Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Tangentially related content (with RfC)

There is a clear consensus that generally, the items in the timeline before the year 2000 can be retained since reliable sources have connected them to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. There is no prejudice against discussing specific items on the list if there are concerns that reliable sources do not connect those specific items to the interference.

Cunard (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've had another look at this article and it's quite clear that the items in the timeline before the year 2000 are pretty far removed from anything that happened in the 2016 election. I hardly think there could be significant opposition to removing those items, but I'm putting it to the talk page here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: and yet again, "No". Not per many, many RSs, backed by many credible editors. X1\ (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that these events didn't happen, they plainly did. They're just not relevant enough to an election that happened several cycles afterwards, to warrant inclusion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As major contributors to this page, what do you think Websurfer2, Arglebargle79, My very best wishes, BullRangifer, and Soibangla ? X1\ (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is quite blatantly an attempt at canvassing. You should notify all major contributors, or none at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the WW2 timeline, it begins in the 19th century. Stuff that seems tangental at the start eventually becomes important later. It's called "Checkov's gun" If you see it just sitting there in act one, it will be used by act three. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not true, the closest we have to include pre-war events in a timeline about World War II is Timeline of events preceding World War II, which goes back to 1918 and not the 19th century, and this is explicitly not purporting to be the timeline of World War II. 1918 was the previous world war, which is similar to a timeline about one election starting at the preceding election. The 1980s and 90s are several elections before 2016. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

See Category:Causes of war for much "pre-history"; beside all of that, also note at the wp Causes of World War II article it currently goes back to 1807 (the 19th century).

@Arglebargle79: fun use of Chekhov's gun. X1\ (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: This has been brought up before and the consensus was Keep. I don't see any point in arguing about this again. @Onetwothreeip: please read the archives (WP:TPYES). Websurfer2 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep it. Speaking on the procedure, I agree with Websurfer2. Speaking on the essence of this info, yes, Russian special services started working with the future POTUS in the Soviet times already, and this is relevant and just a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Should events from the 1980s and 90s be included in this timeline article about the 2016 United States elections? There are also further questions over the relevancy of many of the entries in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's clear this will only get the same participants that are always here, so the only real way to settle this is through an RfC and reach editors who are not personally invested in the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Sometimes they have a start date (the Russian hacking toward the 2016 election already began in 2014, according to Dutch intelligence), but they also have a prehistory, and that is legitimate content, especially since RS make these connections. From 1987 and onwards, the KGB, and later Russian FSB (and Russian oligarchs, businessmen, and mobsters), have watched and cultivated Trump. At first as a wealthy American with outspoken anti-American views, and then as one who already had presidential aspirations, and in 2013 they publicly expressed their support for his coming candidacy, long before he told Americans. They promised him their support. In the end, it's RS that dictate what we do here. This content is relevant if RS say it's relevant, and they do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(The comment right above was originally placed above the RfC, but was moved down here by 123IP. It was not intended to be part of this improper RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

What happened in 1987 was not Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No one claims it was. It is the prehistory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC) (This comment was not intended to be part of this improper RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

The 1980s are in the Mueller Report "prehistory", and the 1980s are in other RSs whether it be via the Internet, books, or books on the Internet (Google Books). X1\ (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Comments above are not part of the following RfC. It was added later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
(The comment right above was originally placed above the RfC, but was moved down here by 123IP. It was not intended to be part of this improper RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

• Include events from the 1980s and 90s - Trump didn't come to this a cleanskin, he's been playing hard with the big boys his whole life and he's been toying with parliamentary politics for decades. Most of these aren't tangential relations, they're directly related. Bacondrum (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Follow RS. Which ones draw the arc from the 1980s through to 2016? Guy (help!) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: besides looking at the article(s) and its RSs, see my previous comment here. X1\ (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

X1\, seems a bit weak, mate. Can you show me a third party timeline that does this? There are a number of RS timelines out there. Show me one in a decent source that does the prehistory thing, right? I don't want us to blaze the trail on this. Guy (help!) 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, what do you mean by "third party timeline", and "in a decent source"? If you want an intro to this, back in 2018 I found Hettena's book useful, of value. Of course, much more has been made more public since then (and some before then too). See Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Further reading, also as there are many many RSs to connect decades in the article, as I have stated previously. See for yourself. Websurfer2 / My very best wishes / BullRangifer / Bacondrum / Arglebargle79, you all have made similar comments to mine; do you want to respond to JzG too? X1\ (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, see The Moscow Project's collusion timeline and jump to the end, which is the earliest time (1984). Make sure to click each item on the timeline for more information. This website is an invaluable resource which uses myriad RS. It has a cleaned up and searchable copy of the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, The Moscow Project doesn't count. Surely the NYT or WaPo have run timeline articles at some point? Guy (help!) 10:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Timeline from WaPo cited by this article:

• Bump, Philip (September 20, 2017). "Timeline: Paul Manafort's long history with oligarch Oleg Deripaska". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2019.

Websurfer2 (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG:

From the article:

of Harding, Luke (November 16, 2017). Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0525520931.

Google Books: [1] can see page 11 of Trump / Russia: A Definitive History with "1984"

Google Books: [2] "1986" for example in Unger, Craig (2018). House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia. Dutton. ISBN 978-1524743505.

New:

(in article, but related to earlier)

Trump campaign's Russia ties: Who's involved Mar 31, 2017 WaPo

... other WaPo's: 2.Nov'17, 25.July'17, 10.July'17, 31.March'17

From Archive 6 :

Two, [3] JustSecurity.org (back to 1979) and [4] newsandguts.com (1979), go back further

This one [5] motherjones.com goes back to 1986

There are others. This was just a quick superficial google search, as my time resources are limited; life, you know.

The topic of the Timelines is epic, better fits into book form.

X1\ (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Websurfer2's comment about WP:TPYES echoed, as more than just Archive 6 is relevant. X1\ (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Websurfer2, Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing that would be perfect for an article on a timeline of Paul Manafort's criming. Now, are there any that do a similar job on the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and include the earlier events? Guy (help!) 00:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, to say that Manafort had nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election shows that you haven't bothered to read the article on which you called an RFC. Websurfer2 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Manafort had nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election and you should show more respect to other editors and assume they are aware of this. A timeline about Paul Manafort is not the same thing as a timeline about what this article is about. What we need is some proper sourcing that establishes these banal events in the 80s and 90s are part of the Russian interference that occurred in 2016. Of course, no such sources exist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

See Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) (there are redacted spin-off investigations too; so, to-be-continued) regarding Manafort. X1\ (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not a proper RfC. It should have its own section and be done right. This is also a means to get around the existing discussion, which is not finished, and to avoid the local consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously, as long standing and, as I said before, backed by many many RSs. I agree with Websurfer2, My very best wishes, BullRangifer, Bacondrum, JzG, and Arglebargle79. X1\ (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Added a strikeout, as not where I had thought that was going, but I still am AGF there. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: The caller's complete disregard of the actual article contents and the archived discussions on this exact topic, along with the way this RFC was called to shortcut a discussion, do not demonstrate a good faith call for consensus. WP:DNFTT Websurfer2 (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I started this RfC because some were saying the matter has been settled. Without an RfC, it would be obvious that the discussion would only be participated by the same editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Sometimes they have a start date (the Russian hacking toward the 2016 election already began in 2014, according to Dutch intelligence), but they also have a prehistory, and that is legitimate content, especially since RS make these connections. From 1987 and onwards, the KGB, and later Russian FSB (and Russian oligarchs, businessmen, and mobsters), have watched and cultivated Trump. At first as a wealthy American with outspoken anti-American views, and then as one who already had presidential aspirations, and in 2013 they publicly expressed their support for his coming candidacy, long before he told Americans. They promised him their support. In the end, it's RS that dictate what we do here. This content is relevant if RS say it's relevant, and they do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as long as there are good sources connecting them specifically to Russian interference in the election (i.e. not just Donald Trump -- so a source from the 80s/90s/00s probably wouldn't justify inclusion per OR) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem, sources do not make this connection. If there were such sources, of course I would support retaining them as well, but sources to establish this have not been forthcoming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources do look to connect those early interactions to election interference by putting them in the same timeline or providing them as relevant context. Obviously it's not going to say "this event in 1986 was to interfere with the 2016 election" but the scope of this article, as laid out in the lead, isn't solely events directly connected to the election but other relevant factors which reliable sources have connected to the interference. The scope of this article, as it says at the top, is "events described in investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials until July 2016, with July 2016 through election day November 8. 2016 following." I guess it's possible the scope could be narrowed to include only events surrounding the election itself, but there are just so many sources which include the older events in the context of talking about the election. My point above was that we shouldn't take an article that has nothing to do with the election, like a news story from many years ago about how Trump had such and such a business deal with such and such person connected to the Russian government. That would be OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Which sources connect Trump visiting Russia in the 1980s to the Russian interference of 2016? Sources connect those events to Trump's relationships with Russian entities, but they don't connect to the interference of the 2016 election. We're doing a disservice here by opening the article with blatantly non-interference content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Financial Times source does. But there's no shortage: NPR - "And we know that going back decades, Donald Trump has been interested in doing business with Russia. So it's like this transactional relationship. We do stuff for you or maybe we blackmail you. And at some point perhaps, you'll do stuff for us. [...] And this, this is basically what that big investigation that's all over the news is about, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. We know Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. We know Russian agents hacked the Democratic National Committee and released thousands of emails to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The thing we still don't know is, did the Russians do this with Trump's knowledge or even his help as part of this transactional relationship I just described? That is the question." Then there's WP: "Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies are scrutinizing connections between Russia and the Trump campaign as they investigate evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election." (that's the header for the earlier items being included in the timeline). Again, obviously it's not going to say "this event in 1986 was to interfere with the 2016 election" but it's being discussed in the context of the interference investigation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this source. Not only does it not mention the events in the 80s and 90s, it explicitly doesn't connect them to the events of the 2016 election. There is no doubt that there has been relationship between Donald Trump and Russian entities for decades, and that reliable sources detail these extensively, but that's about those relationships and not the interference that the Russian government perpetrated in 2016. In creating an article detailing the relationships between Trump and Russia, it would absolutely be due to include those early events there, but it's completely undue in this article which should be about actions to influence the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I provided 2 sources in addition to mentioning one already in the article (which is indeed not as good as the other two, but that's easily fixed). The others most certainly do mention the events and do connect them to the topic as per what I wrote above. It sounds like what's happening is you'd rather the scope be limited to the interference itself rather than what the sources say is connected to the interference investigation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm discussing the two sources that you have provided. They don't think that Trump visiting Russia in 1986 is part of the interference that occurred in 2016, or otherwise connect them. They only mention events like these when they discuss Trump's connections to Russia, and these events would most certainly be justified in such an article about his connections to Russia. The scope of this article should be limited to what sources say constituted the interference. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Remove – As discussed several times before, most of the 1980s–1990s items are either history lessons or speculation by Luke Harding and friends that Trump may have been "cultivated" by Russian secret services since the Soviet era, i.e. undue opinion. — JFG ^talk 07:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A plainly inaccurate description of the variety of RSs, JFG. An worn-out argument to keep beating a dead horse. X1\ (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Another RS describing how East bloc intelligence created a dossier on Trump when he accepted a visit, arranged by them. They knew at that time that he had presidential ambitions and have kept track of him and courted him ever since that first visit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - when the depth of Russian interference is put into perspective the way Five-Thirty-Eight presented it, quite a few lumens are dropped from the spotlight. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what approach is planned, but I'll add Rolling Stone's list of potential Russian assets including Donald Trump, purported to be a Russian pawn, McConnell, aka “Moscow Mitch”, and all 3rd party candidates (Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein) are Russian plots to which the author exclaimed, "If you’re keeping score, that’s pretty much the whole spectrum of American political thought, excepting MSNBC Democrats. What a coincidence!". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

---

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.

Requested move 23 December 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move this article to the proposed new title at this time, with further discussion needed to find the best way forward. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (before July 2016) – Split due to oversized article, also see Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day) for second half of split. X1\ (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree Websurfer2 (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the main article which includes a section for July 2016 onward. The other one is a sub-article of this, providing the details for July 2016 onward, to which this one links, appropriately. Current title is correct. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Born2cycle: kindly strikeout your "oppose", after seeing Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day). The "current" title is now not correct. As this is the first time you have edited at any of the "Timelines", you may have surprisingly (since your are not a newbie) not done your homework (WP:TPYES) and found there is a long-standing name convention: this article is followed by the one above, then the transition, then Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), (July–December 2017), (January–June 2018), (July–December 2018), and (2019–2020). Note: they are not "sub-articles", but a string of Timeline segments, slightly changing style before and after the election. X1\ (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. This article is now what's left of an article split, and no longer the mother article for the timeline articles, although it is still the first in the series. The current article title implies that it is the whole timeline. It is not. The "after July 2016" article is the other half of the split and is not a true sub-article (see WP:SPINOFF). The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article is the mother article for the whole subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If that’s the case then the relevant date range for each article should be integral to the title, not a parenthetic disambiguation:
  • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016
  • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day) → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections July 2016–election day

—В²C ☎ 07:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

See my comment at your !vote. Your suggestions don't fit the current naming style. X1\ (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What current naming style? The proposed style is consistent with WP:DISAMBIGUATION naming style, but this is not disambiguation. So, what is it? --В²C ☎ 00:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • I am okay with Born2cycle's naming suggestion (see below)
    • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016
    • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day) → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections July 2016–election day
    • X1\ (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per B2C. This is the main article for this topic, and splitting is the wrong approach. If there's really too much material then it should be pruned down with links to more specific topic articles on the various incidents if they're notable. Forcing the reader to pick between two time periods does not help their understanding of the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Same comments as for Born2cycle; not the main article, splitting was definitely appropriate, see archives (WP:TPYES) and ESs. X1\ (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it wasn't appropriate. You split it without considering whether this topic merits two articles. It doesn't. It's too long because there's too much material that isn't useful for readers, and it needs cutting down so it actually just outlines the main events in a single chronological history. This is the main article on this topic and it should remain where it is, with the "split" material put back here.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
      • They have been split due to size. The merits of individual items are discussed on a case-by-case basis. If there is something in particular you have in mind, start a separate thread after reviewing the archives. X1\ (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
        • And Amakuru just explained why they shouldn't have been split "due to size". That decision needs to be revisited. --В²C ☎ 23:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Amakuru and Born2cycle: This "kitchen sink" timeline is hopelessly unhelpful for our readers' understanding of the subject matter. This has been a matter of dispute ever since the timeline was created, as many sources were engaged in a giant "connect the dots" game about Trump and Russia. Now with the passage of time and the outcome of various investigations, we know what was correct and what was just speculation, and the article should be pruned of irrelevant threads. A good start would be the Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. See #Rather split by subject matter below for further discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • JFG, you didn't appear to like how the consensus was going, long ago; so the "dispute" ended when you went off and created your alt-Timeline (now called "Topical" instead of "Threaded"), which is not up-to-date, missing details, and has whole topics removed: a disservice to the wp:Reader. X1\ (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What definition of main article are you using Amakuru (and provide a link to be as clear as possible)? X1\ (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. Per request. X1\ (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: example of similar naming style is Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). X1\ (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Struck out !vote by nom.) --В²C ☎ 23:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not an "example of similar naming style". That's an example of typical legitimate disambiguation per WP:D, because Special Counsel investigation is unavailable since it is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Special counsel. In contrast, there are not multiple distinct topics named "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" - there is only one such topic, and there should be only one article about that topic. --В²C ☎ 23:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Born2cycle you are looking for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ...? X1\ (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's a separate article about a distinct broad topic. This timeline topic is a subarticle to that one, and the name of this topic is "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". It's confusing and unhelpful to arbitrarily chop this topic in half and toss each half in a separate article. And, again, choosing a title with parenthetic disambiguation only makes it worse. I get what the goal was here, but some basic concepts were overlooked, apparently. --В²C ☎ 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Take a breath and look again, maybe later. Not "subarticles". X1\ (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, is a WP:SUBARTICLE of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I can see why you might use the term "subarticles" by that nuance, Born2cycle. Thank you for clarifying your intent. X1\ (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of SPLITs:

1) 11:11, 23 May 2017‎ "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" was create by Arglebargle79 (appears to be standalone article per first ES & diff)

2) 20:55, 22 May 2018‎ "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)" created, later renamed

3) 20:59, 22 May 2018‎ "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)" created, later renamed

4) 13:16, 28 November 2018‎ "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)" created by Arglebargle79, later renamed

5) 23:53, 19 August 2019‎ "Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" created

6) 21:26, 16 November 2019‎ "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)" created from #3

7) 22:04, 23 December 2019‎ "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)" created from #2

8) 22:49, 23 December 2019‎ "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)" created

X1\ (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article should not have been split along half-years: it is supposed to document known events of Russian interference in the elections, not a myriad other things that have been piggybacked onto the subject matter in a giant "connect the dots" game. This scoping issue has been a recurring dispute ever since this article was created. — JFG ^talk 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is an aggregation article, effectively a long list of external articles rather than a traditional Wikipedia article in and of itself. As such I'm not sure how the traditional article length concerns apply here. See WP:SPLITLIST Springee (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - yes it's an aggregation, oppose for the reasons mentioned above, adding that the kitchen sink needs a good scrubbing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• The concerns about the new name possibly confusing people are overblown and misleading because the original title will still exist as a redirect. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather split by subject matter

This "kitchen sink" timeline is hopelessly unhelpful for our readers' understanding of the subject matter. This scoping issue has been a matter of dispute ever since the timeline was created, as many sources were engaged in a giant "connect the dots" game about Trump and Russia. Now with the passage of time and the outcome of various investigations, we know what was correct and what was just speculation. Accordingly, the article should be arranged by topics and pruned of irrelevant threads. A good start would be the Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that I created a few months back, precisely to help me sort through this ocean of daily tidbits. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From earlier discussion, here is some of my rationale for sorting this timeline by topics, as investigations followed the actions of central characters and their relationships to others:

Nobody contests that there are sources for long timelines. Indeed that's the problem: too much information crammed together in a long long long long long long list of microscopic events, with each line randomly jumping from one subject to another. It is not reasonable to sort those events only by timestamp: there are clear threads, that sources and investigators have followed, and we serve our readers better by grouping related events into logical and palatable threads. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

To use your example: "from the line of Butina and the Agency", I don't see the connections, really; where are they? Butina may have been a Kremlin agent, and the IRA may also have been Kremlin agents, but nothing in their actions connected them with each other. Not even sure they knew the other existed. Has Mueller uncovered any connections between Butina and the IRA team? I don't think so, but if he did I'd be happy to see them. Similarly, there were no connections between the IRA and the Mifsud/Polonskaya/Timofeev/Millian group. When we do have connections, they pop up quite naturally, for example Halper was involved both in the Papadopoulos story and in the Crossfire Hurricane story, and that will be easy to see for all readers. On the contrary, the "throw everything into a chronology" approach, mixing every thread of the investigation into a single blob, takes way too much cognitive load for anybody to follow what was going on. Just spending a few hours sorting some threads for demonstration has already given me a clearer global picture of what happened; the full timeline blurs it all into a haze. We want our readers to have access to the full documentation in the appropriate context, and the threading creates that coherent context. Links between related events are readily apparent when they exist; and we don't go inventing links that do not exist simply because action B by person Y happened the same week as action A by person X. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy to hear fresh comments by other editors. How can this article best inform readers? — JFG ^talk 07:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What's most important here is the correct characterisation of this article as each line randomly jumping from one subject to another. This article concerns several elements of interference which don't relate to each other, except for the single point of being perpetrated by the same government, for the most part. Further concurrence with the observation that it is not reasonable to sort those events only by timestamp: there are clear threads, that sources and investigators have followed. The sources and the investigations don't describe all the events in one single timeline, they separate them by element. More than justifiable to split by subject for a series as large as this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JFG. This list is an overly detailed collection of events resulting from a WP:OR based compilation with a final result that I believe may be noncompliant with WP:NOT as an indiscriminate collection of events. I realize a great deal of work went into its making, and commend the dutiful editors who invested so much time and energy in its creation. Out of curiosity, I ran a comparison of page views for this article and AN/I using the same time frame (05-20-2017 – 12-20-2019). WP:ANI received over 12x as many monthly views (107,306 vs 8,581). Unfortunately, the article is not only the kitchen sink, it is a time sink and I cannot think of anything that will help improve it, so I won’t comment here any further. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

All timelines should be edited on a routine basis to prune material that seemed significant on the day it was announced but turns out to be a red herring. In this case there's actually not much of that: the timeline shows a staggering history of shadiness whose only real precedent is Watergate, which was a great deal less complex. I'd argue for a move to a more narrative style, and moving the list of connected individuals to a separate article. But there's nothing here that constitutes OR or SYN or indiscriminate information. The importance of every fact and event I reviewed in a sample is easily demonstrated by reference to multiple sources. Guy (help!) 10:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not WP:OR since by RSs. Follow the RSs, Atsme. X1\ (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The actual contents of the events is not OR; rather the process of choosing what to include and the actual creation of this list involves some level of OR since there is no complete article or timeline to corroborate it in its entirety, much less that it was a notable event for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, the entirety of Wikipedia is based on editors' decisions as to what to include or exclude. Lists and timelines are always compiled independently of any third-party list or timeline (to avoid copyright) but in fact there are independent reliable sources that also have timelines. So nothing about this article departs from normal Wikipedia policy and practice. Guy (help!) 11:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add a general comment here. I've seen this article and the related Timeline of investigation articles placed as see-also type links in many other Wikipedia articles. I have to ask why. This is an aggregation article so why would a reader of some other topic naturally want to read this list page next? I think articles like this, when properly organized, may be of great interest to some readers but it seems the most natural place for an article like this is as a child of the parent topic. Clearly the parent topic in this case, the Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 elections, is very large so interested readers can come here for more detail. It makes little sense to send readers from any number of other smaller articles here just because the subject of that article was mentioned in some capacity by one of the articles on this list. This is especially true if the other article and this list are effectively linking to the same external source or topic. Springee (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose split by subject. A subject-oriented timeline article was already created, so what is the point of this proposal? Create another subject oriented timeline? This discussion appears to be a distraction that ignores RS content, archived discussions, and consensus. Again, WP:DNFTT. Websurfer2 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2020 (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.

Requested move 14 January 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. No new convincing arguments in favor of splitting have been brought up since the previous move discussion, and at this point it would just be better to wait several more months to re-launch the discussion. ToThAc (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC) ToThAc (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections → Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016 – Split due to oversized article; also see Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day) for second half of split (which will be submitted for renaming as Born2cycle's other suggestion, avoiding Parenthetical disambiguation). X1\ (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose My suggestion was presuming a split was necessary - but I think the argument in the previous discussion that no split is necessary was very strong. This article should have the entire timeline. If a particular subsection is long enough that can be made into a WP:SUBARTICLE. Or maybe transclusion would work here. But splitting up the main timeline into multiple articles does not seem helpful. I think it's important for the big picture to have it all together in this one article, and that's the direction everyone should be working. --В²C ☎ 00:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Born2cycle: you are far off the mark with Split not needed, particularly This article should have the entire timeline; per this. Why did you jump into this conversation without reviewing past discussions, as it doesn't appear you have? X1\ (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The original and arguably main article is about the interference in the 2016 elections. I don't think it should have been split, and I think it should be merged back into one single timeline. The other articles in your list are immaterial to this. --В²C ☎ 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Born2cycle you are not making any sense to me. X1\ (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Born2cycle, your original parenthesis comment was taken to heart, regardless of the extra work ramifications that I will most likely need to do; but if you don't defend your additional stance, your current !vote will not be considered credible. X1\ (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Approve @Born2cycle: While I am open to exploring transcluding sections to get around Wikipedia's hard size limits, there are good reasons why those limits are there. A page cannot be more than 650,000 bytes (not characters) and must have at most 1,000 templates. The template limit applies to the total of all template in both the article page and all transcluded subpages. The web server stops processing template when it hits the 1,000 template hard limit, which causes the remaining templates to appear as unprocessed text and a warning message to be inserted at the top of the page informing the reader that the template limit was reached. Exceeding the page size limit causes the web server to return an error when you try to save a page that is too large. Wikepedia imposes these limits to prevent individual articles from over-burdening their web servers and being exploited by denial-of-service attacks. See WP:Template limits and WP:Exceeded template limits for more details.

When this article was originally split into pre/post inauguration, we had exceeded the 1,000 template limit with over 900 citation templates plus other miscellaneous templates, and were struggling to keep the overall size under 650,000 bytes. We have since added two full years of additional content. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm having trouble accepting that the timeline content cannot be pared to fit within one article limits. If it really can't I think there are better ways to split than first half/second half. When I have time I'll look into it deeper. --В²C ☎ 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, whether you accept you are wrong or not, it doesn't change that you have been holding-up an needed and appropriate rename of this article for weeks because you are having trouble with content; not the name. As has been stated previously, if you have a concern about content, take that up in a separate thread, listing specific individual items; for the benefit of the Readers.

Approve the rename first, since you clearly showing you have not been keeping up with the purpose of this continuous Timeline (broken into segments, as connected but separate articles, and very much not immaterial) which has been created over years. After taking your time reviewing the edits, discussion, and ESs, you will very likely find the deletionist editors comments far far less compelling. There is an urgency here as this delay is a confusing disservice to the Readers. X1\ (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't blame me for not finding support for your proposal. --В²C ☎ 00:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What? There is support, and a long history of it for what I have been discussing. You were the second to respond, after an Agree. X1\ (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So now order matters? I'm done here. Good luck. --В²C ☎ 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you are adding credence to your behavior here as WP:HUH?, since I was showing there is support. X1\ (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to shut down this poll. There was no consensus for the prior move request, which had basically the same goal. Re-launching an RM at this stage is disruptive. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@JFG:, clearly it is not the same name. There was a request to avoid parenthesis, and that has now been addressed in this Requested move/Rename. Clearly not "disruptive".

It is however disruptive to attempt to push mass deletions yet again while a name change is needed. Obviously you could yet again bring your idea up again here, in another thread, keeping in mind that those mass deletions have again-and-again failed consensus. Of course you could instead have more deleted from your alt-Timeline at "Threaded" / Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Or better yet, copy&move that content to the related "threads" as My very best wishes suggested, which might be of service to the wp:Readers. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you don't defend your stance, JFG, your current !vote will not be considered credible. X1\ (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support this effort to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. The current title creates the expectation that all the timelines are located here, but they have been split off, so this one also needs a change of title and without parentheses. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Merge split content back. I understand the reasoning (the list is very long), but do not think that arbitrary splitting the content was good idea. Hence this problem with renaming, etc. Look how long the title would be. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: see Websurfer2's response to size limits above. The split was not arbitrary, it was approximately in half which also matched the other splits' style of mid-year, a fortunate coincidence. Beside running-up against limits, there has been a desire, shown in previous discussions, to keep the/these Timeline(s) from topping-out the Special:LongPages' list. X1\ (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are using this current title for something: The logical redirect for Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections would be to the earliest chronologically of the Timeline segments, that being Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016, so it would go to here. If you have a shorter title that still meets all the needed criteria, I am open to suggestions. This is an epic topic, so it is somewhat unsurprising an article title in a string of Timeline segments, over years, might become longer. X1\ (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying the split was completely unreasonable. Actually, I think the split is much better than removing important info from the list, as some people suggest. Well, if the content is not placed back, then it should probably be renamed as suggested. Epic - yes. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - all these RfCs for basically the same thing are wearing us out. Give us a longer break in-between. WP has no deadlines. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Two in a month wears you out, Atsme? Given how much you are on Wikipedia late that seems unlikely. This Requested move/Rename is a direct result of an editors' suggestion regarding removing parenthesis, which was logical, and so this is the next step. There is no need for an in-between, quite the contrary. X1\ (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you don't defend your stance, Atsme, your current !vote will not be considered credible. X1\ (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, making these[6][7] cosmetic changes behind the scene is not only not a defense, it can be viewed as disruptive. X1\ (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of this can be fixed by pruning the details and making a single, shorter article. Guy (help!) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: as stated previously to other editors (above), if you have individual items you want to discuss; make another thread. Please keep in mind WP:TPYES and review previously archived discussions to avoid potentially frustrating rehashing. X1\ (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you don't defend your stance, JzG, your current !vote will not be considered credible. X1\ (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, I think you'll find it will. Guy (help!) 08:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you are still watching this discussion JzG; when your refer to Most of this, is "this" the article's content or "this" discussion about renaming this article post-Split?

As you have not created new discussion thread(s) regarding pruning, yet you have responded, it is reasonable to assume you don't have any items to discuss.

Thus, the this is just the renaming, which you having not shown any backing reason for opposing. X1\ (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, Yes I have, you just don't like it. You're not the arbiter. Guy (help!) 23:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is/are the threads about items you want to be considered for pruning? Without any items for discussion, your "opposition" appears to be just "I don't like it". X1\ (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

X1, reverting the collapsed source list was not helpful, especially for editors on mobile devices who have to scroll through your seemingly endless arguments. Your comments after each iVote are what's disruptive and bordering on WP:BLUDGEON. You may have already crossed WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, so you might want to listen to the good advice you've been getting from JFG and JzG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It is important to see the references used to support statement. That is how Wikipedia is built. X1\ (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and recombine the two articles, which were split without consensus. We literally just had this conversation a few weeks ago, and per comments above it's clear that there is no consensus for any move of this nature, or for the fact that it was split in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, it is not the same. The suggested title has the parenthesis removed (Parenthetical disambiguation) and size is still the obvious justification, see previous discussion. X1\ (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and recombine article, then trim out unnecessary details to shorten to acceptable length. This is a timeline article, not the Complete Works of Shakespeare. CThomas³ (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cthomas3. Since it appears you have never edited this article before in your contributions, it would be helpful for you to review previous discussions and ESs, per WP:TPYES. If after that you still have specific article content items you would like to discuss, please created a separate thread for those; as describe (above) for other editors new to here. X1\ (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings X1\, and thank you for your note. You are correct that I have not edited this article before: there is currently a notice for this requested move at WP:RM, which is designed to bring uninvolved editors into the discussion in order to broaden the consensus with outside opinions. Before leaving my response above, I reviewed both this move request as well as the one that was held a few weeks ago, as well as several of the other talk page discussions on this page and the archives. You are of course welcome to disagree with my position if you so choose. If the article is ultimately recombined, I would be happy to help identify areas we could shorten. CThomas³ (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Salutations Cthomas3, and thank you for your response. Unfortunately recombined would be putting-the-cart-before-the-horse, as you would read above; so if you have items to discuss, that would be done in another thread (a "New Section") after renaming at this point.

Also unfortunately, if you review discussions, ESs, and the May 2019 DRN, you will see there has been and continues to be a history of trolls and disruptive editing a this Timeline. This event has been called a "political pearl harbor" among other powerful words, so it is understandable the topic is epic. It is also understandable there is a concerted effort to gas light and generally attempt to cover the tracks of those involved. Of those which attempt to delete history, some work so closely together they are in the same room.

RSs which illustrate the associated events continue to be revealed as of today, and are likely to be continued to be revealed for years to come. X1\ (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose again. There is no reason for this timeline to be split into so many articles. The net result is instead of a single, sensible link to a primary topic, X\1 is spamming articles with multiple "see also" links [[8]]. I'm not even sure why any page should "see also" link to this timeline as it's a child of the primary topic. I would change my oppose view if this were logically setup where any links would be to the primary topic and these timelines would exist only as supporting pages to the primary topic. Springee (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee when you state no reason, you are ignoring the reason given. X1\ (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, the rest of what you state is not related to this thread and appears to be disruptive editing. X1\ (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning anyone who disagrees with you. Springee (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, me continuing to defend an argument backed by many many RSs, using Wikpedia processes, with Wikpedia's purpose in mind is not bludgeoning. Attempting to combined this thread with your conflict over a long-standing consensus at another article Talk page is disruptive and thus unwelcome here. X1\ (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is bludgeoning when you argue with every editor who doesn't support your POV and RS'ing doesn't address if an article should or should not be split. Additionally, the link to the other article is relevant as it illustrates one of the problems with the way this timeline is being broken up. People can no longer link to a single article containing what is essentially one long timeline. Instead they have to link to early or late 2016 or 2017 etc. This also creates the UNDUE weight issue when an editor adds not one but 4 or more links to the see also section of various articles. Thus, as this does have impacts outside just this article, I'm opposed. Springee (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I am the one defending consensus here currently, because other editors; such as Websurfer2, Arglebargle79, BullRangifer, and Soibangla (who are currently active editors who have made significant contributions to this Timeline) are busy with other concerns it would appear: understandable since there is an impeachment trial of one of the central figures in this topic.

Regarding your other comment, unrelated to this thread: I do not have some personal disagreement with you; although, for what ever reason, it appears you may have one with me. My goal here is to improve Wikipedia for its readers. X1\ (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2020 (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.

Consolidated discussion

1. 1984: In the new Trump Tower, Trump meets with David Bogatin, a Russian mobster and close ally of Semion Mogilevich who buys five condos from Trump at that meeting that are later seized by the government for being used to launder money for the Russian mob.

2. 1986: Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin invites Trump on all-expenses-paid trip to the Soviet Union.

3. 1987 March: Three years after attending the closing with Trump, Bogatin pleads guilty to taking part in a massive gasoline-bootlegging scheme with Russian mobsters. Bogatin flees the country; the government seizes his five condos at Trump Tower, saying that he had purchased them to "launder money, to shelter and hide assets."

4. 1987 July: Trump and his wife Ivana, who speaks Russian, make their first visit to the Soviet Union (which included the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR)). They scout potential construction sites for a Trump Tower Moscow.

5. 1987 September 1: Trump spends $94,801 on full-page ads in the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and New York Times, calling on NATO countries and other allies, such as Japan, to pay for their protection.

6. 1987 October 22: In what is considered as Trump's first campaign speech, Trump delivers a message about the United States in New Hampshire during a high-profile trip.

7. Relevant individuals and organizations: John R. Bolton, National Security Advisor (from April 2018)

8. 2013 December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.

Building Consolidated discussion, combining 1987 and Bogatin story threads; updated "full-page ads" item, numbered items, just included for context items in grey (2 & 4). I plan to wlink to previous discussions threads in Archive2 for easy reference when time premits (WIP) soon, and Archive old/separate discussion threads. X1\ (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

In Google Books, a significant number of pages of Trump / Russia: A Definitive History are free to view online, including on Bogatin. Bogatin is on pages 6-13, 16, 18-21, 63, and 164 per the book's Index (the body of the the book is 224 pages). X1\ (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

For previous discussion, see "vision of "Trump Tower Moscow" starting in 1987" thread and "Trump's new found interest in international politics after their time to the Soviet Union" thread. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

And for other previous discussion, see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 2#1987. X1\ (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And for more previous discussion, see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 3#Bogatin story. X1\ (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Added "Right to Bear Arms" to item for clarity. X1\ (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

These items are gaining significance for here, &/or a new article will needed create per new U.S. House interest in probe of President Trump and Russia regarding money laundering in particular. Currently three committees are already involved: United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House Committee on Financial Services, and United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. X1\ (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. And these affairs are getting less and less connected to Russian election interference. Start another article. — JFG ^talk 11:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably better to rename this article and start a new article about Russian interference in the election. I don't see for example what John Bolton's appearance in a 2013 Russian pro-gun video has to do with the interference in the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: you appear to be confused. That article, of which you have edited, already exists: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; and Bolton's video is in this Timeline. X1\ (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, now I am confused. Yes I edited this article two years ago and in fact am now posting on its talk page. My suggestion was that we have a separate article about Russian interference in the election and rename this article. Stuff about for example John Bolton appearing in a Russian pro-gun video before Trump decided to run for president is not an example of Russian interference in the election, considering that Bolton was not part of the Trump campaign. However, it may be part of an article that shows connections between members of the Trump administration and Russia. Having renamed this article, we could then have one that concentrates on how Russia actually interfered in the election, for example by using a Moscow troll farm to post ads on facebook. TFD (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: check the link again; that article (you edited 05:15, 17 April 2017) was started 10 December 2016‎ and this article was created 23 May 2017‎. And yes you are correct, the Butina/ NRA/Bolton /Trump item shows an example of Russian connections to the U.S. election system; infiltration and then interference. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to forget edits after two or three years. What I meant was that there are two topics: the relationship between Trump officials and Russians and Russians intervention in the election. While I understand the view that facebook ads posted by Russians swung the election, it is unclear how Bolton's participation in a pro-gun video had any relevance. And no sources say it did. TFD (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Bolton's pro-gun speech in 2013 is far removed from any Russian election interference in 2016. Perhaps a separate timeline should be created for the NRA–Russia–Butina sub-plot, which frankly only confuses readers here. Will remove Bolton now. — JFG ^talk 10:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bolton item shows that he is connected to Butina, who was part of the Russian influence campaign on the NRA, which is being investigated for possibly using Russian money in the 2016 election.Websurfer2 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

New article on Bolton yet to read maybe useful. X1\ (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I copied from items from #2013 John R. Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, video for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's organization that are have been discussed here. X1\ (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Something related to watch regarding money-laundering and Russia: Deutsche Bank with regards to Trump and Kushner (2016/2017); and Estonian branch of Danish Bank, Danske Bank, involving $230 Billion. X1\ (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note: from Steve Bannon wp article, regarding book Fire and Fury quote: Bannon warned that investigators would likely uncover money laundering involving Jared Kushner and his family business loans from Deutsche Bank. X1\ (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Felix Sater plotted to launder stolen cash through Trump projects, lawsuit claims published: Mar 25, 2019 10:24 p.m. ET X1\ (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note: added "Maria Butina" wikilink for clarification. X1\ (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Note: US congressional probe finds possible failures in Deutsche Bank controls with Russian oligarchs: report & Exclusive: U.S. congressional probe finds possible lapses in Deutsche Bank controls - sources (both from September 6, 2019). X1\ (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Semion Mogilevich → Dmytro Firtash → Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman per A Dozen Questions for John Solomon justsecurity.org (5.Nov), How an Indicted Oligarch Became a Key Player in Trump’s Ukraine Scandal; Dmytro Firtash is fighting extradition to the United States. His lawyers are the president’s staunchest defenders. MoJo (18.Oct), DOJ has still not answered question about Firtash extradition nbcnews (15.Oct), and Destination Vienna: Connecting Trump, Giuliani, two fixers and a Ukrainian oligarch kyivpost.com (12.Oct). X1\ (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• ...and John Solomon (political commentator) link. X1\ (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Semion Mogilevich → Dmytro Firtash → Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman ⇿ Rudy Giuliani (per various RSs). X1\ (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Auto Archive

@X1\: Why disable the archive bot?[9] PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look through its history of behavior here, it hasn't been "predictable". X1\ (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So why not try and fix it? PackMecEng (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not the architect of User:MiszaBot/config and don't have time to get up-to-speed to bother with it, I have other commitments. This is much easier. X1\ (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Then don't make work for others. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay now why remove it again? I changed the parameters and it should work now. The indexing wasn't right. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I mean seriously. Why put the broken one back? At least see if the new fix does it, there was an error in the counter section. No one rolled it over when the last archive was full, we can wait until tonight and confirm. It did not run last night because it was changed to late. This is getting disruptive and no need to edit war on a talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Maintain the "original" version, not your altered version, until it is reviewed. Do not make changes to the auto-archiver. X1\ (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: So you maintained the known broken one over one that works because.... reasons? Then proceed to edit war on the talk page over it why? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources

I have been noticing a lot of primary sources are used for entries in this timeline. Is that something we should be doing? PackMecEng (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: There is nothing wrong with primary sources as long as they are provided as supplemental to secondary sources. For example, an entry about a speech with secondary sources describing the event and content can also have a link to the transcript of the speech. Another example is entries that have secondary sources discussing a document (e.g. a letter of intent) as well as a link to the document. Also, I know there are a few entries that do rely upon a primary source in addition to the secondary source to fix the exact date of the event, which is perfectly acceptable under WP policy. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Websurfer2: The issues are the entries on this list that rely only on a primary source. For example this entry by you yesterday. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: The Senate Intel Committee reports are considered secondary sources, just like the Mueller and House Intel Committee reports. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Websurfer2: No, they are considered primary sources since they are the original documents. If other RS report on it then those are secondary sources. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: The bulk of the reports are non-analysis and contain citations for every sentence. That makes them secondary reports sources. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Websurfer2 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Websurfer2: That is incorrect, please see for example this discussion at RSN about the Mueller Report. Consensus says it is a primary source. PackMecEng (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I see no consensus there and several entries correctly pointing out the non-analysis sections meet the secondary source definition at WP:SECONDARY. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• The report is obviously an RS. Is it primary? I do not think so because this a summary of findings by all investigators, and it cites numerous other documents, many of which are primary. Not exactly a scientific review, but something similar. See also these comments on RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Even if it were a primary source, we can use them for uncontroversial (by RS, not editors) straight facts, without interpretation. -- Valjean (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is being used to quote controversial statements by a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to this entry? Is there controversy in RS about whether that statement actually was made? Has the editor involved included that info in a non-NPOV manner by censoring it or framing it in a manner that shows editorial bias? The answers are "No". I don't see a problem.

The framing is very neutral, even if it shows yet another example of Trump's love affair with Putin, which RS and the Senate Intelligence Committee have shown is part of the reason why Trump and his campaign so readily co-operated with the Russian interference in the 20126 elections, and why they continue to do it now while Russia continues to help Trump get re-elected in 2020.

This finding of the BI-PARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee should be included:

The Committee's Report clearly shows that Trump and his Campaign were not mere bystanders in this attack - they were active participants. They coordinated their activities with the releases of the hacked Russian data, magnified the effects of a known Russian campaign, and welcomed the mutual benefit from the Russian activity. p. 944

The italics are original. -- Valjean (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly think it matters if there is controversy in RS? The answer is clearly and laughably not. The rest is just your own WP:OR with zero policy based arguments and will be ignored. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it matters. It is what RS think is controversial, not whether editors think so, that determines whether we consider something controversial for content here. Obviously, editors' opinions influence discussions on content pages, but it is what RS say that influence content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• If there is some other policy-based reason for the objection, it would be very easy to find that content in secondary sources, where those sources' biased and POV framing would then be included, something that some might not like. Right now, we're just using the fact with no RS framing, which is about as neutral as it's possible to be. -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• You should have mentioned that this discussion was happening: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are government documents primary sources? -- Valjean (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • MVBW already linked it above, please look before you post. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah! I didn't see that. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Smells like "original research" tier chapter. Uchyot (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian Interference

There was no Russian collusion at all. Wikipedia shouldn't have this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. News articles are not evidence, and until there is actual evidence, or the trial of Hillary’s lawyer for feeding mis-information to the press concludes, this page needs to either be removed or marked with *CONSPIRACY THEORY* 66.235.18.72 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

But the muller report does contain evidence, it it is not the media. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Blueanon bullshit is permitted but nobody is allowed to question legitimacy of 2020 election even though Biden himself spouted bluanon conspiracies about 2020 election being interfered with by Russia.

• Let's just say this article looks like one slab of original research; while "interference" thing was investigated... IIRC...Uchyot (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• • https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fec-fines-dnc-clinton-for-trump-dossier-hoax Fines over $100K to the DNC and Clinton Foundation for the complete bullshit of the Steele Dossier. But please continue with your tinfoil hattery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.187.1 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)