact list of the episodes and countries where Soviet Union/Russia interfered in other elections? I did not find any list and not even sure what these sources are talking about. Speaking about presidents of non-satellite countries, I only remember Urho Kekkonen of Finland who worked for the KGB according to Gordievsky. My very best wishes (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I have no objections to the content being developed properly (so long as it is in accordance with WP:BALASP). My primary objection was the abrupt, SYNTHy delivery of content. Discussions seem to have evolved in this general direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Um, yeah. There's the extremely bare bones beginnings of a draft section over in my user space. I haven't had the chance to do much with it (Hilarity ensued and so on), but feel free to work on it yourself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It’s the bare bone beginnings of another article, 'though, to be cross-referenced like several other "background" paragraphs that are actually part of the 2016 US election interference (e.g., DNC email hack, trolls). This one is about a unique event, combining covert and overt cyber methods, i.e., a new and frightening development in election interference, especially considering the implications for more hands-on interference like shutting down power grids. PS on Levin: I suppose overturning election results with tanks (Prague 1968) doesn’t count since it didn’t make the list. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're getting at. You don't seem to have made a point. My suggestion is for you to edit the draft if you think it needs to be changed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My position is the same as before, i.e., the material is off-topic in this article, and it’s much too complex to address in two sentences pushing POV, "the US tried to influence foreign elections more often than the Soviet Union/Russia", subtext "therefore they’re hypocrites to complain about Russian interference". The picture gets more nuanced when you read the transcript of Levin’s NPR interview on the US helping to prevent the re-election of Milosevic in 2000 by providing money and training to the opposition - in my book that’s an intervention for the better, democrats helping democrats against tyrant and war criminal. Striking off-topic blathering. Jeepers - I just looked at Draft 2. Yeah, let’s drag in every election interference by any country against any country, going back to the Middle Ages while we’re at it. Start a new article already, I’ll be happy to provide the cross-reference in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the bottom line. Interventions by US are irrelevant on this page. Interventions by the Soviet Union or Russia might be relevant, however the sources above do not explain which exactly interventions they are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't argue that US interventions per se are relevant, but that having a brief and broad understanding of interventions generally is necessary to contextualize the issue of the 2016 election. As the dominating superpowers of the post-war era, it just so happens that most of this has been perpetuated by the US and Russia. As China has expanded its influence, we have seen them follow suit, as in the 1996 US election. But most interference has been a crime (or act if you prefer) of opportunity (e.g., the Iranian hostage crisis), and only the great powers have historically been in positions to deliberately engineer such an opportunity where none would have otherwise existed. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A question, is hacking legal? Did the US interfere in any elections using illegal methods?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, see Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Presumably, interfering with a democratic election is illegal according to the particular laws of the jurisdiction the election is taking place within. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I was being a tad sarcastic, that is the point here. This was not just interference, it was illegal interference that had it been carried out by (rather then on behalf of, even if unknowingly) the candidate would have been a crime. This is more then just "interference" it was a concerted and deliberate attempt to undermine the American electoral system using criminal means.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Also it does not matter what a previous administration did, that was then, this is now. Putin's Russia did this now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Electoral interference is ipso facto illegal. It therefore adds nothing to specify that it was illegal electoral interference. TimothyJosephWood 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it, could you provide a link that says that any and all Electoral interference is ipso facto illegal? Does not the illegality depends on what the local laws are?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We're getting way off into left field here, but basically all of the references in Electoral fraud. And there are types which actually would be legal. For example, even though Nixon may have very well violated the Logan Act by having contact with the South Vietnamese government, the decision of the SV to abstain from peace negotiations (even though likely done with the intent of influencing US elections), was not technically illegal (in and of itself) under any US or international laws, and US laws would not have had jurisdiction anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Even so, Russian hackers violating US law is moot, since there is no chance in hell Russia will extradite, making it de facto legal.TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No it make it unprosacutable, it is not the same. If a man dies before trail he cannot be convicted, that does not mean what he did was legal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The difference is semantic. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No it is not, something does not become a legal act just because someone cannot be prosecuted for it (not even under precedence). They may be innocent until proven guilty, but the act is still a crime. The hacking occurred, it was a crime. That is what makes this so egregious, Donny benefited from a criminal act (and thus this renders his election suspect and possible lacking in validity) which had it been carried out by him would have led to prosecution. (not going to soap box, so this part is redacted before it is written). That is why this is so important and different. It (de facto and ipso facto) remains illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the difference is not semantic. The hacking was illegal under US law (see United States v. Ivanov for a perfect precedent), international law generally holds that if it's illegal in the country you're doing it in, it's illegal and hacking is illegal in Russia, as well. So this was clearly illegal. Not that I think this discussion matters to the article at this point, so I suggest we drop it.
Regarding the earlier statements that the history of interference in foreign elections is irrelevant to an article about an incident of interference in foreign elections: I completely reject those claims as spurious. There is no article we could summarize and mainlink to which covers the history of the subject. The history of the subject is by definition relevant to this article. Therefore, we should say something about the history of the subject in this article. The fact that said history will paint the US in a poor light is unavoidable and not the product of a POV shift (remember: I suspect strongly that Russia did this, I believe fully that this was highly unethical, I strongly suspect that this did play a role in influencing the election contrary to claims otherwise and I mildly suspect that Trump has been aware of all of this for quite some time now.) because I would personally prefer an article that excoriates Russia and Trump and vindicates Clinton. But the facts do not lend themselves to such an article, so I will settle for one that is as accurate and relevant as possible. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Slatersteven, after some thought, my argument above is exactly wrong. It is the intent to sway elections that is morally wrong, but the acts that lead to such a consequence that are criminalized. For example, if someone were to stuff ballot boxes somehow without the intent to sway the election, it would still be illegal. Having said that, espionage itself is a crime punishable by death, and all sides engage in that admittedly, so I'm still pretty sure that the illegality of it is not a relevant point for the article. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice job on the draft, which brings balanced context to such power plays… Version 2 looks ready to be inserted in the article. — JFG talk 23:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

JFG: I will propose the addition below. TimothyJosephWood 23:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_2&oldid=1136378150"