Jump to content

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m forgot word
Line 457: Line 457:
::First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has '''''never''''' been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix|talk]]) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has '''''never''''' been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix|talk]]) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. [http://www.npr.org/2017/01/26/511786803/journalist-russias-interference-is-an-assault-on-the-western-liberal-order Quite the opposite], in fact. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. [http://www.npr.org/2017/01/26/511786803/journalist-russias-interference-is-an-assault-on-the-western-liberal-order Quite the opposite], in fact. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This has already been discussed and settled. The verifiability of the RS is very clear, and the intelligence community has, if anything, made even more clear that they stand by their evidence and published statements. That "agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging" does not indicate they are backing down or are any less certain. On the contrary. They have settled the matter, and they feel no need to continue kicking a dead horse, and that's exactly what this RfC is doing. It's absurd. <p>Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions, and without any good evidence. <p>This isn't a conspiracy theory (with conflicting opinions and no good evidence) where we have to couch the title in modifiers. This is a firmly settled matter, and until multiple RS find new evidence that totally upsets the apple cart, the current title is good enough. Editorial doubts should not be included in the title. That would violate NPOV. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:57, 4 February 2017

RfC: Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?

By breadth of support, there were 14 editors who supported inclusion of Putin's response and 4 who opposed inclusion. Argumentation saw equally valid presentations on both sides, however, the significant breadth of support in favor of inclusion helps to establish a clear consensus. That said, there was widespread agreement, on both sides, that inclusion should not come in the form of a verbatim quote but a summary or paraphrase of the essential elements of the statement. The consensus is that Vladimir Putin's December 23 response should be included in this article in an abbreviated, summarized, or paraphrased form, but not as a direct quote. DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

At a December 23 press conference, Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election: "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."[1] Does Putin's response belong in the article? (I am doing this as an RfC because the existing discretionary sanctions on American Politics effectively give anyone veto power over any material merely by deleting it, regardless of how flimsy the rationale for deletion may be—although in practice this is constantly abused and inconsistently enforced.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Filipov, David (2016-12-23). "Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-12-26.

Survey – Putin response

  • Support adding Putin's response. This material was deleted as "wp:undue" by User:Volunteer Marek, but it's hard for me to imagine how WP:UNDUE could apply to Putin's own response to allegations that he personally interfered in the U.S. election.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This direct quote by Putin directly pertaining to the issue (in an article devoid of quotes by Putin) certainly is appropriate under the "Commentary and Reaction" section, the "Russian Government" sub-section, as originally entered by TheTimesAreAChanging. There currently is no direct quote by the man directly implicated in these actions and this one is notable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a distraction. Obviously, Russia denies this and is trying to make this about the election and not about the violations committed by their intelligence and disinformation agencies. - Scarpy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited a political, but not an encyclopedic, reason for excluding the statement of an alleged perpetrator of the action the article is devoted to. Your guess as to what Putin's motives are is irrelevant. The direct statement of the alleged perpetrator of the activity the article is devoted to is 100% completely relevant and 100% deserving of inclusion in the "Reaction and Commentary" sub-section. Marteau (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously US politicians and officials never do this. That's what makes their opinions so reliable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to respond here. I will remind you to assume good faith, and to pay close attention to comments before responding. If you'd like to have a two-sided conversation, I'm all for it. If you want to go off on tangents, there are other contributors to this article what will likely indulge you. - Scarpy (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is clearly one of the more notable statements in the "Commentary and Reaction" section. It has received more than enough enough coverage in the non-Russian press. This despite the fact that (a) it's very recent (b) national media coverage is necessarily skewed toward reporting on statements made by domestic politicians (i.e. not Putin), something which has to be taken into account per wp:systemicbias. If it were up to me, the "reaction" section would be down to a paragraph, and a lot of the less-than-informative commentary (including this taunting by Putin) would go. since that does not appear to be in the cards, Putin's statement from his major annual press conference must be kept per WP:DUE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think we have to include a brief mention of this based on the widespread coverage in reliable sources, even though it's empty posturing and diversionary.- MrX 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by "brief"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We can simply summarize what he said. For example, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat". Quoting him directly is just lazy writing.- MrX 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea, especially since we weren't quoting him directly but rather giving a translation of what he said in Russian. (There's a different translation with essentially the same or similar meaning on the President of Russia webcite.[1]) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Statement is obviously relevant, and widely cited in RS, Volunteer Marek's POV notwithstanding. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. — JFG talk 08:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It wasn't specified what "all fronts" meant. For example, one of those fronts could be the war in Syria. Putin's comments about the elections accusations came a little later in the reliable source.
" Putin dismissed suggestions Moscow had helped Trump to victory in any way however.
  'It's not like that,' he said. 'All of this (the accusations) speaks of the current administration's systemic problems.' "
--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you just gave, together with his point elsewhere about the the substance of the leaks being more important than the identity of the leakers, is IMO more substantive and measured than the stuff about politicians not being "graceful." The latter is too close to the shrill rants from ex-spies about the "hideousness" of Trump's treatment of their courageous colleagues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a problem with your RfC proposal because the given source doesn't clearly indicate that the quote is about the elections. The fact that you had to go to other sources, seems to admit that your given source is inadequate. You might try making a proposal that is correctly sourced by using material from the sources in your recent message above and we'll see if it works. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that the one source I gave could be so misconstrued, or that we were going to be this pedantic. I have replaced Reuters with the Washington Post of the same day, which uses the same Putin quote but is even more unequivocal regarding its meaning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it would be appropriate to include a well-sourced statement that Putin denies Russian involvement in the hacking, that is not what this RfC would provide. This RfC promotes the clearly UNDUE and irrelevant fact that Putin denigrates the Democrats. Per my statement and others in the discussion section below, editors should oppose this WP:POINTy RfC and we should instead follow policy to include appropriate accounts of Putin's denial. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to including as direct quotation. This should be mentioned, but only briefly summarized as the fact that Putin denied the claim. I do not see any reason for including direct quotation here. He is not a Cicero, and the statements adds nothing to the simple fact of denial beyond disparaging other people. The only reason to include quotation is to disparage democrats, which is not the purpose of WP.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not the purpose of Wikipedia to exclude quotes just because they disparage Democrats. If the quote is notable enough, it should be included, either in direct or paraphrased form. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, why exactly anyone would consider this quotation notable? This is just a slander that provides zero information. Saying that, I realize that certain slander can be notable (e.g. "shoot the rabid dogs!" by Andrey Vyshinsky or "kill them in an toilet" by Putin) as described in numerous books. However, I do not see why that particular slander would be notable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Russian President makes a public statement on alleged Russian hacking, then it's inherently notable. The evidence for that notability is the wide press coverage Putin's remarks have received. It doesn't matter if you consider the content of those remarks to be "slander that provides zero information." A lot of people think President Obama's statements on the issue, and the statements of his intelligence agencies, are also slander that provide zero information. But they're notable, as evidenced by the press coverage they've received. The only possible reason to exclude this information, that I can see, is political. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the claim (the denial) is notable or at least deserve to be noted on the page. However, the quotation is not notable. It might became notable in a year from now (just as in two my examples above) if it will be mentioned in books on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Could you please help me understand your reasoning behind invoking WP:UNDUE on this? "UNDUE" is of course very broadly writter, and it is not clear to me what aspect of the "undue" policy you think including this quote violates. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This isn't an article about "Putin's opinions about the Democratic Party of the United States". Which makes inclusion of this quote POVFORKish. Like I said, his denial of Russian involvement is of course DUE, but his opinions about the Dems, is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is "undue" for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek et al., so is roughly 90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state. Editors are being highly selective--per wp:systemicbias--in what they consider "undue." Putin's other point was that it's not who stole the emails, but what's in them. Remember that Putin himself tried push the same "our enemies did it" line as the Democrats when the Panama papers came out, to distract from the contents of the docs. Would pointing that out also be "undue"? Remember that this article is about Russian "interference in the election", not Russia's "interference in the DNC's IT infrastructure." Therefore the broader political issues can't be dismissed, and in fact are not dismissed by RS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmmm.... that's actually not true at all. Blatantly not true. Can you *specifically* which parts of the "Reactions" section have "little to do" with the Russian interference in the US election? Because when I read it, it looks like all of is precisely about that. (And seriously, trying to distinguish between "Russian interference in US election" and "Russian interference in DNC structure" is just silly) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Former CIA director Michael Morell said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat and called it the "political equivalent" of the September 11 attacks". Let's see: an ex-spy saying "its 911!" is wp:due and relevant; a sitting president saying that the Democrats have used the "Russian interference" angle as a distraction from their political mistakes and from the content of the emails is off-topic. Did I get that about right? Finally there is nothing silly about the distinction: Russian "interference in the election" encompasses everything from hacking to fundamentally compromising the electoral process. Some others (rough irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 60% baseline): Trump on WMD (60%); Trump on China (100%); ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (100%); ex-CIA Harlow on Trump's "hideousness" (100%); Clinton on Putin's personal vendetta (50%); McElvaine calling for intervention by the electoral college (50%) because it's the worst scandal ever (a year ago, the worst was "Benghazi-gate", if memory serves); probably a few others I was too lazy to cite. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said, quote, "90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state". You haven't actually managed to substantiate that at all, just made up some numbers. Here, let me respond (irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 87.456% baseline):
Ex-CIA director (3.455%), Trump on WMD (8.334%), Trump on China (actually barely mentioned) (100*(sqr(2)/5.7)%), ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (actually disrespecting CIA assessment of the hack) (2x+y=2.8, x=y, .01*x%), ex-CIA Harlow (actually not Trump's hideousness, but that the dispute is hideousness, please read that correctly) (.01*(e^2)/2*e^1.1%), Clinton on Putin's vendetta (.01*lim (x--> inf) (5*(x^4)+6)/(6*(x^4)+3*(x^3)+2x)... %), McElvaine calling for intervention (4.9494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949439494949494%).
See how that works? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it doesn't look like the two of you are discussing your issue in terms of the policy WP:UNDUE, which begins with,
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including mention of this. However the 'quote' is not a quote, but a translation, so it doesn't really seem to belong. I think we can describe his statements as blaming and criticizing the Democrats and denying the Russia's involvement (as opposed to simply saying that he denied Russian involvement), but any English version of what he said cannot, by definition be a quote. We shouldn't try to present it as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, MrX suggested above, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Support including the citation as proposed by TheTimesAreAChanging. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to whether Putin personally or not directed the hacks. He has responded to these accusations, which makes it relevant, and he has been quoted by a number of WP:RS. It's a no-brainer.XavierItzm (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

References

Separately but relatedly, it's also incorrect to frame the issue of whether "Putin's own response should be included" — his response already is included, under "Reactions: Russian government," we clearly and specifically note what Putin's representatives have said (denied that Russia participated, termed accusation "nonsense") and additional quote Russian foreign minister Lavrov as well. Neutralitytalk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be preferable to cite only "Putin's representatives," but not the man himself—especially when a CIA-connected journalist told ABC Putin was "personally involved"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the malformed presentation, I suggest somebody archive this and that if OP wishes to pursue the RfC a properly stated and formatted version be presented. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only in American Politics, folks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you move your argumentation out of the question section (to the comments or threaded discussion section), that would in my view fix the problem. This is a pretty simple thing to do to follow pretty simple RfC rules. Neutralitytalk 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're only going to have a problem a month from now if this RfC is not properly set forth. I am going to post on AN asking for assistance. The cherrypicked statement by Putin on the 23rd is not about the hacking, it's another in his denigrations of the Democrats and by implication Sec'y Clinton, for whom he has longstanding animosity. There are RS accounts of Putin denying Russian involvement in the hacking and it's appropriate to say Russia denied the conclusions of the US Gov't, but this RfC is misstated and cites Putin's off-topic dissembling on a different subject. This needs to be closed and a proper RfC or edit -- on the topic of this article -- added to the talk page or article. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of the RfC that "Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election" with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source. Presentation of Putin's response to accusations came a little later in the reliable source, as indicated in my comment in the survey section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this RfC is a hot mess. Even if the putative outcome were "support" it would not relate to the relevant matter, namely that Putin has denied involvement. So any supporting !votes here are supporting an undue off-topic and irrelevant statement. That's why we need to shut this down and mount a properly stated RfC, although frankly, as others have stated, the posting of this RfC seems like an argumentative and WP:POINTy reaction to @Volunteer Marek:'s appropriate reversion of the off-topic content. Is there an Admin in the house? Please can't we get this straight? OP has been asked to edit, but at this point we have responses and it is too late for OP to correct this. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if admins intervene in this type of situation. In the meantime, you might consider adding your opinion to the survey section and hope that more will see the problem with this RfC and oppose it --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that, thank you, but I will also challenge any close that purports to endorse off-topic article content due to the disruptive malformed statement of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As documented below, Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are playing with fantasies rather than facts, and SPECIFICO is the only one being disruptive (while threatening further disruption). Putin's remarks are apparently so damaging to the narrative these editors seek to promote that they find it easier to assimilate them into their worldview by assiduously denying that Putin said what everyone else heard him say (Russia's official transcript be damned!).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what kind of alternate universe Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are living in when they claim "The premise of the RfC that 'Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election' with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source." Here is Russia's official transcript of the press conference:
  • Yevgeny Primakov: Our western colleagues often tell us that you have the power to manipulate the world, designate presidents, and interfere in elections here and there. How does it feel to be the most powerful person on Earth? Thank you.
  • Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the "vestiges of a 17th century chapel," but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting. ... The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.
And here is how this was reported in reliable sources:
  • "Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it," The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladi­mir Putin has a message for the White House and Democratic leaders who accuse him of stealing their candidate’s victory: Don't be sore losers. That was how Putin answered a question Friday at his nationally televised annual news conference about whether Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. The Democrats 'are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame,' he told the nearly 1,400 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall for the nearly four-hour event. 'In my view, this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity.'"
  • "Putin says Democrats are being sore losers: 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully'," Business Insider, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that top Democrats are being sore losers by, in part, looking to blame Hillary Clinton's stunning election loss on hacks said to have been orchestrated by the Kremlin. 'They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame,' Putin said. 'I think that this is an affront to their own dignity.' 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully,' he added, suggesting Clinton's loss was a result of a 'gap between the elite's vision of what is good and bad' and the 'broad popular masses.'"
  • "Putin reaches out to Trump, while thumping Dems," Fox News, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin followed up a warm letter to Donald Trump with a more terse message for U.S. Democrats Friday: Don't blame me for your November drubbing. ... 'Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere,' he said. 'They need to learn to lose with dignity.' 'The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress. ... Is that also my work?' he said. He went on to ridicule Democrats for never-say-die efforts to overturn the Nov. 8 presidential election, first by calling for recounts, then trying to get electors to flip. 'The fact that the current ruling party called Democratic has blatantly forgotten the original definition of its name is evident if one takes into consideration unscrupulous use of administrative resource and appeals to electors not to concede to voters' choice,' Putin said, according to the Russian news agency Tass."
Do I really need to go on? There is no serious argument that this material has nothing to do with "claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election"; as both the official transcript and the cited RS make clear, Putin chose to respond to the question about interfering in the election by emphasizing the Democrats's need for an external scapegoat. The real argument is simply that some editors don't like how Putin chose to respond, citing WP:NOCRITICISMOFTHEDEMOCRATICPARTYCANEVER,EVER,EVERBEALLOWED—red link very much intended.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my argument. Maybe my recent message responding to you in the Survey section might clarify that. [2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marteau:It was not the Democrats accusing the Russians of this or that. It was the official intelligence assessment of the US Government, accepted by both parties in Congress and just about everywhere else except the Trump team, who endorsed and requested Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: It is not our task to judge the correctness, or incorrectness, of Putin's statement. It is his opinion and his reply to the accusations he has faced, and it belongs in the "Reaction and Commentary" section. But besides that, the Democrats certainly DID accuse the Russians "of this or that". They actually made quite a big to-do about it, as I recall. Marteau (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that his "accusers" are not the Democrats, it is the US Government. Only the Trump campaign and associates deny this. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obama administration accuses Russian government of election-year hacking" Marteau (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to respond to your statement above that Putin's derogation of the Democrats is on topic for this article because it was the Democratic Party that accused/determined that the Russians hacked. But it was not the Democratic Party, it was the US Government -- the Obama Administration for the executive branch based on the National Intelligence Assessment, and a broad bi-partisan array of US members of Congress. So Putin's snarky put-down presumably of the campaign of Sec'y Clinton, whom he despises, is not relevant to this article. It might be relevant to an article about Secretary Clinton's campaign, since it is a meme that various talking heads on the cable networks have also presented. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Marteau (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify the disagreement. Do you doubt that mainstream RS all report that it was the US Gov't intelligence assessment that Russia hacked? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Russian interference in the election. Democrats, using US intelligence as a basis, have in fact accused Russia of interference. Putin has addressed Democratic criticism. I feel that these issues are worthy of inclusion in an article about Russian interference in the election. I think it has foundation and rationale for inclusion based on policy and guidelines. Thats my stance, you disagree. Now, I'll resume agreeing to disagree if you don't mind :) Marteau (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we treated the U.S. government like any other government—for example, the former Soviet regime—we would be far more skeptical of official U.S. government statistics on GDP, inflation, or anything else—and we would be particularly cautious when reporting on classified CIA intelligence analyses anonymously leaked to CIA-connected journalists working for CIA-connected newspapers with no supporting evidence. If we were capable of looking at the U.S. government objectively, we would recognize that it has the same feuding power centers and careerist incentives to the tow the line as any other state—that the CIA is perfectly capable of fabricating intelligence to suit the needs of the incumbent administration—indeed, that the CIA has a long history of doing exactly that. Recall, for example, Richard Helms's bowing to pressure from LBJ to reduce the CIA's estimate of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troop strength: "At one point the CIA analysts estimated enemy strength at 500,000, while the military insisted it was only 270,000. No amount of discussion could resolve the difference. Eventually, in September 1967, the CIA under Helms went along with the military's lower number for the combat strength of the Vietnamese Communist forces." (That illusion was, of course, shattered in spectacular fashion next January.) (SPECIFICO even recently cited "George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD 'intelligence' was a lie"—but I'm sure that could never happen today!) The publicly available facts are as follows:
Because Putin's remarks are so profoundly damaging to the current official U.S. government position (itself likely to suddenly, inexplicably change yet again after January 20, 2017), editors are pretending that Putin didn't really say what the official transcript says he said, or couldn't possibly have meant it—and, in any case, doubting the accuracy and integrity of the CIA is inherently WP:UNDUE, or something.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last point too accurate to be said out loud. I can't wait to see what will be considered "due" and "reliable" for this article after January 20th, 2017. US officials say... Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly can't believe that we're arguing over whether a widely covered statement by the Russian President on the hacking scandal and election is relevant to this article. Even more than that, I can't believe that there are people who are arguing that it isn't related to "2016 United States election interference by Russia." I feel like I've stepped into an alternate reality. Really, can we just step back and try to approach this article with less blatant POV battling? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Adotchar| reply here 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The thrashing and wailing accompanying the proposed inclusion of a quote by the man directly accused of involvement in this issue, in the "Commentary and Reactions - Russian Government" subsection is becoming ludicrous and at this point I have to believe POV pushing is involved. The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement; it ascribes a purported motive and is something anyone who hopes to fully understand the dynamics of this issue should be exposed to. His words also capture the tenor of the issue and the animosity present beyond which what a sterile paraphrase can capture. That this statement is Putin's POV is clear, and any bemoaning about how it casts Democrats in a bad light insults the intelligence of the reader... the source and his bias is obvious and the reader needs no protection from such a quote in a "Commentary" subsection. Marteau (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement" – If you read it carefully, it does not deny Russian involvement. Here it is for reference, "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."
Also note that it is not a quote of what he said, which was in Russian, but rather a translation. It differs from the translation given on the President of Russia webcite, although it essentially has the same or similar meaning. Here it is for reference, "They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully."[3]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Putin's comment could be more properly considered a comment, or reaction. Which actually makes it perfectly appropriate material for the "Commentary and Reaction" section, which is of course what this RfC is about. Marteau (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Russian trolls' support for Trump" Section Biased

In this section, articles only from the Guardian and Daily Beast are cited. Both are well-known to be "progressive, liberal" sources of news, and to make things worse, the sources are unreliable. For example, source 44. Go there and read its claims that "RT" and "Sputnik" promoted "fake news" about an incident in Turkey. Now ACTUALLY GO READ THOSE ARTICLES ON RT AND SPUTNIK (they are still there), and the articles DO NOT claim that there was a 2nd coup attempt, but only say that there is speculation that a 2nd coup attempt may have occurred, and they specifically report that they asked a Turkish official what happened and that he denied a 2nd coup, and said it was just a security check. The article on RT DOES mention the protest, as well, in conjunction with what U.S. Government sources claim occurred, no one claims another coup occurred, only that there was speculation about it because of the 7,000 police forces that surrounded the base, and there is an open and on-going dispute about whether those police forces were there or not. The U.S. says "no", RT says "Yes", and the Turkish official appears to side with RT, claiming they were there but only doing a "security check". The numbers are also in dispute, whether it was 7,000 or fewer, but the problem here is that The Guardian and Daily Beast stories, used as "credible references" in this Wiki, are not credible because those particular stories claim that the RT article is one-sided and claims there was another coup atttempt, when it does not. It merely speculates that might have happened, but reports that Turkish officials deny it. The Guardian and Daily Beast also claim that, because the Pentagon said it didn't happen, then it factually did not happen. There are a number of high-profile cases of the Pentagon claiming something did not happen, or making statements that allude to something not having happened, when in fact it did happen. The Guardian and Daily Beast should be reporting that the Pentagon claims it was just a protest and did not happen, while Turkey and RT both are reporting the police did show up, and the facts are disputed. Just because you are a U.S. newspaper doesn't mean the U.S. Government always tells the truth (Iraq WMDs, claims that Iran and not Iraq gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq w/100% certaintly during Reagan's tenure, then flip-flopping and claiming it was Saddam w/100% certainty during W.'s tenure, etc., etc.).

Bizarre title

The article title implies the facts are established even though the allegations are presented without any evidence! Only on Wiki.....Sarah777

"Marginal commentary"

Regarding the commentary by Jeffrey Carr and Scott Ritter, which were recently removed, I'd like to ask, "what constitutes 'marginal commentary'?" Is it commentary an editor dislikes? Is it commentary that was made in the margins of a page? I'm just curious, because looking through the history of this page, the only pattern I can see is that "marginal" views seems to always coincide with views editors applying the label personally disagree with. I'm wondering, for example, why a HuffPost piece written by Robert McElvaine is not "marginal," while the views Jeffrey Carr, cited in Harper's Magazine, are "marginal." If someone has a better explanation than the one I've proposed, please enlighten me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. By the same token, comments by Glenn Greenwald have been refuted, claiming he was "not an expert". Well, if Greenwald is not qualified commenting on US intelligence, then neither are 80% of cited commenters. I shall now restore this material. — JFG talk 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a concerted effort on this page to remove criticism of the US government or intelligence agencies under the guise of "UNDUE". However, UNDUE is part of NPOV, which tries to represent all major viewpoints of a topic published by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source publishes an opposing view, then it's our job to report it with proper attribution. That said, I've removed nonspecific criticism like "cybersecurity services may overstate their conclusions," though more specific accusations can be included. FallingGravity 09:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the misuse of WP:UNDUE. I don't think, however, that the "overstate" claim was non-specific - it was made directly in the context of the Russian hacking allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Greenwald goes, "widely known" is not the same thing as "qualified". He's not. Not an "expert". Seriously, it's like everytime Greenwald sneezes some starry eyed fan of his has to run over here to Wikipedia and try to cram it into some article somewhere. I'd say Carr and Steinberg are borderline. Ritter also not credible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion about Greenwald doesn't change the fact that he is one of the major global media voices at present. This looks a lot like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence based arguments to remove Greenwald's commentary? -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is a "major global media voice at present"? He got some money. He started a newspaper. He uses the newspaper to pontificate and print his own opinions. It's basically a WP:SPS. And burden is on you to show Greenwald's commentary is somehow notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that breaking the Snowden case speaks for itself, as does being the flagship writer for The Intercept. But if you look at wikipedia page hits over the last two months you'll see that compared to other figures mentioned in this article, Greenwald does pretty well:
It's almost comical to look at. He is significantly more read about on Wikipedia than CNN anchors Jim Acosta, Christiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer, Fareed Zakaria... -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear why this should be some kind of criteria. I can find all sorts of articles about all sorts of ridiculous people who get viewed more than these - doesn't mean we'd include them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a "ridiculous" person broke one of the biggest stories about American intelligence ever, right up there with the Pentagon Papers and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. The journalist who was famous enough that he got poached from The Guardian by a billionaire looking to set up an independent news agency (sorry, I mean a "rag"). Look, nobody is asking that you love the guy, but it would be enough for you to recognize that he's a very well-known journalist, especially on matters of US intelligence, who broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean we exclude what he writes from Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You're trying very hard to miss the point. No, I did not say Greenwald was "ridiculous". What I said is that it's silly to determine someone's notability or appropriatness for this article based on the number of views their Wikipedia article had recently. I can find SOME OTHER NON GREENWALD ridiculous person who tops Greenwald's number but that doesn't mean we should include them. Understand? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently nothing will ever convince you. What if I start attacking the credibility of this Adrian Chen character whose biggest claims to fame is seeing patterns of online trolls and making inferences about how all of this was organized directly by Mr. Putin because he happens to hold a grudge against Mrs. Clinton? How childish is that? Oh sure, he's an "expert" because he once outed a troll for clicks and profit. Lack of ethics much? — JFG talk 23:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're completely wrong since Falling Gravity convinced me. How did they do that? Oh! By bringing reliable sources to the table rather than engaging in WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT commentary. Maybe... there's a lesson here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Chen is cited in this article as a journalist, not a cybersecurity start-up consultant graduate student exchanging a free website mention for some facile and ultimately irrelevant comment about a redacted and unclassified report that's culled from the vastly more penetrating and undisputed official classified assessment. Anywaze, Mr. Chen is cited as giving a rather balanced report -- as befits a fine journalist. So, what is your concern about Mr. Chen? We're all ears. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns with Mr. Chen are stated above: making wide-ranging inferences from anecdotal evidence and having a history of unethical behaviour. But my real concern is with the one-sided pile-on about the CIA+US press narrative being the only "acceptable" one in this article. — JFG talk 07:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's more like every time anyone cites the Intercept for anything, someone throws a tantrum. The only argument is that the Intercept sometimes reaches different conclusions from the Daily Beast or the Wash Po. Therefore it's "undue". How on earth is this an argument? As for Ritter, he's obviously fringe. Remember the time he spread the conspiracy theory that Bush was overstating his WMD allegations? Thank God, RS like Judith Miller told us the "mainstream" view (mainstream for about 5% of the world's population). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're not very good with sarcasm.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just don't like it, although I doubt you'll find much to disagree with in my "sarcastic" comment. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, another wikilawyering threat by SPECIFICO. These constant threats are really out of line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: VM's reinstatement of your edit, after it was challenged by reversion, is a clear violation of WP:ARBAPDS. You are also running dangerously close to breaching these sanctions by edit warring to keep your edit - despite the fact that it was challenged by reversion - by repeatedly threatening all who disagree with you. Stop threatening other editors, stop edit warring, and use the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Ackwards, m'lady. Please review the policies and Arbcom decision and sanctions. That will save the talk page from a lot of clutter. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through that case, I have no sense whatsoever that you are right to reinstate your preferred version, while others are prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, the very bad editing environment that the case describes applies, perfectly, to this situation. The issue of consensus and good faithed editing behavior will be especially difficult for all of us to resolve on our own, given the acrimony that has been seen on this page. SPECIFICO there is plenty of blame to go around for that, but your constant accusations and threats go a long way to creating a battleground atmosphere here.
I think maintaining mainstream voices who are skeptical of definite Russian involvement is very important to this article. The recent RfC, in which a majority of editors preferred to not include the word "allegations" in the title, nevertheless showed that many editors thought it should be present (the official RfC result was "no consensus"). Given the editing history here, I'd proposal mediation to resolve the question of whether Ritter or Greenwald can be removed from the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on your talk page asking you to back up your disparagement with some diffs so I can understand. I think you must have me confused with somebody else.
somebody else
-- I don't edit the article much here and I don't see any time I reinserted the same text twice. Anyway, the article talk page is not the place for personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, in this particular instance you removed article commentary by Carr and Ritter (on the 23rd), and your edit was reverted by Thucydides (same day). Casprings reinstated your edit (same day), and was this time reverted by FallingGravity (same day). A day later, VM again attempted to reinstate your edit, and I reverted him (24th).
I see that MrX had originally tried removing Ritter's view on the 18th, and was reverted by Guccisamsclub (same day).
On the other hand, I see that Carr's view was added on the 14th by Tobby72, and reverted on the same day by you. Carr was quoted by Andrew Cockburn in Harper's Magazine: a major political commentator in a major magazine. For that reason your one-word edit summary, "undue," is aggravating to other editors because it's clearly non-obvious, and therefore comes across as partisan. SPECIFICO, do you understand why editors would respond poorly to one-word removal of carefully sourced statements to major magazines/contributors? Nevertheless you were removing Tobby's added material (I haven't seen that it had been there earlier), and so you're technically correct that this material may be removed according to the general sanctions. I'll self revert on that point.
You're correct that you haven't edited again (in recent history) on this particular content - though I wrote "repeatedly edit warred" because the last time you threatened me with DS, I saw that I was in fact reinstating content you yourself had added. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so why are you reinstating content which was clearly challenged. I mean hell, you provide the diff where Specifco (or Mr. X) challenges the material yourself, then proceed to violate discretionary sanctions anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point made above about removing an opinion by a well-known commentator in a prestigious magazine with the one-word edit summary "undue" is really the crux of the issue, and I haven't seen Volunteer Marek or SPECIFICO answer it yet. It's all well and fine to say that we have to wait for consensus before reinstating challenged material, but when the editors who removed it are completely unwilling to justify the removal in greater detail than "undue," what are we supposed to do? This looks very much like gaming the DS system - "challenge" content by vaguely referencing some random Wikipedia acronym, then refuse to engage on that content. The content that has been "challenged" cannot be restored, but nothing more than some extremely subjective grounds like "undue" or "not mainstream" (applied even to major national newspapers like the Süddeutsche Zeitung) is given. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration remedy states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." MrX had attempted to remove material present for some time in the article, and their edit was "challenged (via reversion)." I self-reverted in an instance where content was added, and then quickly reverted, i.e. "challenged (via reversion)." If you read through the whole case, it becomes clear that the major issue is using the talk page or other normal, collegial means to resolve content disputes. There is no wikilawyering that allows one side to use DS to keep their "preferred version," but not another. Again, I'm suggesting that we go through mediation. You and I actually did that once and I think it was pretty productive. -Darouet (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet, Thucydides411, and JFG: This is getting tedious. Why not let the other editors "have at it"? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, let's keep calm and find a dignified way: I would approve mediation or WP:DRN about the credibility, balance and weight of various sources used in this article. — JFG talk 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guccisamsclub: what do you mean by "other editors" and "have at it?" I'd like to avoid POV-driven removal of mainstream criticism of this whole story. I also think it'd be helpful to find some context in which a productive conversation can be had about content, sources, where editors trust one another to edit constructively. I think that's possible and should be a goal. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
kay, just a thought. you guys may have too much integrity and diligence for your own good. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know every one of Wikipedia's policies, but I know enough about the five pillars to know that good editing practices, rigorous scholarship, and civility don't violate, but are rather the backbone of Wikipedia policies. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to look like I am ignoring this, since the title heading seems to come from my edit. That said, just have been busy.Casprings (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive to put these personal attacks on an article talk page. And it's tendentious to repeat the same mistaken accusations without reading the policies, guidelines and Sanctions you keep misinterpreting. No more of this on the article talk page, please. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO: in response to your accusations, I provided diffs showing that VM violated the sanctions you've invoked. You have provided no evidence. What is your response to the diffs I provided? If you are seriously interested in going to AE, either take me or VM there, or stop making empty and inflammatory threats. If you have any commentary on content whatsoever, please provide that. I am tired of threatening remarks. They begin to look like a pattern of personal intimidation: that would not be tolerated in a professional environment and I would be amazed if we had to put up with it here. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you inadvertently showed is that you (or Gucci) actually violated the sanction. Like I said, you linked to the edit where the content was challenged yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, show it. You can't keep making these assertions without explaining them, with diffs. Darouet laid out the case above, with diffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't hat my comments in response to your accusations. Either don't make them, or back them up. -Darouet (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not say we should take the view we prefer, treat it as fact and ignore opposing views. Mainstream media are still treating the "interference" as allegations, unlike the title of this article. So it is correct to mention opposing views. TFD (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did that reasonable comment land in this unrelated location? This thread is about citing the opinions of non-recognized individuals including the self-published journalist Greenwald as significant experts whose opinions need to be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take your concern about Greenward seriously at all, because that concern does not extend to other non-cyber-sec-experts in the "Experts" section, when those people make claims you WP:LIKE. And the fact that you are at pains to delete Carr as cited in Harpers, shows that you have no concern for "expertise" whatsoever. Calling GG "self-published" is tendentious and—strictly speaking—not true. You and VM not using RS, "recognized", "self-published", "marginal" etc in a neutral way, nor are you backing them up with sourced arguments (or any arguments). Remember the onus is on you to prove how exactly the Intercept is "unreliable". "Undue" is proof of nothing, nor is it a magic word to make stuff you don't like go away. These are just slogans/slurs that reflect your personal feelings and opinions. And they deserve exactly the same amount of consideration as fact-free invectives like "lamestream media" or "Russophobic Western press": none. Volunteer Marek seems to have a visceral hatred for GG and, as he puts it, "his rag" (the Intercept), which he frequently substitutes for argument (I can find the diffs if anyone seriously doubts this). Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please review the meaning of "tendentious". 2. I have not edited this article much at all, but I have argued against many non-expert "experts" who, in addition to the self-published non-expert journalist, include largely consultants who were available on short notice to provide snippets to bloggers and journalists rather than true accredited technical and national security experts. I've also raised the issue that RS state that the JAR for example does not claim to present the entire file, including conclusive classified evidence, upon which the fact of Russian intervention was verified by all experts who in fact were privy to the full file. 3. Please review WP:BURDEN which explains that the onus is on the editor who wishes to include, not to exclude, bad sources. You have that one backwards. Finally, it's not constructive for editors to speculate about what other editors might "like." If that's a subject that interests you, please don't share it here. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Please review WP:BURDEN which explains that the onus is on the editor who wishes to include, not to exclude, bad sources. For the thousandth time: why are they bad? Have they been clearly debunked? Great, tell us how, and we can delete them. Has someone challenged their conclusions? Great, cite these people. You just think the Intercept is "bad", unlike the "good" American outlets who happen to be less critical of the US govt? Ok, whatever. I think those outlets are "bad" and the Intercept is "good", so what? I don't edit articles or talk pages on that premise, while, as Derouet has shown, you do. "including conclusive classified evidence, upon which the fact of Russian intervention was verified by all experts who in fact were privy to the full file". So you're going to base the article on a hypothetical body of evidence that's not in the public domain? How do you even cite that, technically speaking? But it's a highly original idea: before, governments had to at least concoct evidence, now they can just say they "have it" (Trump has "the best evidence"). Post-truth and all that... If you have special clearance, by all means leak this wonderful evidence to the press—THEN we can discuss it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See item N° 2 in preceding post. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This back-and-forth about one particular source is getting really tedious. Just let it go, it's attributed, each reader can make up their own mind by reading the sources, pro and contra. That's what Wikipedia is all about, educating readers through the voices of reliable sources. If some editors are ready to fight to death against Mr. Greenwald's credibility, the correct forum for this is WP:RSN. If they prefer to continue this battleground behaviour on the talk page, the correct forum is WP:DRN. — JFG talk 18:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to include these pundits. Rather than vent your frustration, you can post an RfC if you disagree. Please be sure to formulate a simple neutral statement. You might wish to run it up the flagpole here before posting. Ill-formed RfC's usually fail. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JFG, but I am also unhappy with the edit warring and acrimony, and think we would reach a consensus with the help of a neutral, third party. @Casprings and Guccisamsclub:, @Thucydides411, JFG, FallingGravity, Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and The Four Deuces: I'd like to emphasize I'm happy to go to mediation if people feel strongly enough about this, are convinced their arguments really are in line with policy, and that a mediator would support their stance and/or help arrive at a solution. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:, you write: There's no consensus to include these pundits. Sure, we understand you don't think Greenwald is credible. Now, by the same token, I could say there is no consensus to include Robert S. McElvaine, because I don't consider him credible. This kind of argument does nothing to improve the article. You've been here long enough to know that part of being a Wikipedian is accepting that you don't always get things your way, and you must accept the reasonable opinions of other contributors instead of lynching those who happen to disagree with you on the credibility of this or that source. — JFG talk 20:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is spelled Ahrefsee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO:: "There's no consensus to include these pundits." There's also no argument for excluding them. You and Volunteer Marek have simply asserted that a whole host of people are "marginal," "undue" or "not credible." You use these labels completely subjectively to remove any opinions you politically disagree with. This politically motivated editing has become obvious across a whole number of pages. Again, what makes Ritter (former chief weapons inspector in Iraq and intelligence expert) "not credible," or Pierre Sprey (legendary intelligence analyst, cited in a prestigious American political magazine, Harper's) "not credible," but Robert McElvaine (a relatively unknown commentator, published in HuffPost, a news aggregator of middling quality) credible? The only logic I see here is that the users labeling these views "not credible," "marginal," etc. don't politically like these views. I don't see any consistent stance of journalistic quality of the publication, or expertise and notability of the commentators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about "experts". Greenwald is not an expert. More, since he's publishing himself in his own newspaper, that's a WP:SPS and a non-notable opinion until other reliable sources comment on it. There. That's the argument, not a "simple assertion" as you falsely ... asserted. (and "legendary"? "prestigious"? Usually when people start in with the oleaginous, unctuous, and obsequious adjectives it's to divert attention away from the fact that there's not much there there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the only editor and he must maintain certain standards, unless he wants to run the paper into the ground and alienate numerous contributors (none of which is happening). Does he have a "platform" at the Intercept? Sure, like any regular columnist. But it's not like you'd allow any non-GG commentary from the Intercept either, because you self-admittedly hate not only GG, but his whole "rag". BTW, Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Guccisamsclub says, Glenn Greenwald is not self-published at The Intercept. He's an established journalist, who previously wrote for Salon.com and The Guardian, and now is one of the main contributors to The Intercept. He also happened to break one of the most significant cybersecurity-related stories in history. But Volunteer Marek, let's look past your political dislike of Greenwald. How do you explain the deletion of Scott Ritter's and Pierre Sprey's comments? Pierre Sprey is a very well known former intelligence analyst, and is quoted in Harper's, a very old and prestigious American political and cultural magazine (to be exact, Harper's is the 2nd oldest magazine still published in the US). Is your judgment of what is "not credible" better than that of the Harper's editors? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"until other sources comment on it" Tons of sources have reported and commented on Glenn Greenwald's opinions.
"He's not the only editor" - no, but he's the one who started it (though he doesn't fund it).
"he must maintain certain standards, unless he wants to run the paper into the ground and alienate numerous contributors" - true for any self published source that has a staff.
"you self-admittedly hate not only GG, but his whole "rag"" - you're making shit up.
"Glenn Greenwald is not self-published at The Intercept" - for all practical purposes, he is. He was approached with funding to set it up and run it. So yeah.
"He also happened to break one of the most significant cybersecurity-related stories in history" - while he was at the Guardian, not at the Intercept.
"let's look past your political dislike of Greenwald" - you're making stuff up.
"How do you explain the deletion of Scott Ritter's and Pierre Sprey's comments" - I'm more ambiguous about these, although I don't see much reason to include Ritter. Again, this is the "he was once good at baseball so we should take his advice about golf" kind of stuff. Don't see reason to include it. Lemme look at Sprey again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: "until other reliable sources comment on it." Tons and tons of reliable sources have covered Glenn Greenwald's opinions. See: [4][5][6][7][8]. If you don't accept these sources then I don't know what to tell you. FallingGravity 05:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that'll work for me. I'm fine with Greenwald then though I would prefer we used one of these secondary sources rather than the Intercept.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching the meaning of "self-published." Greenwald isn't even the sole founder of The Intercept. Jeremy Scahill is another founder. They have editors, such as Betsy Reed, formerly senior editor at The Nation, and Dan Froomkin, formerly an editor at the Washington Post. They have a wider journalistic staff, which writes most of the articles. This is clearly far from some self-published "rag" that Greenwald runs out of his basement. He and Scahill were approached to help set up The Intercept because they were well known journalists who wrote on "national security issues" with an independent bent. If you really want to establish that The Intercept is self-published, then take it up with the reliable sources noticeboard, and notify us here. I doubt you'll succeed, but by all means, take a shot and let's have this cloud of suspicion you're trying to create cleared up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not accept you hate GG and move on? But since you asked: here's VM saying he "can't stand reading GG", after GG's criticism of a defamatory Guardian piece made The Guadian issue a retraction. I know, insufferable, and completely unreliable, unlike the Guardian.  Here's VM saying "GG's rag" is unreliable (exactly like Fox News and a blog post by John Pilger, I kid you not) for reporting on a simple fact about the contents of the Podesta emails. There is a bunch of other commentary and edits from VM, where he insists that the Intercept is not-RS, wp:SPS, undue, ad nauseam, but without giving any contradicting sources to show that Greenwald is full of shit (cause they don't exist). We're all familiar with that, so I trust there's no need to demonstrate.  His attitude toward people tangentially associated with GG, like Assange follows the same general pattern of partisan hostility. To be fair, hatred for GG and whistleblowers has become pretty endemic lately in the mainstream American press, and among wikipedia editors, so it's not just VM. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, assessing the magazine critically is not "hating it". You're ascribing opinions and feelings to me in order to try and devalue my argument. Because you don't really have one yourself. Why do you hate America? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dessert is spelled J-E-L-L-O. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: cat (the animal, spelled A-N-I-M-A-L) is spelled C-A-T (not K-A-T). Just saying... Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s., I hadn't noticed it before but come to think of it, the McElvaine bit is UNDUE in my opinion. So nstead of coming here AH-HA and all, why didn't you just delete it and see whether anyone cares??? SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Putin is spelled T-R-O-L-L. Whatever he says must be Ahrefsee'd to death… — JFG talk 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, mediation has its limits and would not be helpful here where a group of editors is determined to present a narrative regardless of evidence or policy. One of them is now arguing that if someone's article is published by a company that publishes their articles they are by definition self-published. Mediation only works if we all accept the same policies and guidelines and generally accepted definitions and rules of logic. TFD (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he was saying that a column i"s "self-published" if its author happens to be on the editorial board of the paper that publishes said column. It's not really true, but it's something to cling to. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not even that. What I'm saying is that if someone is approach by an investor with funding to start a media outlet, then that someone starts a media outlet with that funding and becomes its editor, and then uses that media outlet to publish their own pieces, it's pretty much self published. If someone came to me and said "here's 500 million bucks go start a newspaper" and then I used that to publish my opinions of the world in it, that would be self-published regardless of what title I effectively gave myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So your problem with the Intercept is too much editorial independence and lack of market pressure? Or that its editors (not only GG) contribute content? Some combination of the two? Anyway, you may continue to call it "self-published" according to your own definition, but it's not WP:SPS. It's also not as if GG treats this "rag" as some kind of personal blog, which is something you are implying. If you go to theintercept.com (consult with your doctor first, in case of emergency, go to the Daily Beast and read an article on Russian propaganda immediately), you'll have to scroll quite a bit before you find the first GG article, and the article reports on the death of a Brazilian anti-corruption judge in a plane crash (I know, just more pontification from the insufferable GG). If someone came to me and said "here's 500 million bucks go start a newspaper" and then I used that to publish my opinions of the world in it, that would be self-published regardless of what title I effectively gave myself. Greenwald is not the only editor, the paper is not his private property, and the operative word here is if... Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"So your problem with the Intercept is too much editorial independence and lack of market pressure" - Nope, that's not it at all. My problem with the Intercept is that it pretty much is a glorified blog for Greenwald, his own personal soapbox (though I guess they hired a few more people to make it less obvious). Will you quit putting words in my mouth and making up silly little strawmen and pretending I'm saying something I'm not? This is like the third or fourth comment from you where you write "So you're saying that {something ridiculous that I'm not saying at all}". It's sort of obnoxious and tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"glorified blog for Greenwald". I really don't see that. Greenwald writes one out of 20+ articles (many are not even opinion pieces). Anyway that's your personal opinion, and opinions are like assholes. I think MSNBC is a unglorified soap-box for the DNC, and the Wash Po is a glorified soapbox for the moneyed elite. [edit] Should I get a medal? I would never attempt to delete a serious source using the kind of lazy arguments I'm hearing here. It takes several unimpeachable sources and paragraphs of careful analysis to DEBUNK a source. And it takes consensus to call a source UNDUE. You've got neither: all I'm seeing is handwaving. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gucci, if those words really represent your approach to editing Wikipedia, they disqualify you from editing here. WP is not the place to "right great wrongs". If for whatever reason you cannot devote your efforts here to representing what is said in mainstream Reliable Sources such as Washington Post, you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Guccisamsclub is perfectly in line here. The Intercept was founded by a number of journalists (including Greenwald and Scahill), and has a wider editorial team. It's clearly not Greenwald's blog. I'd admit that it has a different editorial outlook than the Washington Post, for example, but each news outlet has some sort of overall editorial leaning (and I think the Washington Post's editorial bent is of a similar magnitude). I don't think anyone would deny that MSNBC is closely aligned with the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean that we rule them out as a source.
A major problem here is, as I said at the outset of this section, some editors are trying to rule out certain commentators and sources, based, it seems, on entirely subjective grounds. And those subjective decisions just so happen to align nearly 100% with those editors' political leanings. I think that needs to be pointed out, and such behavior needs to stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines. My thoughts exactly. How much longer do you plan to keep this up? PS. you did not understand the point I made at all, or perhaps pretended not to so that you can wag a finger in my face. Obviously, you and VM are the only editors here who are struggling—genuinely and disruptively struggling—with the idea that reliable sources are not necessarily those you like. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"you will end up like the many other POV American Politcs editors who are no longer permitted to disrupt these articles. The rest of us are volunteering our time and attention to follow WP site policy and guidelines." Again, SPECIFICO, you choose to issue threats that you'll try to get editors who differ with you banned. This sort of bullying behavior is really unacceptable.
@SPECIFICO: You wrote in this revert that commentary by "Tibia" (Matt Taibbi, actually) is "not noteworthy and undue." He was published in Rolling Stone, and he's a well known commentator on American politics. I'm wondering what makes his published opinion, in particular, less noteworthy or due than that of Michael McFaul, Robert S. McElvaine, Joseph Steinberg or Max Boot. Again, it looks like you're going through the article and systematically looking for ways to remove opinions you disagree with, justified with the usual fig leaf of a couple handy policy names. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Specifico but I'm guessing it's because those guys are experts in this area, and Taibbi is not. Alex Jones is also a "well known commentator on American politics. So what? And let's not pretend like Taibbi is some Woodward and Bernstein. He writes/wrote amusingly worded opinion pieces meant to provoke. Not really suitable for this or most topics, unless somehow his works get commented upon widely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For those unaware Taibbi spent 11 years in Russia (publishing a tabloid paper among other things.) That doesn't necessarily qualify him as an expert but removing his source while retaining Chen, who has little experience with either Russia or cyber security, seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmhh… So now, the suitability of a secondary source for inclusion in Wikipedia shall be measured by the abundance of tertiary-source comments on this secondary source's work? This is honestly one of the weirdest arguments I ever read about sourcing policy. Let's call it the WP:METASOURCING criterion! — JFG talk 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this just throwing completely random labels at an issue hoping that something sticks There is not even a plausible attempt at making it stick. Just throw random WP:CAPS one after another, leaving other editors puzzled as to how to respond to something so meaningless. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my previous point about removing sources you don't like. One could easily make a case (an actual case, backed by evidence and logic) for deeming the Washington Post unreliable for this article. The Washington Post published at least two serious hoaxes (bordering on propaganda) on this very topic: that Russia tried to hack Vermont's electrical grid and that PropOrNot's McCarthyite list had some basis in serious research. Both were debunked by numerous RS, with the Intercept being the first to do so. For its part, the Post has yet to admit error and issue a full retraction of either story. So let's see: (a) we've found that the Post got two relevant stories flat wrong, but won't fully admit it; (b) we've seen that the Intercept quickly corrected the Post's coverage in both cases; (c) nobody here has identified any factual errors—nevermind ones as serious as the Post's—in Greenwald or the Intercept's coverage of the present topic. SPECIFICO's conclusions? (a) The Intercept is unreliable and must be deleted immediately; (b) how dare you say bad things about the Post—you'll be banned! (I earlier gave my "opinion" of the Post as a thought experiment—I haven't actually argued that any sources need to be deleted this article). WTF? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: You really have to engage with the point, without simplifying down your answer to a few acronyms. You and SPECIFICO have been labeling all sorts of reliable sources as "not mainstream" or "undue," asserting that certain journalists are either not really journalists or "not credible." All Guccisamsclub pointed out above is that while you try to throw out various reliable sources, you see no problem with the Washington Post, which has made two very serious journalistic errors in its reporting on the hacking affair. Neither was as small as you suggest: even a minimal amount of fact-checking would have told the WaPo that its Vermont story was completely baseless, yet they published it with a sensationalist headline, and they still haven't completely corrected the original article. In the PropOrNot article, WaPo published a completely unverified list of supposed Russian agents, fellow travelers, and other baddies, and have rightfully received a huge amount of criticism for doing so. But instead of calling WaPo "not mainstream" and trying to rule it out as a source for this article, you've targeted The Intercept, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, among others. The only pattern I see is that you agree with what some of the sources are writing, and not with what others are writing. Honestly, that's what it looks like to me, so I'd like to know if there's some other, more legitimate rationale behind what you consider "marginal," "not mainstream" and "not credible." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is just you and Gucci sensationalizing minor errors and employing hyperbole to make it seem like something that wasn't. PropOrNot article did not publish a "list of Russian agents". Like I said, this is mostly "whataboutism". A legitimate, reliable sources makes an error and then corrects it (indeed, the willingness to admit errors and correct them is part of what makes them reliable). You want to use that as an excuse to justify using other non-reliable sources. You're also making stuff up - while I don't care much for Intercept and do think that it's basically Greenwald's platform for publishing his own views (so yes, it's SPS), I have NOT "targeted" SD or Le Monde - what in the world are you going on about? This isn't to say that I've never criticized something they've done (honestly, who can remember) but I do certainly see them as reliable. Again, what the fudge are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm talking about is obvious: you and SPECIFICO have been systematically deleting material you disagree with from the article (see, for example, your recent mass deletions from the article), with little more than vaguely applied acronyms as justification. The Süddeutsche Zeitung's reporting was deemed "not mainstream," and therefore removed (until enough editors insisted on adding it back in). Seymour Hersh's opinion is mysteriously labeled "undue". One set of opinions (which you just happen to agree with) covered by a certain TechCrunch article are fine to include, but the one opinion you disagree with is somehow "undue". A minimal reference to the consequences of the alleged Russian hacking is apparently an attempt to create a "POVFORK", and must therefore be removed (twice, in fact). These are the sorts of deletions I'm talking about, justified by vague references to acronyms. Why you consider some material from reliable sources to be "marginal," "undue," or "not mainstream" is not explained, and the only pattern I see is that the things you label as such happen to align with what your personal dislikes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more time. What in the hell are you talking about??? It is not obvious at all. In fact, it's downright false. You say that I removed material from an article (hysterically calling it "mass deletions" when in fact it was just a couple crappy sentences) and then you claim that I said somewhere that Suddeutsche Zeitung was "not mainstream". That's two falsehood right there. The first implied - by mentioning SZ right after mentioning my deletions you suggest that what I removed was from SZ. It was not. The second explicit - that I claimed somewhere that SZ is "not mainstream". This is completely false. How am I suppose to engage in constructive good faithed conversation with someone who just sits there and makes shit up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"How am I suppose to engage in constructive good faithed conversation with someone who just sits there and makes shit up?" You could start by stepping back, taking a couple deep breaths, and then reading what I actually wrote. I'm talking about the editing behavior of you and SPECIFICO. That should be clear from what I wrote above. If you really don't understand what I'm asking you, then read my last few posts. It's actually quite simple what I'm asking you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to my comments. And in these replies you state, quote, "The Süddeutsche Zeitung's reporting was deemed "not mainstream,"" right after linking to one of my edits (which you inaccurately also described as "mass deletions"). This very much looks like you're claiming that *I* said SZ was "not mainstream". If you are not saying this then please write your comments in a clearer manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you understood exactly what I wrote. Are you going to actually answer the question I posed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. As far as I can tell you accused me of saying that SZ was "not mainstream", which is false. Please clarify if that's not what you meant.
Also, you're asking me to answer some question. I've read through your last xx comments in this thread. I don't see a question. The comment starting with "You could start by..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "What I'm talking about is obvious..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You really have to engage with the point..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You wrote in this revert..." is not addressed to me and also has no question in it. The comment starting with "I think Guccisamsclub is perfectly in line here. ..." has no question in it. The comment starting with "You're stretching the meaning of "self-published." ..." has no question in it (and it's unnecessarily trying to extend the bickering on an issue that's been settled). The comment starting with "As Guccisamsclub says... " oh wait, that one has questions in it. Except that... those questions are answered in my response right below it! (And did I mention this issue was settled?)
So there's no question(s) there just commentary by you (which borders on WP:SOAPBOX).
So, let's try this one more time. What. In. Helium. Are. You. Talking. About? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're just displaying more bad faith right now. My question is literally in the very first post in this section, and I've repeated it several times now (including in the post beginning with, "You really have to engage with the point," which you mentioned). You keep dodging it. While dodging the basic question I'm putting to you, you've continued to remove more passages from the article with the same flimsy explanations I've been asking you to elaborate on here.
At this point, I think you're just trying to goad your fellow editors into some sort of reaction. As I wrote earlier, I also think you're deliberately gaming the DS system, by removing as much of the material you dislike as possible, with barely any explanation (mostly just vaguely applied acronyms). That material is then "challenged," and cannot be reinstated without consensus. But since you refuse to explain any sort of rationale for what you consider "undue," "marginal," etc., there's no way of reaching any sort of consensus. You'll just periodically delete more contributions that other editors carefully wrote and sourced, with some pithy edit summary (e.g., "Undue"), and then use DS as a shield for your deletions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. I am asking you why you keep insisting that I called SZ "not mainstream" when that is completely false. The comment beginning with "You really have to engage with the point" doesn't really have a question. Instead you say there, again, quote, "you've targeted The Intercept, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, among others" which is complete and utter nonsense (except for the Intercept, though the wording of "targeted" is, again, hyperbolic. Saying something is a "self published source" is NOT "targeting" anything, it's just evaluating sources).
So your "basic question" is about what makes sources marginal? There's like eight walls of text here, you can't seriously expect me to know that eighty paragraphs later you're still referring to the same question. Which, btw, was immediately answered in so far as it was addressed to me. That second and third response there.
Also, please note that I never used the phrase "marginal" to describe anything here. You, presumably, titled this section "marginal commentary" and asked your question to complain about either SPECIFICO's or Casprings use of the term - your complaint being that they didn't explain what they meant by that. Oh, but wait! What's this... a diff? Yep, looks like. [9]. So here you are, claiming the honor of having been the first one to refer to something as "marginal commentary", way before SPECIFICO or Caspring did. So... perhaps you'd like to answer your own question for us?
And oh yeah, I am being specific about the fact that I am "challenging" certain content, per DS, because past experience teaches that unless one is precise and explicit about that sort of thing, some joker is likely to come around, start an edit war and then pretend "oh but you never said it was challenged, this is longstanding content now, it's been in the article for more than three minutes, now you can't remove it" or something like that. So I'm just doing all of us a favor here and preventing future edit wars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, I would ask you to familiarize yourself with the pronoun "you," which can be both singular and plural, were it not for the fact that I know you understand what I've been writing perfectly well. "So I'm just doing all of us a favor here and preventing future edit wars." Surely you can see how going through the article and systematically removing opinions you dislike, without explanation (beyond some acronym), and then warning everyone that DS prevents them being re-inserted would be viewed very differently by other editors. Instead of viewing that as an effort at avoiding edit wars, I'm sure you can see how other editors would view that as a sign of bad-faith editing - that you want the article to reflect your opinions, and don't feel any desire to reach any sort of consensus with other editors. That's how I view it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


foreign lands

The government of Finland says that sex crimes are on the rise! [10] -- So for the WP article about sex crime in Finland, if you really want to find a representative sample of mainstream views on what's up in Helsinki, you can just go google up the great newspapers of the world to check if they dialed up some pundits, consultants, grad students, and discharged military types who like to get their names in print: [11] [12] [13]. cf WP:WEIGHT. Our job is to tell the mainstream view, not to sniff for truffles. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with those newspapers. Are they as reputable as Le Monde, the Süddeutsche Zeitung or The Independent? If they are, then they've done their homework before interviewing those "pundits, consultants, grad students, and discharged military types." Just because you don't like the opinions of the people the Süddeutsche Zeitung chose to interview, doesn't mean that you can suddenly label one of the world's better known newspapers "not mainstream." By the way, there is no "foreign land" here on Wikipedia. For all I know, you could be from Myanmar, and it wouldn't matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You deny the meaning of mainstream. This violates the core of WP. The community rejects your view. Sad. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) While I am sure it is of great concern to the Finns, particularly to those affected, I am not sure that this is a good subject for comparison with allegations of interference by a world superpower in the elections of another. We just would not expect that there would be the same coverage internationally. And, with respect to those publications & their nations, Argentina's La Nacion, Myanmar's Times, & Angola's Jornal do not have the same reputation as France's Le Monde or Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung; both the leading national daily in nations with traditions of strong, independent journalism. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Germany? Not really. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nach '45. Ja. Wirklich. After '45. Yes. For real. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's about sampling. We're trying to find mainstream majority viewpoints. There are 30-50 US media organizations that have more in-depth, well-founded, accurate, verified coverage of US government and politics, and cyber-security too for that matter, than that German paper. So reaching out to the fringe to find some marginal punditry, based on no particular technical accreditation or recognition, is not apt to find the most significant comments or interpretations. It's just not likely, and in this case, it failed. So we don't use that stuff for an encylopedia. It could be used to sell newspapers, to moot a discussion among friends or for many other purposes, but it's not the sort of sourcing that is useful here, given the mission and policies of WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 30-50 US media organizations, but perhaps only two or three of similar prominence as Le Monde or the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Moreover, coverage in Germany and France of this international issue might be systematically different than coverage in the United States. You wanted to rule out Le Monde and the SZ, and call them "not mainstream," simply because they are foreign. That's not a good reason for ruling out sources of this quality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this is going over your head. It's not that they're foreign. You're simply recycling comments that have previously been refuted. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm.. Surely, we should be trying to find all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and then represent them fairly ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Given the slight non-sequitur from the parent section, would it be possible to link the sources that are in question? And what is meant by it failed? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that on this page, several clear-minded policy-lovin' God-fearin' editors have identified and discussed most of the unworthy pundits and quotees -- some of them were discussed in detail (e.g. self-published Greenwald,) and others were challenged briefly noting the absence of any confirmation as to their standing as "experts" whose opinions belong in an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there are valid reasons why a source is not reliable, then it is not reliable. But merely being foreign is not one of those reasons. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's said that the publications are "not RS" to my knowledge. Most of the recently contested material consists of snippets of opinion that are uninformed and misrepresented. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight and opinions from folks whose opinions are not important. Another thing you'll find on this article (since I believe you've arrived fairly recently) is that some of the writings/opinions of notable experts have been cherry-picked and dissected in order to change and misrepresent their meanings. An example is the bit from Masha Gessen, who is the sort of notable expert one might well include in this article, but whose opinion was misrepresented and edit-warred just recently when I tried to conform the article to the meaning of her writings. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the recently contested material consists of snippets of opinion that are uninformed and misrepresented. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight and opinions from folks whose opinions are not important." "Uninformed," "not important" and "UNDUE" only by your personal evaluation - not by the evaluation of reliable sources like the SZ. This is my point in this section: you're just declaring every passage you politically disagree with "marginal," "undue," "not mainstream" and so on, regardless of who said it or where it was published (for example, the former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, quoted in a prestigious American political and social commentary magazine, Harper's, is declared "UNDUE." Why? Who knows. It just is.) -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we have a comment that completely ignores core WP policy. It's not possible to determine WEIGHT and UNDUE from a single source. UNDUE and even FRINGE opinions still must be reported by RS, but over and over you repeat what's already been amply refuted. SZ may be RS for what some pundit or grad student said on the phone, who has questioned that?. I'm not going to repeat why it's undue. Just throw a dart at the screen and you'll most likely hit one of the times when it's previously been explained to you by one of the several editors who are trying to focus on policy here. I don't think you'll get very far hoisting Ritter up the flagpole, btw. SPECIFICO talk 05:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: The SZ is a reliable source. It found people who it felt were qualified to comment on the alleged Russian hacking. The journalists at the SZ are better able to decide who is and is not qualified than you are. "I don't think you'll get very far hoisting Ritter up the flagpole, btw." Because you don't like what he writes? He's a well known figure from intelligence, and he was cited in Harper's. Again, you're not qualified to tell us that Harper's was wrong to cite him. I don't see what legitimate methodology you're using to determine who is fringe, undue or marginal. It looks like you're making that decision in line with your political leanings. That's the problem I'm pointing out here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Cited?" "Harpers?" Opinion piece in the esteemed Huffington Post -- where shelfspace is free and where Ritter is on a book tour promoting his new tome published by the prestigious fringe house "Clarity Press" ? You keep ignoring the main point. Just because something is published doesn't mean we give it weight in an encyclopedia. Huffpo is writing an entertainment site. WP editors are writing an encyclopaedia. This isn't foosball, it's editing. You won't get very far hanging your hat on Ritter. Whatever career and credibility he had dwindled after his, er, incident(s). How does it support the credentials for "cyber-security and counterespionage expert' to get caught repeatedly sleazy-soliciting minors on the internet? Cybersecurity expert. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what Ritter's criminal record has to do with whether or not he's qualified to speak about intelligence matters. He was a long-time UN chief weapons inspector, and therefore heavily involved with intelligence. Pointing to his criminal record is just ridiculous. It just tells me you don't have any relevant criticisms to make. If that's the case, we can continue to cite his opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off he wasn't "the chief weapons inspector" -- Second we're not looking for WMDs here, so if he was one of the ones Trump says screwed up the WMD thing, that is irrelevant to cybersecurity. Third the issue is not that he is a criminal. The issue is that he was an incompetent criminal because he didn't protect himself by CYBERSECURITY. He got caught by screwing up his cybersecurity. End of discussion!. I wont' add LOL. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPECIFICO, you have two decent options: a) actually add new content to get the article closer to where you want it to be; b) focus on one source and substantively challenge the claims made by that source using other reliable sources (this is known in layman's terms a "fact-checking" and "research"). Hopping from source to source, gripe to gripe, ad hominem to ad hominem (you're now dismissing Ritter because of his "er, incidents") and haphazardly sprinkling the resulting stream of BS with varied WP:CAPS, is a troll's strategy. After the all the walls of text you've written, I and several others still don't know what you point is; I can't even tell if you've closely read a single relevant source, because nothing you've written demonstrates that you have. In fact it demonstrates the opposite (one could add a swath of analogous cases mentioned by TTAAC a while earlier) However, I doubt anything besides the drama board can help at this point. Unfortunately filing a case would require endlessly analyzing and piecing together your mess of comments and contribs here, which are so hard to nail down that any normal person would balk at the task. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's pretty clear from the above discussion that it's SPECIFICO who is discussing content (however much you disagree with them on it), and you're the one who insists on personalizing the issue and keep "discussing the editor, not the content". So you might wanna hold off on those implicit threats about "drama boards". Those often don't turn out the way people think they will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I could disagree with anything SPECIFICO wrote. The problem is that SPECIFICO's statements are mostly either false (see above) or not even false, and mostly the latter. The problem is that the editor goes on and on about how "bunch of sources are UNDUE and BAD", setting the parameters so broadly that there is nothing specific (pun intended) to discuss. By way of contrast, it was at least possible to substantively debate your assertion that GG in The Intercept was SPS. I can't find one such assertion from SPECIFICO, with the exception of selectively disputing the expertise of a few sources in the expert comment section (including that of Carr one of the two specialists actually quoted in the section). If you have any concern about other editors, the only valid approach is to give them something specific and substantive to read and discuss. Instead we have catchall discussion threads with indecipherable text. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact It was I, SPECIFICO, who first stated that Greenwald bit is SPS here: [14] so that puts all your concern about who's reading what in a different light. I also can't find an instance of the word "BAD" in my comments -- it's rather more imprecise than is my style. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I know for a fact that VM brought up SPS first, SPEC was merely repeating your assertion (without actually making any kind of argument). As for BAD, CTRL+F "bad sources". Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And seriously, LOOK at the TITLES of the threads started by SPECIFICO. Do they look like the right way to start a focused discussion of concrete sources (which is ALL that we should be doing)? Why are you abetting this? Guccisamsclub (talk)
VM is first on the non-archived talkpage, not this edit you're linking to. A look into the archives confirms that you (SPECIFICO) were first on this talkpage overall. Congratulations. 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please cease and desist ad hominems, obsessive discussion of editors, and off-topic remarks. "Comment on content, not contributors." There are ample policy pointers on this page that need your attention. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very tired and would feel guilty spending any more time on this topic (it's not that important or interesting). I'll let you and VM continue ["improving"] the page. Welcome. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kovalev

Alright, I'm fine with Greenwald being in there given the sources provided by FallingGravity above. But can someone explain why this sentence is in the article:

"Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who runs a website debunking Russian propaganda, said: "There are many legitimate reasons to criticise RT, but the report singles out the channel for all the wrong reasons. Covering protests and other social and political fissures is a perfectly legitimate media activity."

It appears to be completely off topic. It's plopped right smack in the middle of text about other stuff and just looks like someone accidentally copy pasted it in there.

So can the editors who keep restoring this please explain what the relevance of this sentence is? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem with all the quotes and snippets culled from obscure websites and the press of foreign lands is that they are being used for a SYNTH message. The various unclassified public statements are not the basis for the US Gov't conclusion that the Russians interfered. The pundits cited here are for the most part not the top civilian experts but rather a collation of individuals who were willing to shoot from the hip for a little free press time and -- as SZ states -- possibly to get some consulting and corporate I.T. business for themselves. Their comments for the most part relate to the unclassified statements as if the US Gov't conclusion was based solely on the evidence revealed therein. This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis. So in a nutshell, we have comments about the published reports being used to insinuate that the US Governement had no sufficient evidence for its conclusion. More experienced, accredited and recognized technical experts in counterespionage, cybersecurity, and software have not been cited. One or two of the commentators cited in this article are notable experts whose opinion is worth mention in an encyclopedia. The rest is a fruit soup of irrelevant internet babble that should be scraped from the article. The current Greenwald bit, which treats him as a journalist is innocuous. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kovalev's point is to dispute the conclusion that "Russian propaganda" was particularly mendacious, influential or threatening during the 2016 election. "Russian propaganda" is posited as one of the ways Putin interfered in the election. It's like if Putin were to blame all his problems on Radio Free Europe and liberals connected to the USG. But what does Kovalev know about Russian propaganda? What you fail to understand is that your "experts" (those with access to the hypothetical secret documents) are all US spies, and as such are particularly suspect WP:PRIMARY sources who cannot be cited for anything other than their overt position on an issue. Like the KGB, these sources are not WP:RS in the slightest. How hard is this to understand? Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"obscure websites and the press of foreign lands": What do you mean by "foreign lands"? Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, and Germany and France aren't "foreign lands" any more than the United States is a "foreign land." The Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde are every bit as reputable and as weighty as any US newspaper. And by "obscure websites," do you mean the website of one of the United States' oldest political and social commentary magazines, Harper's? Those are the sorts of sources you've been trying to rule out of the article - very reputable sources that happen to have cited views you don't agree with. "This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis." If the Süddeutsche Zeitung literally puts the phrase, "aber kaum Beweise" (in English, either "but hardly proof" or "but hardly any solid evidence") into their headline, then I think it's safe to say that the idea that the US government hasn't provided proof isn't WP:SYNTH, but rather a direct paraphrase of a reliable source. We can't have this subjective ruling out of major national newspapers, motivated by political dislike of who those newspapers are citing or what those newspapers are writing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obscure websites and the press of foreign lands" Yes, We will definitely delete the source now that that we know it's foreign.
  • "This leads to the SYNTH conclusion that the US Gov't conclusion was based on insufficient data and analysis." Where does the article state this "conclusion"? Reliable sources are making conclusions about publicly available documents and evidence, not hypothetical documents and evidence. Wikipedia editors in turn use existing reliable sources. Where RS engage in speculation we commonly apply WP:CRYSTAL, though apparently not in the case of Max Boot's opinion (included in the article) that the classified evidence which he hasn't seen must be pretty good. As TFD said, this discussion has crossed over into some alternative universe. I am beginning to doubt whether human language, nevermind conventional rationality, can adequately model SPECIFICO's train of thought. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@**When you write, of your own volition "Where does the article state this "conclusion"?" -- where you should have been discussing unstated SYNTH conclusions -- it is perfectly clear that either you do not know what SYNTH means on WP or you're trying to deflect and avoid responding to the my clearly framed concern above. Either way, this thread appears done. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad (hopeful) it's over. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's never over. I don't know what you think SYNTH means or what exactly is SYNTH about parts of this article, and I have no patience left. So here it goes:
  • If you think there is a problem, the burden is on you to concretely demonstrate its existence. I don't know if this is some new trend in philosophical discourse, but you really need to stop demanding that others prove a negative. That's a truism.
  • If you think the problem is so subtle that it cannot be nailed down to any specific wording, you still need to concretely describe the problem, otherwise there is absolutely nothing to talk about. The way to do address those kinds of "implicit" problems is to propose alternate text. But that would require actual research, as opposed to hand-waving and pressing Backspace on the article page, which for most users would constitute vandalism.

Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Guardian piece is interesting and could be cited, with or without Kovalev's commentary, but that Marek is correct to remove the commentary from this particular location. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kovalev's statement is probably the most worthwhile on in that article. I think there are plenty of places where it could be inserted (outside the "experts and scholars" ghetto): namely the place where Russian propaganda or the JAR report is discussed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gessen allowed as how XXXx"

She is not Huckleberry Finn. Speak English! She stated she concede, she noted, she observed. She did not "allow" -- Really! SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She did not concede (to whom? WP:WORDS, and blatant POV), she did not "note" (it's not a fact), he did not observe (there's nothing to "observe"). So think harder. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in this way, "allowed that" is normal English. I think it's more correct than "permitted that." -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think SPECIFICO is right that "allowed..." is sort of archaic or at least nonstandard (nice reference to Huck Finn by the way). I think the current wording is improved. -Darouet (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tendentious transformation of a non-statement into something that appears to mean something. Of course it might be true that there is conclusive evidence of Russian involvement in hacking the DNC, just as there might have been conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Rational people base their conclusions on evidence, they do not tailor the evidence to support their pre-conceived opinions. So Gessen would accept conclusive evidence if presented, but is saying it has not been presented. TFD (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, at least within the confines of the cited article. But TFD, as you know, the expression "allowed as how", at least among those who once used that archaic regional idiom, carried a meaning far stronger than MG's "conceivable" in this article. Anyway, what she called weak was the discussion of Putin's intent, not the fact that he hacked. So this was not a good choice of reference to suggest that the whole Russian hacking thing was a fabrication. SPECIFICO talk 04:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Allowed as how" is an archaic regional idiom, but "allowed that" is standard modern English. I feel this point is not that important, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allowed as how Xxxx" is just some random gibberish SPECIFICO wrote. My text stated "allowed that." SPECIFICO has a pattern of heatedly disputing texts which s/he has not read, even tweet-sized ones. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Literacy: [15] Thanks for your concern. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Twain often uses "allowed" as in "stated". "allowed as how XXXx" is your contribution to "literacy", though I don't see the relevance. Also, I know this talk page is totally out of control, but let's try to keep it G-rated. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama administration functionaries accused Russia

Article lede is misleading. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian general found dead in mysterious circumstances

Re: [16]. WP:COATRACK (an essay, not a policy) says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". The removed text is very clearly about Russian interference in the US election. Yes, it is about the Donald Trump–Russia dossier but that dossier is about Russian interference in the US election. Notice that the essay, not policy, WP:COATRACK says "another subject entirely". There's no entirely here. It's the same subject.

Sorry, but this looks like more of the same WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT backed up by spurious references to irrelevant Wikipedia policessays.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, WP:COATRACK applies to articles as a whole, not to a single paragraph in a very large article such as this one. So yeah, completely irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the story and belongs to the article. I would even add the grainy photograph of the victim that was published in the media. However, it misses a key part of the story. as written in The Telegraph, "Experts expressed scepticism about the theory. “As a rule, people like Gen Yerovinkin don’t tend to die in airport thriller murders,” said Mark Galeotti, an expert on the Russian security services."[17] It is actually very similar to the Murder of Seth Rich. In an alternative theory, Rich was murdered because he was the source of the DNC leaked emails. That belongs in the article too. TFD (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Volunteer Marek and The Four Deuces on this one: I don't see any basis for simply excluding this from the article. Three out of the four references used to include the information were certainly reliable. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, with the caveat that so far, the only outlets treating the speculation of foul play are left-wing US/European outlets and the Daily Mail (because of course they are). This is on par with the dossier: we can't lend credence to any claims of foul play; we can only report that reliable sources are reporting on such claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem including this. It should go back in. RS Kansas City Star trumps Suddeutsche as source for Russia stuff, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my admittedly knee-jerk (but non-partisan) revert, I commented that this information was interesting while clearly more closely related to the dossier article, and suggested you place it there; what pushed you to add it here and not there? The link between the murder and the dossier is already speculation by media; then linking *that* murder to the general plot of Russian interference in the US elections 2.5 months after the election is over, that sounds closer to mystery thriller than encyclopedic work. — JFG talk 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't replying to me, but I want to say that I agree. This should go in the section about the dossier, as that's the only connection it has to this. And yes, this does sound like the plot of a thriller novel and (despite being a raging-liberal-who-thinks-Trump-sucks) I have serious doubts about both this and the dossier. I'm literally waiting on the first RS to come up with some evidence against this dossier (as opposed to the doubts about its veracity almost every RS has expressed) to start advocating for removing it entirely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section here, and there's a separate article. [18] Which were you intending? SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and there's a separate article. <facepalm> Sometimes, I agree with the right-wing wiki haters. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question; I was referring to the section. I honestly had no idea we had an article about it, and I'd drop it into AfD right fucking now if it didn't have so much commentary on the talk page, and so little about deleting it. I highly doubt I could get a consensus to delete that article, but I don't for one second think this dossier deserves its own article. At least not until it makes a bigger impact than it has, or parts of it get confirmed as accurate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The contents about the murder are now in the dossier page and don't need to be repeated here. And yes that article was ruled a Snow Keep… although the full dossier itself was ruled a copyright violation at Commons. — JFG talk 01:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The section presents a number of comments by experts but provides no indication of the weight of these different views in reliable sources. It should be mentioned at the beginning of the section, otherwise there is an implication that the experts quoted are representative of expert opinion. TFD (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interference not just meddling, but also fake news on social media

It's not about "when" but "what" and belongs in first paragraph with the other "whats" (hacking, etc.; I'm avoiding using a noun here)and denials. I added a short sentence to the first paragraph and left the sentence with Clapper's testimony in the chronological listing of the next two paragraphs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Space4Time3Continuum2x: thanks for making a note on the talk page. I'll think about this a bit more before replying. I agree that some mix of chronology and thematic overview is best for the lead. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia"

closing as OP BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo The Logician - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 4 February 2017

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia – The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Adding "alleged" does not deny the accuracy of the one-time claims by the CIA, it simply acknowledges this is an allegation and there is not a consensus concurrence in the same way there is with things like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has never been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. BlueSalix (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. Quite the opposite, in fact. Neutralitytalk 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This has already been discussed and settled. The verifiability of the RS is very clear, and the intelligence community has, if anything, made even more clear that they stand by their evidence and published statements. That "agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging" does not indicate they are backing down or are any less certain. On the contrary. They have settled the matter, and they feel no need to continue kicking a dead horse, and that's exactly what this RfC is doing. It's absurd.

    Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions, and without any good evidence.

    This isn't a conspiracy theory (with conflicting opinions and no good evidence) where we have to couch the title in modifiers. This is a firmly settled matter, and until multiple RS find new evidence that totally upsets the apple cart, the current title is good enough. Editorial doubts should not be included in the title. That would violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&oldid=763690083"