Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

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." 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)

References

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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

Obviously US politicians and officials never do this. That's what makes their opinions so reliable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Can you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by "brief"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• @Bob K31416: You should really withdraw your oppose, as it is based on false pretenses. "One of those fronts could be the war in Syria." No, Russia actually is involved in the war in Syria. In context, Putin was quite clearly referring to the U.S. elections: "Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere. 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?" (Or use Russia's official translation: "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? ... This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues.") More importantly, none of our reliable sources thought to misinterpret Putin's words in the highly creative manner you suggest, as I will document below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support: These statements have been widely reported, and they deal directly with the content of this article. I think it's obvious they belong in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose including the quotation, which is undue. Of course Putin's denial of involvement, properly sourced, should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• 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)

FYI, MrX suggested above, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

* 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)

• Support but shorten. I agree with Volunteer Marek about WP:UNDUE. Half of this quote isn't really about Russia's involvement in the U.S. election but a snarky comment about Democrats' dignity. And the remaining part can probably be adequately summarized without quotation. Putin denied Russia's involvement and criticized the Democrats for casting blame. That should do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Since we have an entire article devoted to an unproven allegation against Putin, it is due weight to include the few sentences where he responds. TFD (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support As Trump and Putin are the two main accused, any statement by them is relevant. JS (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support but shorten (significantly). I agree with Dr. Fleischman & Volunteer Marek re: UNDUE. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support but paraphrase per MrX suggestion above (Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat). Pincrete (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (summoned by bot) as an aspect of the incident that has been widely reported, but ideally with the quote shortened or paraphrased. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

References

• WP:DUEWEIGHT has nothing to do with who made the response, and everything to do with the extent of coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to convince other editor that this material should be added to the article, you might start by showing that other reliable sources are treating it as important and that it helps readers understand the subject.- MrX 03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay—I gave you Reuters—here's Huffington Post, Slate, Business Insider, CNN, Fox News, and USA Today. A Google search for "Putin sore losers" gets 263,000 hits. And this story just broke a few hours ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ... Washington Post, Daily Mail, Politico, CNBC Marteau (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm changing the RfC title from the highly argumentative "Is Putin's own response UNDUE?" to "Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?" PEr Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the question presented in an RfC should be brief, neutral, and specific. The original title was none of these. And TheTimesAreAChanging, you should put your argument/perspective under "survey" or "threaded discussion" — not under the question presented. These are pretty simple and important rules for RfCs.

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. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Only in American Politics, folks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I don't understand. How is this content off-topic? Putin discussed the hacking scandal - isn't that directly relevant to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

"Obama administration accuses Russian government of election-year hacking" Marteau (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Marteau (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• As of October 31, 2016—just days before the election (and at a time when pundits were still postulating a 90-98% chance that Clinton would win)—the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that "even the hacking into Democratic emails ... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Donald Trump." This assessment was radically altered following Trump's surprise victory (and shortly before the Electoral College voted), but—so far as is known—the intelligence community has not acquired any new information on Russia's actions or intentions since October 31.
• On December 9—the same day that President Obama ordered a full investigation into Russia's alleged role in the election—the CIA leaked its apparently predetermined conclusion that Russia intentionally helped Trump to its favorite newspaper—The Washington Post.
• After leaking these shocking new claims to the press, the intelligence community refused to share any of the underlying evidence with Congress—citing the ongoing review ordered by Obama! In another hate fact purged from this article, Representative Peter T. King called the intelligence community's conduct "absolutely disgraceful," adding: "It's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States." (The CIA has violated its charter to manipulate U.S. public opinion many times in the past—and has a history of rigging democratic elections across the globe, from Italy to Chile.)
• Whatever the current official U.S. government position, the U.S. "free press" unquestioningly towed the government line in a coordinated and Orwellian manner, resulting in headlines such as the following: "No, the presidential election can't be hacked," CNN, October 19, 2016. cf. "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?," CNN, December 10, 2016.
• Finally, on December 23, Putin pointed out the obvious: Claims that "Russia hacked the election" look suspiciously like a trumped-up (pardon the pun) attempt to obfuscate the Democrats's stunning repudiation by invoking a sinister foreign bogeyman as the scapegoat. This is consistent with the above facts, as well as the broader psychological phenomenon of the Western Left incessantly blaming "the Russians!" for its continual series of defeats. (See, e.g., "Russian hackers 'probably swayed Brexit vote', says Ben Bradshaw MP," Sky News, December 14, 2016; "Russia Pushing Migrant Rapes': Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim," The Sun, December 14, 2016.)

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)

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)

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)

Agree _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.32.123 (talk) 6 January 2017‎ 20:17 UTC

Bizarre title

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

Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper

As part of reactions from the intelligence community, the article cites former NSA high-ranking member Binney and former CIA analyst McGovern as saying (via the Baltimore Sun), among other things:

Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over NSA surveillance of Americans, and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted.

SPECIFICO recently deleted this sentence as a "BLP smear" against Clapper. I reverted him mentioning that the accusation was properly attributed and grounded in facts. Specifico then reverted again, saying BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law. If so, please show me and I will restore it. I respectfully argue that this counter-reversion is unwarranted because:

1. James Clapper is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and his false testimony about NSA surveillance is a matter of public record, not a baseless allegation;
2. By counter-reverting my revert of their first removal, SPECIFICO violated the DS/1RR restrictions in force;
3. The exception to 1RR rule for egregious BLP violations does not apply here, by virtue of point 1;
4. This attributed commentary was longstanding in the article, and it doesn't matter that Specifico may not like it;
5. The commentary is relevant to the article's subject matter, given the prominence of Clapper's assertions in the intelligence reports about Russian interference (saying in essence "Trust my word because I can't show you proof");
6. If there is a novel standard in Wikipedia that on-record false testimony by public figures should be "adjudicated in a court of law" before inclusion in the encyclopedia, I'm not aware of it yet, and will gladly argue the case at WP:BLP/N.

Accordingly, I urge SPECIFICO to immediately restore the erased text (which I can't do lest I violate 1RR too). In case Specifico or other editors still want this part removed, we can have a proper debate. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that Thucydides411 has restored the text. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted my initial self-revert upon reflection: in my opinion, this does seem like a violation of BLP. The final imputation presented is that scepticism of his claims are warranted – yet, that is presented as a fact. It is the opinion of Binney and McGover, and we should indicate that.

@JFG: is there a way that this can perhaps be reworded as to clarify that this is the opinion of those two authors? I'd personally go for something a long the lines of "In the opinions of X and Y, expressed in (writing)" – but maybe articulated a little bit better. I just think as it stood it sounded as though we were relaying facts, not opinions, and that doesn't sit well with me re the BLP subject. Thoughts? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be synthesis and UNDUE. This also seems to be cherry picking. Hence, I agree the above is an unwarranted BLP smear. Also, it seems obvious that Binney and McGovern are promulgating minority or fringe views. I think we need to dispense with this whole paragraph as UNDUE - imho. I do not see them as any kind of authority worth discussing or echoing in this Wikipedia article, based on this paragraph. I respect what Binney did as a whistleblower, but I think what happened to him seems to have given him cause for having a bias. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This Baltimore Sun article, written by Binney and McGovern, is used as the most current source in that paragraph [4]. And the statement above seems to have been derived from this source - a source which is a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it is filled with supposition. Also, Binney and McGovern are using this article as platform to smear Clapper, for stuff that happened years ago.

And the smearing is being used as if it is a rationale for why the emails were leaked and not hacked. Hey, let's take a giant step backward, to July and August 2016, when the internet was filled with conspiracy theories similar to this. Binney is stuck in mid-year 2016 conspiracy theories. I don't have a problem with opinion pieces being used in articles, but not opinion pieces like this. I think this article should be removed as a source because it is not a reliable source. ------Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand what is unclear. The disputed sentence stars with "Binnen and McGovern wrote that…", clearly that's their statement, and the whole paragraph repeats their names three times, making it super clear that we are not speaking in wikivoice. We can still discuss whether their view is WP:DUE, however this is neither an attribution problem, nor is it a BLP issue per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. On the procedural side, I note that the DS/1RR notice saying "do not revert any edit challenged by reversion" is being blissfully ignored. Oh well… — JFG ^talk 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar, Steve Quinn, and JFG: I have used a direct quote from the Baltimore Sun piece to make it abundantly clear (I hope) that this is Binney and McGovern's view. Would you mind checking if this edit is reasonable? -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's no improvement, in my opinion. Please, see my comments below (at 15:01, 12 Feb 17). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of DS/1RR is that longstanding material cannot be removed without consensus (this is the interpretation that MelanieN gave above). As far as I'm concerned, the original bold removal was fine, but once that removal was reverted, consensus would be required before it was attempted again. I don't see a consensus for the removal of Binney and McGovern's opinions here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully, it is understood that I agree with its removal as UNDUE, and as a BLP smear. It is not necessary to have this in the article and it only serves to denigrate Clapper. He must be doing something right if he has been working for the G.W. Bush administration and then the Obama administration. Cherry picking controversial aspects of national history that he was involved in serves no purpose, other than to rationalize a fringe view for Binney's and McGovern's audience. There seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research). Also how is this WP:SYNTH? As for WP:BLP, go ahead and sue Politifact for libel. So no consensus. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. Sorry Guccisamsclub, it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet. But, thanks for your opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: Politifact is the original source for this"BLP smear" (or have you not read the article youre attacking? ...wouldn't be the first time). Also how is this SYNTH? Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because you claim (or assert) it is Politico that is the original, doesn't make it so. And the only who cares that it is Politico, Smitico, or Bitico is you - sounding like a strawman to me. I'm not attacking anything. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the Baltimore Sun article and check its url refrences. One of them will be politiFACT (NOT politiCO), which they cite in support of their "smear" of Clapper. Then read the Politifact piece. This is the third time you are being told to read the politifact piece cited in by McGovern and Binney. If you talk without reading, you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:Your understanding is shaky. One month is "longstanding"? Not. -- Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us. Be that as it may, there's no "longstanding" here. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"more worldly and broadly read among us". Who do you have in mind? Yourself and Steve Quinn? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For this article, one month is long-standing. Above, MelanieN was talking about material that was not much older than that. Since there's no consensus for removing Binney and McGovern's commentary from the article, we can restore it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Moral Relativism at its worst! Time doesn't bend to your level of interest. My schedule doesn't quicken when guys like you want to edit 'round the clock. Enjoy it but don't think that puts a burden on the community to run ourselves dizzy keeping up with your American Politics adrenaline rush. Long is long and one month ain't long. I read it on the Intercept. If you think you have permission to edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over, please post a note on Arbcom Enforcement Talk and see what reaction you get. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Instead of criticizing your fellow editors, how about answering my rationale above demonstrating that this attributed opinion, grounded in facts, about a public figure, was not a BLP violation? I'm listening. — JFG ^talk 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. Immediately after your erroneous defence above. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean with this comment? You just assert BLPVIO again, you give no argument to prove it, whereas I give several arguments to disprove it. — JFG ^talk 04:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is one problem. First the Binney and McGovern opinion piece say input from Clapper in the Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is clearly absent. And that Clapper has a past of suppressing evidence pertaining to lack of WMD in Iraq and false testimony to Congress about NSA activities. There seems to be no connection between Clapper and the JAR at the time of this op-ed piece. Yet the above statement connects Clapper's past to being skeptical about "his" claims to Russian hacking.

BLP is seems clear on two a few fronts here. The above statement seems to equate with gossip WP:BLPGOSSIP in that displaying this information about Clapper in this paragraph is not relevant. Acting as if he is some sort of God and the only one to be believed or disbelieved is UNDUE - which BLP seems to consider as part of its policy in the intro as WP:NPOV. BLP seems to draw a line from that content policy to unnecessarily draging in dirt about a person.

And the reason people are bringing lack of conviction for a federal offense into the conversation is BLPCRIME, is because, again, it might be against good or stringent editing practices to drag in the dirt - recycle past offenses - if they are not relevant. Steve Quinn (talk)

I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking and even the Harper's reference should say this in some way. Clapper has a questionable (or worse) past and therefore this supports the following conclusion - whatever the conclusion - does not seem to work. Also, the Binny/McGovern OpEd piece is a primary source. So if BLP is involved more than this is probably needed - I would say. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's a BLP issue here, take it to the BLP noticeboard. I simply don't see any case for considering the material in question a BLP violation. First off, it's not "gossip" (i.e., unverifiable derogatory statements that pass from person to person). It's a comment on two widely known facts - that Clapper was involved in making the Iraq WMD case in 2002, and that his Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a prominent falsehood. We don't know these things through gossip. They're matters of public record, and Clapper's testimony is even on video. We're not repeating gossip here. As for WP:BLPCRIME, here's what the policy actually says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis added). Clapper is not relatively unknown. He's a public figure. And we're not even suggesting he's guilty of a crime. We're simply describing an opinion that notes a well known fact: Clapper's Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a falsehood.

"I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking". You're not required to agree with Binney and McGovern's commentary on Clapper and skepticism about allegations of Russian hacking. All of us editors probably disagree with one or another commentary cited in this article, but agreement with commentary isn't (or shouldn't be) the metric we go by when deciding what commentary to reference. Binney and McGovern are fairly well known intelligence figures, so their commentary is noteworthy.

Finally, on the procedural issue here, the Binney/McGovern commentary was removed from the article, and this removal was challenged. That means that the second removal of the commentary was not in line with DS/1RR. This material has been in the article for more than a month (since 5 January), so it's long-standing. Above MelanieN described 58-day-old material as long-standing, and 37 days is a similar timespan. And to SPECIFICO's objection that this definition of long-standing puts an undue burden on editors, I'd just note that there are many editors here (SPECIFICO included) who edit this page several times a week. This material has been up for more than five weeks. How many times have you edited the article or commented on the talk page since then, SPECIFICO? This pace of editing clearly isn't an undue burden on you. So it looks like the correct course of action for now is for this long-standing material to be added back in, and then for anyone who thinks it violates BLP to take their concerns to the BLP noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I appreciate the above response. It is well articulated. I brought in specific BLP issues because JFG seemed to be requesting what specific BLP issues are relevant. Also, SPECIFICO and one other editor have brought BLP issues into this conversation. So, it might be premature to go over to the BLP noticeboard right now. I suggest seeing what others editors say about this. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I appreciate Steve Quinn's rationale although I disagree with his stance, and I fully endorse Thucydides411's response. As for process, I have now restored the contentious material, slightly copy-edited, into the article, pending the outcome of this discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence on Clapper needs to be deleted and the rest of the paragraph shortened. The lengthy quotes and indirect quotes give way too much prominence to these former members of the Intelligence Community. Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively. Binney says that he "… created many of the collection systems still used by NSA". We’ll just have to take his word for it, don’t we?

Did they shop their opinion piece (770 words) around and find one taker? "Contributions to the Opinion-Commentary page of The Sun are welcome and should be between 600 and 750 words including a single sentence bio for the author(s)." (You won’t get paid but we’ll use it if we need to fill space and if you’ve used complete sentences.) Note how their single sentence bio does not mention that McGovern retired in 1990? No other RS picked up the op-ed or reported on it.

You have to factor in the personal bias the op-ed writers may have, in the case of Binney and McGovern their history with their former employers and their association with Assange. Binney is a regular RT contributor, and McGovern is an Assange associate. Here’s McGovern "… spread[ing] some truth around" on Feb 7, 2017: "Bill says the snooping has progressed to the point where the initials NSA now stand for “New Stasi Agency,” because NSA has become the East German Stasi (secret police) on steroids."

Clapper. Worded in what appears to be Wikipedia voice in text pretending to be indirect quotes. "They also wrote that given James Clapper's false testimony … and his involvement in building the WMD case …". The reference says that he "admitted giving … false testimony". He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that pesky "protecting national security secrets" thing. As for who built the WMD case, it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had. And all of that warranting "… skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking …": They’re not claims, they are accusations, and they are not his accusations, but those of the US Intelligence community.

"Long-standing text": To keep up with the changes, you'd have to have a lot of spare time to read the entire article 10 times a day, especially when you take the time to look at the references. Stuff gets overlooked for a while. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that pesky "protecting national security secrets" thing. He admitted his answer was "wrong", but claimed to misunderstand a clearly-worded question, an excuse nobody has been willing to buy (talk about fringe). The fact that Clapper also has an incompatible backup excuse in the form of "national security reasons"—the reasons for everything—has no bearing on the fact that he gave a "wrong" answer. It just means his words are dictated by political and bureaucratic imperatives, not by the facts. It also means that he can't make an honest retraction. Such a reliable source... it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had. Read the Iraq thread on this page. The idea that the intelligence community was NOT deeply complicit—which seems to be what you're implying—in the manufacture of false WMD intel is a transparently WP:FRINGE Nancy Pelosi talking point.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You have any verifiable statements you want to make, or just absurdly vague personal attacks? The only person consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom is you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

In their fifth paragraph Binney/McGovern make a claim ("Clapper admitted giving ... false testimony"), in their last paragraph it has become a given ("given Mr. Clapper's checkered record for accuracy"), and the indirect Wikipedia quote turned it into "given James Clapper's "false testimony ...". Pedantic semantics? Maybe so, but it's not neutral viewpoint, and the source is unreliable. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I simply disagree with you that Binney and McGovern are such biased sources, compared to other commentators, that their views should just be excluded from the article. Arguments about length of text are fine - I'm not exactly sure how many sentences they deserve. But zero doesn't make any sense. Both Binney and McGovern had careers in the CIA, and are both now well known critics.

@SPECIFICO: please stop impugning the motives of other editors, darkly hinting at conspiracies, and rather focus on content. By repeatedly assuming bad faith, promising various forms of retaliation, you are making discussion very difficult. This is an editorial room: we don't need drama. -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I impugn no man nor beast. However WP says BLP violations must be removed until there's consensus the text is OK. And it has nothing to do with good faith bad faith or any other faith. When in doubt, take it out. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you said above, "disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases..." Who are you referring to if not the editors who have disagreed with you here? -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be so defensive. I'm a social scientist by training. I'm talking about the functioning of a self-governed volunteer community. Interestingly, your word "impugn" reminded me of the word "impunity" -- Good faith violations are still disruptive and that's not my opinion that is the mainstream Western view. I can't speak to Asian or other communities. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, well please consider striking your comments, or adding an addendum clarifying them. Based on your response here I will assume you're not referring to me other other editors on this page. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think my words are clear. I hope that you'll consider the underlying issue. Rather than focus on redacting talk page comments, perhaps you'll remove the disputed text from the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x, Steve Quinn, Casprings, and SPECIFICO here. Leaving aside BLP for the moment, I find the material at issue to be (1) undue; (2) out of scope; and (3) phrased in a POV way. (These are related concepts, but I think it's useful to think of each separately for the moment).

As to the first point, weight, as Space4 has noted before, "Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively." Frankly, I do not find their views any more significant or salient than dozens or hundreds of other commentators and pundits. If we are to quote or paraphrase the views of commentators, I would far prefer the space be taken up by contemporary scholars of Russia, U.S.-Russia relations, or cybersecurity.

As to the second point, I think it's out of scope. Even if Clapper misled Congress about surveillance (and my personal belief, like many others such as Andrew Rosenthal, is that Clapper did lie to Senator Wyden), I don't think this has any direct bearing on Russian interference. To include this would be to make an atmospheric "he's not credible" argument that, if not misleading, at the very best requires an inferential leap.

As to the third point, Space4 is clearly correct that the indirect Wikipedia quote "given James Clapper's "false testimony ..." is improper and POV. It accepts as fact a highly contentious claim — one that Clapper has expressly denied (he has called his testimony "clearly erroneous" and said "I made a mistake. But I did not lie. There's a big difference."). Regardless of whether we find this credible personally, the news sources (not opinion sources) clearly don't say flat out that he lied (e.g., U.S. News: "To his critics, Clapper lied under oath"; PolitiFact: "A year later, Clapper’s testimony represents one of the great, and unfortunate, holes in timely fact-checking. The challenge in discerning whether those with privileged information, particularly on matters of national security, are speaking truthfully in public is a difficult, if not impossible, task.").

So yes, this should be excluded. Neutrality^talk 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) Agreed: their views are worthwhile, and so are others. Let's find some more. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(2) This "inference leap" is exactly the point of Binnen and McGovern's commentary, and it's fair game, given the "inference leaps" that the intelligence services want the public to accept. ("Looks like the DNC hacker spoke Russian, therefore only Putin could have directed such a complex operation.") As long as their inference is attributed and not misrepresented, I see no problem. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(3) Yes, we can and should work on the formulation to clearly convey the authors' opinion without distorting it, condoning it or dismissing it. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying to the points that Neutrality made, one by one:

1. undue: The fact that Binney and McGovern are no longer working in intelligence doesn't disqualify them as commentators. In fact, the section their views are included in is under the heading "Commentary and reactions : Intelligence community : Former members." Unless that whole section is undue, I don't see how Binney and McGovern's views are undue.

2. out of scope: Binney and McGovern are directly addressing the subject of this article: allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. They raise the question of Clapper's trustworthiness because he's one of the principle people publicly making accusations of Russian hacking. In Binney and McGovern's view, the evidence that has been presented publicly is weak, and the person asking everyone to trust the allegations is not trustworthy. You can agree or disagree with Binney and McGovern on this, but they are making an argument that is relevant to this article, and they are well known former intelligence officers. We're not really here to debate whether we think one commentator's argument is convincing or not, but rather whether it is relevant to the article and whether we're representing the range of opinions on the subject accurately.

3. phrased in a POV way: I think the claim that Clapper gave false testimony is clearly attributed (especially now that it's in quotation marks), but if you think there's a better way to phrase the relevant sentence, without losing the meaning of what Binney and McGovern are trying to say, then please propose an alternate wording.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The way that second sentence is presented is clearly a BLP violation. I also agree that this is essentially UNDUE, although I'm not clear on whether this is a "regular" opinion piece by Baltimore Sun or one of those "commentary" ones, which are really just glorified letters to the editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the specific part regarding false claims as that is the bit I find to be a BLP-problem. I do think the entire section is probably an undue reference, an opinion-piece in the baltimore sun does not seem to me to be notable enough for inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: in your article edit summary you wrote, "Quote does not appear in source, source only has two mentions of 'false' one of which states Clapper admitted giving Congress false testimony which AFAIK is not the case. Removed as BLP concern." However the Baltimore Sun op ed clearly states:

"Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans. Four months later, after the Edward Snowden revelations, Mr. Clapper apologized to the Senate for testimony he admitted was "clearly erroneous.""

My edit placing the direct quote in the article text uses the same language:

"They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking was warranted."

Do you see how those quotes are the same, and that your edit summary was incorrect?

It is a matter of record that Clapper gave testimony to congress that was incorrect: [5][6]. His lawyer has stated that his testimony - that the NSA (which he oversaw) was not collecting data on millions of American citizens - was "not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake." Clapper himself described his testimony as "clearly erroneous."

It is extraordinary to state that quoting former senior intelligence officials who call the testimony "false" amounts to a WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and attributing such a statement to officials is a normal part of neutrally, accurately describing the kind of conversation that takes place (and is taking place) in a Democracy. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

1. An opinion piece is not a suitable source for contentious claims about living people. 2. The source says 'Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans.' Which he has not, what he *has* said is that he gave information in error. They are not the same. 'I told a lie' is not the same as 'I said something that later turned out to not be true'. You are using the second to justify the first, albeit because the source does so. If this was a high quality reliable source the claim would at least have some weight behind it. This is an opinion piece which is not. Opinion pieces are rarely acceptable for claims about living people. 3.You are unlikely to convince me or anyone else who deals on a regular basis with BLP concerns that an op-ed is acceptable for a criminal allegation *as a passing comment* on a larger article, so I wouldnt bother trying. 4. It appears from above there are numerous other complaints about the piece in general (unrelated to the BLP issue) that indicate it fails NPOV/is UNDUE. So I suggest you concentrate on that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: If you have BLP concerns, take them to the BLP noticeboard. As it is, you're in violation of the 1RR rules here, and you should self-revert your latest edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP reverts are exempt from revert restrictions as you have been told multiple times. *I* am not required to take it you the BLPN, but if you wish to, feel free. I, Marek and others have stated here why that particular information is problematic. You now need to demonstrate there is consensus here to reinsert it per WP:BLP and since it was orginally removed by Specifico a few days ago, the BIG DS NOTICE at the top of this page states it should not have been reinstated absent consensus to do so. So even if you did manage to gain consensus its not a BLP concern, you still could not reinstate it per the DS notice above - and given the arguments below regarding the baltimore sun reference in general, that consensus is not yet forthcoming. So no, I wont be reinstating it, you have been made aware it requires consensus to reinstate it, if you put it back again you will be violating both the DS applied to this page and WP:BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I agree that it is fine to have a conversation about WP:DUE or WP:NPOV, but you are incorrect to think that comments by public figures calling Clapper's testimony "false" violate WP:BLP. Under the rubric you propose, any prominent, public criticism of powerful government officials that implies misconduct cannot even be reproduced with attribution here, unless those officials have been convicted of a crime. That would include statements by elected representatives of the American people, journalists, and in this case former intelligence officials and whistleblowers. This is not a standard enforced elsewhere, and certainly does not obtain at the page James R. Clapper. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The 'standard' is that in general opinion pieces are primary sources for the opinion of the author. This means they are treated on an individual basis depending on the opinion, where its published, the material it is supporting. Opinion pieces are almost never used regarding material *about* living people regardless of who is who, due to the BLP generally prohibiting primary sources in that context. Were the authors quoted by a reporter in a newspaper in a non-op-ed this would not be an issue. This is a standard universally applied across wikipedia and is reflected in WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:BLP Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not using an opinion piece to make any statements of fact. We're reporting the opinion of the authors, which involves the public actions of Clapper, a prominent public figure. The authors of that opinion piece comment on a well known scandal that Clapper was involved in, where he gave Senate testimony that turned out to be false (according to numerous reliable sources). The standard you're trying to establish would prevent us from citing any opinion that mentions misconduct by a public figure. That goes for Vladimir Putin as well, so unless you're prepared to also scrub the article of any mention of Putin's alleged involvement in the US elections, I think you'll have to rethink your position on BLP as it applies to public figures.

On the policy question, BLP claims are not some sort of wonder weapon that trump all other policy. There is some burden on you to show that your BLP concerns are actually valid (and as you see here, several editors disagree with your interpretation of BLP and public figures), and I think that if your case really is strong, you should bring it to the BLP noticeboard. But as the situation stands, I think you're using a very tenuous BLP claim to remove long-standing material, in violation of 1RR restrictions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I shortened the paragraph on Binney/McGovern. The other experts were cited in one sentence each, so citing this dissenting opinion in an entire paragraph with several direct quotes is undue. I removed the contentious sentence on Clapper pending the outcome of this discussion; shouldn't have been reinserted when it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is clear as a bell. The material is contentious. It is sourced on an opinion piece considered to be bereft of facts. Contentious material regarding a living person must be well sourced. In other words, there have to be fact based secondary sources that state Clapper gave false testimony therefore intelligence regarding Russian interference in the US election should be treated with skepticism. So far no such sources have been provided.

Also, if we read carefully, Binney/McGovern are saying Trump should be skeptical. They do not say there should be skepticism. So, it seems to me, even this was incorrectly placed in the article. But I doubt it can be placed in the article anyway, because there are not enough reliable sources that say Clapper's false testimony equals skepticism for Trump or otherwise, about 2016-2017 intelligence reports on Russian interference in US elections. On that second idea, there might be sources that say Trump should be skeptical in relation to Clapper, about aforementioned Intel reports, I don't know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides has reverted my edit with the comment that there was no consensus for removal. Wouldn't consensus to restore have been necessary?. I stand by my reasons for removing the sentence on Clapper and shortening the rest of the paragraph to remove the prominence given to a minority opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia

Thucydides411 expresses an interesting angle to this dispute: what would happen if we applied SPECIFICO and OID's interpretation of the BLPVIO policy, being unable to cite anybody criticizing a living person, and unable to restore such material once censored by some editor who doesn't like it? Let's examine a few random snippets from this wonderful alternate world:

Article	Before	After
James R. Clapper, lead section	Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.	(This paragraph intentionally left blank)
Donald Trump, lead section	Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false. (Regulars at the Trump article will fondly remember the months of angst and megabytes of arguments expended on keeping or removing those famous two words "or false" — a case that is thankfully now settled)	Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial. (So much simpler, isn't it?)
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations	90 kB of prose, 20+ accusers	(Article deleted)
Hillary Clinton#Response to Lewinsky scandal	Public reaction varied. Some women admired her strength and poise in private matters that were made public, some sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior, others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions, while still others accused her of cynically staying in a failed marriage as a way of keeping or even fostering her own political influence.	Public reaction was unanimous. Women admired her strength and poise in private matters that were made public, and sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior.
Edward Snowden#Reaction	A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero,[309][310][311] a whistleblower,[312][313][314][315] a dissident,[316] a patriot,[317][318][319] and a traitor.[320][321][322][323]	Snowden has been variously called a hero,[309][310][311] a whistleblower,[312][313][314][315] and a patriot.[316][317][318]

I sincerely hope everybody sees the problem… — JFG ^talk 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Shoving my comment in here as I have been busy and I dont expect a response: The BIOs for Trump and Clapper should certainly *not* have op-ed pieces making claims about them. They should have either news reporting articles or other secondary sources to back up anything controversial. If you are stating that the Donald Trump article has *in the lead* contentious material sourced to an opinion piece, well I will be very surprised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a BS argument. No one is saying don't put in a well sourced fact about a living person. People are saying don't put in a tidbit from an OP about a living person in an article that is only tangentially linked to that person. To present this in this way is, in my opinion, willfully misrepresenting the viewpoints of other editors. I would ask that you hat this section. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: - Is it a fact that "Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath," or is that a BLP violation? Binney and McGovern say Clapper gave false testimony to congress. That's a BLP violation, but the "Media observers..." statement isn't? What about Snowden - "Snowden has been [called] a... traitor." Is that a fact, or a BLP violation? JFG is exactly right. -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Tidbit" is subjective and irrelevant. The substance of your argument, if I understand:

• Clapper's past testimony before congress – widely considered false and/or misleading – is only tangentially related to speculation about the accuracy of his most recent testimony.

Is that right? As best I can tell the chart above is an accurate representation of the BLP standards advocated for Clapper in this discussion applied consistently. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also interested in how we're going to apply this standard to references to Putin's personal and malevolent orchestration of the election of Donald Trump. Putin is mentioned... some 50 times in the text of this article? -Darouet (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:JDLI is a misrepresentation of some editors' view and is therefore POV. Also, this whole chart is WP:OTHERSTUFF. JDLI doesn't concern editors concerned with BLP, but it does seem to concern one editor who even uses it in the edit history as an explanation, as well as the talk page. For the record, I wish to state that JDLI is not really a policy or guideline. Moving on - of course Clapper's testimony and mea culpa has been widely derided by his critics - this is true. But Clapper himself admitted to only making a mistake. So either way, this does not seem like a useful bridge for countering the widely touted (or widely accepted) Russian interference in US elections. However, it would seem there could be some WP:RS that counters this view, even if it seems to be a minority view. I suggest bundling a bunch of contemporary counterpoint commentary and present day WP:RS and summarize it. Just an idea. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this chart (as well as some of the follow up statements by, for example, James J. Lambden, but as best I can make out, the argument seems to be "I didn't get my way on these other articles so I won't let you have your way on this article". How does that make sense? Also note that several of these other articles were subject to RfCs.

And yes, this is a strawman. Or rather strawmen. For example, with Snowden - if there's a ton of sources in which somebody calls him something, then yeah, we include it. Here we have a *single* source, which is an op-ed. The difference is not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't hard to understand unless you wish to misunderstand.Casprings (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This chart is obviously hyperbolic sarcasm meant to illustrate the extreme point where we would be headed if we took the arguments presented in this discussion literally. Now you say the standard to include an accusatory claim towards a living person is that several sources should be leveling the same accusation? Head over to James R. Clapper and find dozens of them, resulting in a pretty solid lead paragraph that I quoted in the chart. If said accusations (duly attributed) can be included there, surely they can be included here. — JFG ^talk 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And VM, please don't cast aspersions, there is no question of "having my way", I don't even care that much about the case in dispute here, I was just doing a routine revert among a bout of cleanup (16 edits). However some arguments advanced in this case drove me to seriously point out a flawed reasoning about BLPs taken to its logical consequences. Note that the absurdity highlighted in the examples I chose applies equally to polar opposites Trump or Clinton, Clapper or Snowden: it doesn't matter which POV editors have or whether they have one, it just censors any and all criticism of living persons "unless adjudicated in a court of law". Oops. Not my encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

People here and elsewhere have been asserting that Clapper is a "reliable source" and that the intelligence agencies should be trusted. So how is it irrelevant to point out facts that contradict this assertion? Binney and McGovern belong to the paragraph by virtue of being former intelligence officers, and these facts are relevant to the article by virtue being brought up by B&M (and others) in connection with the topic. (BTW if Snowden is a "traitor", Clapper is a "lia....") Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that the CIA have seen the data they are talking about (and we can assume so did Clapper due to his position), Binney and McGovern have not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: For the umpteenth time: US intel says they have seen "the data", which nobody else has seen, nevermind independently verified. When attempts are made to verify their claims, they sometimes turn out to be totally false. So your latest post demonstrates precisely why M&B's point is so important. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If I assume the text at the start of this is the text under dispute, they are not saying that the CIA are wrong, they are saying Clapper cannot be trusted. As this page is not about Clapper their opinions of him are not appropriate (that should be on his page). Moreover (as others have said) their opinion of his honesty is not really all that relevant, him being wrong (well alleged top be wrong) a few times does not mean everything he say is wrong. This seems undue as it is n not about the subject of the article, but about opinions about someones opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

wrong a few times does not mean everything he say is wrong. NOBODY HAS SAID THAT. alleged top be wrong. Clapper SAID his answer was "wrong". After Snowden, not a single RS believes Clapper's answer to have been true, because it would obviously be absurd. Clapper cannot be trusted Imagine that. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So then it is irrelevant if he has been wrong in the past, it says nothing about his correctness now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Another question, do we say Donald Trump or Vladmir Putin have told lies in the past?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: These are incredibly tone-deaf statements. "So then it is irrelevant if he has been wrong in the past" No, the fact that a source has a terrible record with the truth is relevant to assessing the credibility of statements that have not been independently verified. That's pretty much rule #1 of journalism, however hypocritically applied it may be. "do we say Donald Trump or Vladmir Putin have told lies in the past?" If this article had consisted overwhelmingly of statements from Trump/ists and Putin/ites — with editors and Russian sources chiming in about how those two are official "reliable sources" that know all and see all — then YES. Of course any editors who attempt to create such an article and to argue that T&P are "reliable", will not even be subjected to criticism of their "sources" — they will be swiftly and permanently banned. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So do we mention any other persons honesty (or lack of it) in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sure. Go ahead and find a source that says the Russian officials can't be trusted on their hacking denials because they are known liars. This may be harder than it looks. Decent sources tend to refrain from stating the blatantly obvious, because that's seen as condescension to readers and a waste of column space. That's likely how it will be seen by readers of this article. But if that's what it takes to keep M&B, I have no problem. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So no we do not. So this is a reason to exclude doing it in this case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone see that 180? Radical stuff. Yes, time to close the curtains! Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to close this

This is going round in circles, I think we now need to determine if consensus exists to include this, please just put your own opinion (as a vote) do not comment on others opinion here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note the wording: "if consensus exists to include this." This edit is a over a month old and comes from an RS (reliable for the reactions of two former intel members, at the very least). On those grounds consensus is needed to exclude this content. Consensus is needed to include this continent if and only if the BLP concerns have merit. It is clear that not everyone here thinks they do. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the concern shown about non neutral wording I shall change it.

Updated wording

This is going round in circles, I think we now need to determine if consensus exists to exclude this, please just put your own opinion (as a vote) do not comment on others opinion here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps if we find no consensus, we should take the fundamental issue to WP:BLP/N. — JFG ^talk 23:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You are free to take it to BLPN at any time. You're not free to edit war or to insert BLP violations into Wikipedia. You don't need to ask permission to get advice at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Let's see if we get an amicable consensual resolution below, perhaps including some re-wording to alleviate BLP concerns; that would be the best outcome. NOTE: I did not insert anything in this dispute, I did not write this text or find this source myself, I don't even have a strong personal opinion on the subject matter, but I believe this quote is a valid and relevant opinion that should be presented to readers among others. So I just restored what somebody else had written much earlier, after you deleted it. The ensuing slow edit war stems from a "who shot first" situation where you feel legitimate because of BLP and I feel legitimate because of DS. If we do not reach consensus here, BLPN can help us determine a logical outcome by clarifying whether Binney's position qualifies as a BLP violation against Clapper. If there is a BLPVIO, you are entitled to remove it. If there is no BLPVIO, my argument is correct and the content can stay (unless deemed undue by another consensus). — JFG ^talk 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing about BLPN advice that is not "amicable". As for your edit warring, you're flat-out contradicting what WP behavioral guidelines and DS have to say on the subject. There's no safe harbor. I suggest you read up on the subject of reverts and Edit Warring, not to mention DS. If you're hanging your hat on how you spin a comment here by MelanieN, I think that your hat is on thin ice, so to speak. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not warring. Please keep cool. We disagree on whether mentioning Binney's opinion is a BLPVIO, that's all there is to it. — JFG ^talk 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Include

• This info is relevant to the article, properly attributed, relevant to the section (reactions from former intelligence members) and not remotely a blp-vio. If people think calling Clappers statement on surveillance "false" is too harsh, we can substitute "wrong", which is the word Clapper himself has used. Either way, sourcing this is trivial (we can cite the politifact piece cited by M&B or a dozen other sources) and there's no conceivable reason for exclusion based on BLP. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I still fail to see how Clapper's admission that he gave a "wrong" answer when testifying to Congress on mass surveillance can be considered a BLPVIO here whereas it's perfectly fine in Clapper's article, including a long paragraph of multiple people accusing him of lying or misrepresenting the extent of the NSA activities; in the lead, no less. This is all established, sourced and admitted, there is no smear and no BLP violation. Binney develops an argumentation based on those historical facts and alleges that Clapper should not be trusted in this new case, well that's his opinion and we cite it as such. Readers are smart enough to accept or reject Binney's stance, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to condone it or suppress it. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Exclude

• As far as I can tell no one else's opinions of this have had their history of lying pointed out, so why this person. Seems Undue and POV pushy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have general NPOV/UNDUE issues with the entire section. Setting the specific BLP issue aside for the moment: Are the opinions of these people a reflection of a majority or a significant minority opinion? Are there other reliable sources (read: not directly related to Trump and/or Russia) that indicate that the dossier is problematic based on who (Clapper) supports it/believes its credible? I dont think so, so NPOV indicates to me this particular source is UNDUE. RE the BLP issue, specifically alledging *admission of* a crime requires much better sourcing than an op-ed. So that needs to stay out regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Per my detailed comments above. My position is based primarily on UNDUE concerns rather than BLP or NPOV, but the BLP concerns are colorable, so the burden of establishing consensus to include it likely rests with the proponents to the content. Neutrality^talk 15:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is something that needs to be decided on the merits of the contentious material. If a majority decided to include, there’d still be the problems of undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text) and POV. "Writing in the Baltimore Sun" - makes it sound as if it was the paper’s position when it was merely an op-ed piece stating the writers’ opinion. As for the sentence on Clapper, it’s ad hominem, attacking the man rather than the substance of the argument itself, shooting the messenger to kill the message. Removing part of the sentence was an improvement but what’s left is still POV made to sound like undisputed fact when it’s not. See also my comments above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Writing in the Baltimore Sun" - makes it sound as if it was the paper’s position when it was merely an op-ed piece – Quite the opposite: this wording clearly establishes that Binney and McGovern did the writing, not the Baltimore Sun reporters. We could certainly make it extra-super-crystal-clear by saying In an opinion piece published by the Baltimore Sun, Binney and McGovern wrote that… Agree to this? — JFG ^talk 12:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Extra-super-crystal-clear"? How about the following text (I haven't included the references)? Removes the undue weight given to these minor luminaries of the minority opinion by extensive citing and quoting and the contentious claim against/smear of Clapper, and makes it clear that the Sun piece is an op-ed, i.e., unsolicited and unpaid by the Sun.

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.[205] In an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking and that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.[206]

On the significance of Binney/McGovern’s opinion as cited in Cockburn’s Harper’s article: The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Binney/McGovern at all, i.e., they're not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Clear BLP violation and UNDUE and marginal cherrypicked source to confirm a Trump denial BLP-smear narrative. And BLP violations are often associated with UNDUE weight and NPOV violations that should be apparent to any thougthful, policy-focused WP editor. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is coming from an OP and it is one source. Not one source that represents multiple, but a lone source. Casprings (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• First, I agree with Space Time. The quote in Cockburn, is cherry picked out of an article that covers a different topic "threat inflation", a Cockburn thesis. It is undue and POV to give prominence to this quote. The quote as placed in this article gives the impression Cockburn's article is about downplaying hacking/interference. The Harper article's scope is much broader than that.

Second, relying on a flimsy opinion (primary source) piece to back up Binney/McGovern comments that say email leaked by insider is introducing POV, when multiple reliable sources say this is not the case, is giving undue prominence in this article, to less than marginal commentary. Independent reliable sources are needed that say this is so, not just this flimsy opinion piece.

Leaving aside BLP for the Clapper comment. Again this is introducing POV, giving undue prominence, to less than marginal commentary, because no independent secondary (reliable) sources cover this in this way. Especially get rid of the email leaked by insider comment - this is pure conjecture because not even Binney/McGovern offer any evidence, besides other reputable sources not saying this. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Clapper sentence

It seems, according to the AE decision, the following sentence was not supposed to be restored: "They also wrote that given James Clapper's involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking was warranted.[209]". A consensus is needed for this to be in the article. No consensus has emerged, so I think the sentence should be taken out, until such a consensus is apparent. Any volunteers? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I put my head on the chopping block and removed it since there is a 7:2 majority favoring removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem with removing the lengthy quote, however I feel that we still need to mention that they questioned Clapper's integrity; adding a brief statement. — JFG ^talk 07:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing Binney/McGovern paragraph

Putting my proposed version to a vote (references same as in current text)? My version removes the undue weight given to these minor luminaries of the minority opinion by extensive citing and quoting and makes it clear that the Sun piece is an op-ed, i.e., unsolicited and unpaid by the Sun.

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.[205] In an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking and that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.[206]

On the significance of Binney/McGovern’s opinion as cited in Cockburn’s Harper’s article: The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Binney/McGovern at all, i.e., they're not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Space Time I appreciate your efforts here. However, I can see no content policy support for having this in this Wikipedia article. Anything pertaining to that OPed piece by Binney/McGovern is marginal to the point of obscurity. For me, the point is, there is no independent secondary sourcing that support any of their views as stated in the OPed piece. Also, their (Binney/McGovern's) opinion in Cockburn's Harper's article is not supported by independent secondary sourcing - so this also should not be in this Wikipedia article. It is equally obscure.

I think the best we can do is cite the quoted summation of Cockburn's Harper's article that you provided - using the Harper's article itself and The Belfer Center article for sources. In other words, use that summation, and use those two citations. This could replace the entire Binney/McGovern paragraph - all this is imho. What do you think of my reply? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the Clapper sentence only lasted 19 hours despite the majority vote (JFG feels "that we still need to mention that [Binney/McGovern] questioned Clapper's integrity"). I think the whole paragraph needs to be deleted, but what are the chances that any edit not lauding these famous experts will survive? That’s the only reason I proposed a compromise between deletion and its current state of undue weight and bushwa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I view that as a reinsertion of the content without consensus and a violation of the DS that Arbcom has required us to observe here. I urge JFG to self-revert this violation and pursue discussion on talk if he still rejects the consensus view. This material has multiple problems that have caused editors to reject it here. I'm very disappointed to see it reinserted this way. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted my brief mention of Clapper while the discussion is ongoing. I agree that Space4Time3Continuum2x offered a good summary (the whole paragraph was too lengthy and the Harper's quote don't bring much insight). I would however suggest adding the significant fact that they are questioning Clapper's integrity, and I will repeat that this is not a BLP violation, per my detailed argument in #The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia. Here's my amended proposal:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.^[205] In an op-ed published by The Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of proving the allegations. They questioned James Clapper's integrity and opined that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.^[206]

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I am sorry but putting anything that Binney/McGovern said in that OPed piece has no backing in independent secondary reliable sourcing. Placing your modification in this article, gives the impression they have more impact than they have - I believe this is what UNDUE is about. I think the only acceptable compromise is to say:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. Binney and Ray McGovern said that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 did not prove the allegations.

I think any quotes attributed to them gives the impression they have more impact than they have. I think this is too much, but I am willing to settle for this. Also, I still think the summation (as a quote) I mentioned above with those two citations could be added to this to make a paragraph. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss this, and thanks for self-reverting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's really time to "drop the stick" on this Binney bit. And the report, rather than the hacking, is of diminishing importance. You'd need secondary independent RS that characterized Binney or his views especially significant. There's consensus against this. Please don't try to reinsert it again, and let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I have to agree - due to a lack of significance in independent secondary RS. I don't understand having more in this article more than offered in compromise. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO just deleted the whole paragraph about Binney and McGovern, citing UNDUE and "talk page consensus". I'm sorry, we do not have consensus to remove it all, we are in the middle of discussing how to summarize it properly. Please self-revert. — JFG ^talk 05:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's cause there was documented consensus. And please don't trot the "longstanding" pony around the track again. It's been rejected by multiple Admins and it's going to land you in the soup if you keep asserting it. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There was documented consensus to remove the reference to James Clapper's prior actions; there was no consensus to remove the whole paragraph, much less the whole section. I see several proposals of rephrasing and we should be able to agree upon a formulation. My request for you to self-revert still stands. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey

I deleted the sentence on Pierre Sprey: An analyst of military budgets and programs way before the end of the Cold War? ("Breaking news: Earthquake in Japan. Here’s our reporter on the scene in India, reporting from the same hemisphere.") Spray was an aeronautical engineer working for the Pentagon until 1986 who then went into the business of recording music. Ah yes, 1986. Good times: The Macintosh Plus and only another year to wait for Microsoft Works for DOS and Star Trek TNG. "Of course," he added with a laugh, "the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era." They exaggerated the size of Russia’s guns back then, so they’re lying about Russia's interference now? Sheesh. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't have any attachment to Sprey as an individual, but they are being quoted by Andrew Cockburn - a frequent, notable commentator on international affairs - in Harper's Magazine. Sprey is effectively cited to describe the notion of "threat inflation." While I don't mind eliminating Sprey's name in the article, I think we should somehow reference the idea, either by quoting Cockburn, or Sprey. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with threat inflation, the projections of Cheney's WMD to the contrary notwithstanding. This article is about what happened. Not drumming up hysteria to bomb a country to smithereens. Old opinions on the subject -- more than a week old now, with fresh revelations -- are worth very little. I suggest we find fresh commentary to the extent commentary is needed for this encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That wholly misses the point: Cockburn is writing about the possibility that allegations of election interference are a form of threat inflation. Do you not get that from the article? It states, "...we couldn’t stop their threat-inflating, and their nonworking weapons continued to be produced in huge quantities. Of course," he added with a laugh, “the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era." Sprey was referring to the current belief that the Russians had hacked into the communications of the Democratic National Committee... Or is it that you personally disagree with Sprey and Cockburn, and do not want their view in the article? -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Cockburn's article deals with the alleged Russian hacking directly, and ties Sprey's remarks direclty to that issue. I'll just repeat what I've written above: not every editor will agree with every opinion cited in the article, or find every opinion plausible, but the metric we should go by is notability of the opinions. Sprey does have expertise in intelligence matters, and Cockburn is a well known political commentator in America, writing in a prestigious magazine. -Thucydides411 (talk)

My friend, it has been explained by several editors on various occasions that "notability" is not the test as to whether article content is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was speaking a bit loosely. I didn't mean that WP:NOTE applies to sources, but I read WP:DUE and WP:BALASP as requiring some sort of notability of the commentary. My point is that whether or not particular editors agree with the arguments the commentators make is not the metric we use to determine whether those commentaries should be included in the article. I'm not going to argue against Space4Time3Continuum2x's opinion of Pierre Sprey's commentary, because that's not the point. The point is that he was quoted by Alexander Cockburn in Harper's. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I for one don't care whether Sprey's opinion is included or not, but I'm getting really tired of reading your relentless opposition to include anything you personally disagree with. As a veteran Wikipedian, your fellow editors expect a tad more neutrality from you, less badgering and fewer aspersions. — JFG ^talk 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attacks have got to stop. Now. That stuff is WP:UNDUE. Stuff can be verified, published in RS and be undue for an article on a specific topic. Please comment on content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am criticizing your comments, not your person. And you have made plenty of personal attacks before receiving the slightest admonition, so please don't go there. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I advised you to "comment on content". SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that Sprey is undue. Not cleat on what the fact he said something to Cockburn has to do with it - the text isn't about Cockburn so that's completely beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: They exaggerated the size of Russia’s guns back then, so they’re lying about Russia's interference now? Sheesh. Yeah, we will definitely delete the judgement of a former defence analyst, cited in Harpers by a prominent journalist and author of "Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins", "Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy" and " Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein", now that a wikipedia editor has dismissed it with a devastating "sheesh". The intel community also "exaggerated" (i.e. made up) the size of Iraq's WMDs, fueling a war of aggression which killed many thousands of US troops and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. "Sheesh" indeed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have to correct myself: Sprey left the Pentagon in 1970, before there even was an Internet! He was a weapons system analyst on the staff of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis) (OASD/SA), obviously an equally effective way to avoid getting drafted as heel spurs. Gives a whole new meaning to the "primitive era" quote in the Harper's article. Summing up: He was never a member of the intelligence community, he's not an expert on cyber-anything, and the Harper's article is off-topic. I don't believe there's any Wikipedia rule that protects long-standing content from removal for good reason. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Sprey did nothing bad to you besides being in the article. Now he's even being libelled as draft dodger. The kitchen sink... But ok, I admire the tenacity: if he not former intel, then whatever the merit of the source, it can be removed from the section. 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"the Harper's article is off-topic". The Harper's article says, "Sprey was referring to the current belief that the Russians had hacked into the communications of the Democratic National Committee, election-related computer systems in Arizona and Illinois, and the private emails of influential individuals, notably Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — and then malignly leaked the contents onto the internet." That's clearly the topic of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. The Harper's article also explains that Sprey was an analyst in the Defense Department, and he's quoted in the article talking about estimates of Soviet military strength. He was clearly involved in the "intelligence community," and in the Harper's article, he's applying his experience there to the Russian hacking allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The United States Intelligence Community has a technical meaning: if you are not a employed by any of the member agencies, you are probably not a member of the "community". Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, either in my definition of "member", or in my assumption about Sprey's employment. Sprey is obviously remains relevant to the article, but he simply can't be labeled something he is not. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Member: I agree. Relevance: Disagree. Sprey was involved in infighting at the Pentagon during the Vietnam era over which fighter plane to buy; his faction lost, and he seems to have continued shadow-fighting ever since then. How is this relevant to who's behind the hacking/publication, expecially since he was mentioned in only one article in one publication? He's in a business where any publicity is good publicity, and he’s probably on a few journalists "always good for an amusing quote" list. Thucydides shouldn't have restored the contentious material to the article as long as there is a discussion going on, but because of 1RR I can't remove it at the moment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The comment on threat inflation is relevant, and a pretty mainstream opinion. A former defence analyst is perfectly capable of assessing whether threat inflation is going on. No degree in cyber-security is necessary in this case; an understanding of politics and government bureaucracy is what's needed, and Sprey probably is qualified enough in that regard. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's cherry-picked. Find an unimpeachable reference if you think this is an important point that relates to the subject of this article -- which is questionable, btw. And BLP is clear wrt smear. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that's possible. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Impossible to find a valid reference? Then it's prima facie UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not trying to "impeach" the people cited by various commentators here. A well known commentator on American politics, writing in Harper's, cited a former defense department analyst on something that analyst has experience with: "threat inflation." But I do agree with Guccisamsclub that if the Office of Systems Analysis at the Pentagon was not formally part of the "intelligence community," then we can move this opinion to a better subheading. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of unimpeachible, which I clearly used to refer to the "reference" and not to any person. I am quite surprised if you did not understand that. Please have another look at the dialogue above. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, is it Pierre Sprey you have a problem with, or is it Harper's? Harper's is the magazine, Pierre Sprey is the guy they cited. From the above thread, it looks like you're arguing that Sprey is somehow unfit to be cited. But Alexander Cockburn, writing in Harper's, considered Pierre Sprey's opinion on "threat inflation" informative and relevant to the alleged Russian hacking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just cuz someone published it don't mean it belongs in this WP article. @Volunteer Marek: has already explained this principle with pithy pointed precision elsewhere on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Sprey, Cockburn, or Harper's. Since we have consensus that Sprey is not a former member of the Intelligence Committee, I've removed the sentence from the section. If you can come up with a suitable section/subheading, we can continue the discussion there. The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Sprey (or Binney/McGovern, for that matter) at all, i.e., not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

This is an important story. Trump's campaign contacts with Russia need to be added. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=

Let's wait until the transcripts are released in the next week or so. I don't believe that this communication is publicly reported to be about the Russian interference yet. SPECIFICO talk 05:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning. If we were to wait until something was proven before writing about it, this article would not exist. [Here's http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/donald-trump-aides-russians-campaign/index.html] a link to the story in CNN. TFD (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder when Wikipedians will stop reacting to the news du jour as if the integrity of the project depended on up-to-the-minute insertion of whatever hits the news cycle. Contrary to the press, there is no deadline, we don't have pressure to sell paper, views or clicks and we don't need to rabidly reprint every controversial or sensationalist thing floating around the media (look: Melania did some racy pictures 15 years ago! and she's suing for libel!! and she intended to use her notoriety for personal profit!!! Oh the humanity!!!!) But fine. At least if you're going to include this, please add Trump's denial at his press conference yesterday. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your POV is that this is like Melania wearing this or that kind of suit... ??? It was reported in RS almost a month ago. I see that @Capsrings: has added it to the article, and I advise you to articulate a well-considered, policy-based justification if you choose to revert it. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia ties of Trump campaign staff and advisors

• Trump campaign manager Manafort - consultant to Russian-backed, former Ukrainian president Yanukovitch
• Trump advisor Page - Gazprom and other investments in Russia/Russian energy sector
• Flynn - on December 10, 2015, Flynn gave a paid interview to RT at RT 10-yr. anniversary gala attended by Putin.

As for Trump himself, I’m pretty sure everyone has watched him (if not, see here and here) request Russia to release 30,000 missing emails , hacked not from the DNC server but from Clinton's private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State (which, to everyone's best knowledge, wasn't hacked). Of course he was just kidding, the ole gadfly, or was he? Trump has ties to Russia/Russian financing going back years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion polling

I see this as trivia and have removed it from the article. First, although potentially verifiable public opinion data could be located for pretty much anything, Wikipedia articles as a rule do not cover public opinion polls. Including it in this article goes against the normal practice. Of course if "public opinion" as represented by those specific polls, and that specific interval time interval, were of permanent importance to the subject matter--as represented by widespread, non-routine coverage in secondary sources--then that would be different. There is no evidence of this, and the burden of proof is on those wanting inclusion. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. We must have the presence of mind and perspective to recognize what is/isn't encyclopedic. This is related to the problem with all the self-styled cybersecurity pundits who are eager to get their names in print and fill a void when more qualified notable experts have nothing to say. The facts have developed so rapidly that most of the media and former security workers' opinions and reaction in the article are of no lasting importance whatsoever. The reader would have no idea what facts were known and published as of the dates of past polls or punditry. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I know of no rule regarding opinion polls. What goes into articles and what is omitted is determined by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. In this case the source used is the Wall Street Journal, which is a highly respected mainstream newspaper. Since the article is about allegations rather than proven facts, the degree to which the American public believes it is important. It is even important in cases of proven facts (climate change, evolution, 9/11), where substantial numbers of the population do not accept the facts. We include that information not to question the facts but because they are part of the story. If you are thinking of becoming a climate change scientist for example you might want to know that the general public may have doubts about its authenticity. TFD (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking of becoming a Russian hacker. Will my cousins believe me when I tell tales over Thanksgiving turkey? Shucks. I think that the core issue is whether RS provide any narrative about these polls in relation to the topic of the article. For example, it may turn out six months from now that WP would source text to an RS that tracks increasing public acknowledgement that the Russian interference is a fact to future Republican political events. But in terms of the interference itself, what is the meaning of isolated polls without some correlation to the news background, the known facts as of each poll, or to how public opinion shaped some related events or outcomes? SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You would not be wasting your time on this article if everyone in the U.S. believed that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta's emails and provided them to Wikileaks. TFD (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a diff that points to the content in question [7]. Most sources in question are primary. The Wall Street Journal is primary, not secondary, in this context because they commissioned the poll and are merely reporting their own numbers. Since it's primary, it doesn't establish weight convincingly by itself, because it seems likely (to me at least) that the WSJ would have published those results whether the results were surprising or not; after all, they paid for them. I agree with SPECIFICO above about encyclopedic content: the Weight and Neutrality policies are written with the understanding that there are some fundamental differences in newspaper vs. encyclopedic content, we don't usually publish weather forecasts for example, although there is no rule against that either and plenty of usable sources. The reason: it's just data out of context with minimal useful shelf life. That's exactly the way I see these polls. But if I'm wrong on this, that content should include sourced analysis so readers can see why these numbers from that point in time are permanently useful. That way we aren't just flinging old data at them. Geogene (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of what "primary source" means. The WSJ is a secondary source, for our purposes. The problem with using primary sources is mainly that they require us to do original research to interpret. It would be wrong for us to look at the polling data and come to our own conclusions, but citing what the WSJ reported about the poll would be fine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is no difference between the WSJ running an article on their own poll or another company's poll, they both provide analysis. TFD (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You may both want to read WP:PRIMARY and its explanatory supplement which includes WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That describes the poll. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." That describes the article about the poll. TFD (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: You counter-reverted my restoration of longstanding text removed by SPECIFICO; technically this constitutes a violation of DS restrictions in force which state: You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Note that it says "challenged edits", not "challenged text", and my revert was a challenge to the deletion edit. I suggest that you self-revert to restore the disputed material pending consensus outcome of this discussion. I do commend you for opening said discussion. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not "longstanding" content. That fish don't dance. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the discussion here, I don't see consensus to remove (3 editors want to keep the material, 3 want to remove it), but of course SPECIFICO sees no consensus to insert and threatens to drag me to AE. Chilling effect. For the record, I believe that reporting on public opinion about this delicate affair is eminently WP:DUE, but I'll abstain from restoring the material until we get some solid guidance from admins. I also maintain that Geogene violated DS by deleting the material a second time after I reverted (REVERT step) his SPECIFICO's first deletion (BOLD step). Even without talking about DS, this should be basic WP:BRD practice and courtesy to keep the contested material in until consensus is reached. — JFG ^talk 07:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG my removal was not in error, not a DS violation, and not discourteous. Also, pinging me once per article talkpage per day is sufficient. Don't do that again. Geogene (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Geogene, I usually ping editors that I mention, as a courtesy so they are aware of the discussion, there was nothing special about you. Per your request I am not pinging you this time. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the consensus has to be to include. If there is no consensus for inclusion, the material is removed, per WP:BURDEN. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You say the consensus has to be to include, I say the original version stays in until consensus is reached. In this case, the original version has a section on opinion polling, which Specifico removed and I restored; discussion is ongoing and I believe you shouldn't have deleted the material again, but please note that I haven't edit-warred on it. We just happen to have a different interpretation of the DS/1RR restriction, and this is being debated at WP:AE where several recent cases stemmed from this difference of interpretation of the rules, among several good-faith editors.

Regarding WP:BURDEN, it is part of the WP:Verifiability policy and says that any content must be backed up by reliable sources. The content about opinion polling was properly sourced, so I don't see the point of this line of reasoning to exclude the material. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You say: the original version stays in until consensus is reached. If you could defend the content in that version, you would. You're not, so you're misinterpreting policy. You're wrong, and the content stays out. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The original virgin? Oh, version -- Well I think all this original longstanding meme has been debunked at AE, so let's not go there again. There are no excuses for edit-warring. The reverted content needs to be removed, and I urge JFG to do so promptly until consensus to reinsert is demonstrated here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The public opinion poll should be kept out of the article. The WSJ is PRIMARY in this instance, and is not sufficient for using this is as a source without secondary sources that show the poll's impact. As PRIMARY itself points out, WSJ is close to the source, and fits the definition of PRIMARY. This cannot be considered a reliable source, per WP:RS. Also, Geogene has correctly pointed out BURDEN says reliable sources must be provided to restore this edit. Steve Quinn (talk)

Requested move 17 February 2017

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.

---

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections –

1. The original move request was closed as "Not moved. There is no consensus for this move, and there are several editors who expressed concern that both names violate WP:NPOV." The important element here is the no consensus. The vote for was 13 and the vote against was 11. As discussed in the move review, the opposing votes did not advance any arguments why the proposed name is worse than the current name. This is why I want to revisit this discussion.

2. Given that the title that many who opposed this move also could not gain consensus for a move they favored, with a vote of 17 to 24, I wish to return to this discussion. I believe a move request should weigh the two options against itself. I do not believe that one should oppose this by saying simply that both are Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE. One should make a logical argument why the proposed title would increase the problems with the title.

3. With that, I still believe the original rationale for the move are sound. Namely, the title conforms to the five criteria of WP:TITLE more than any other proposal that I've seen. It lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage in reliable sources, and is is written in a such that a reader could easily find it via search and have an immediate understanding of what the article is about.

4. I last attempted to have this discussion here. The discussion was closed quickly and I was told to wait 30 days and try again. In that time, another attempt was made to move the page to Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia. That again failed to gain consensus. With that move again failing to get consensus, I think the rationale for this move is stronger. I understand editors who believe that the current title and the proposed title of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are both WP:POVTITLE. However, if they are both POV, they are equal in that offense. If they are both WP:POVTITLE, the two suggestions should be compared based on other attributes. In that case, the proposed title is still better in that it lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage, and is written in a way that the reader can easily find the article. Casprings (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Close and block serial nominator Last time the user nominated this (immediately after a move review), I suggested a moratorium of two months- not only has it not been that, but the last RM (proposed by another editor) was closed less than one week ago. This article can't be at RM every day for as long as Wikipedia is online, and we need to take firmer action against this constant disruption. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Too bad because I wanted to discuss how it's a grammatically-awkward title to which Russian interference [etc.] is superior, and now I won't get to. (Wait, what?) El_C 08:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbet32 I proposed this one month ago. When I did so, the closer suggested that I wait one month. I did so. Also, I think the logic is sound as to why this proprosal makes sense. I would ask you to strike your comment.Casprings (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I agree that the proposed title has better grammar than the current one. This purely grammatical !vote is no endorsement of the title itself, which still fails WP:POVTITLE by stating as fact in wikivoice an accusation which is still being widely disputed after several months of controversy. The article contents do reflect the nature of the allegations with numerous well-sourced claims and counter-claims, hence the title does not accurately represent what is stated in the article. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as making more sense and simply sounding better, I don't agree that the title is POV – it is simply how this recent chain of events is referred to. Laurdecl ^talk 13:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The meaning is unchanged, and it gets rid of the abominable and detestable passive voice. Passive voice is just not good style, almost anywhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Specifico. Miniapolis 22:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Suggested new location is more logical Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Beyond My Ken - it is more logical according to "proper" English usage. It is also eschews the passive voice in the current title. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Active voice is preferable to passive. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Titles should be clear and immediately comprehensible, not in passive voice or back-formation English. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - reads much more naturally and gets rid of hideous passive voice. Neutrality^talk 07:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of readability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The original request should have been closed as successful, because nobody opposed the proposal as such. All the opposition came from those who believed that our title should not unquestioningly say that Russia had interfered; because the current title and the proposed new title were identical as far as that was concerned, they should have been ignored. I can't see why someone would prefer this proposal over the current title. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Sources to support linkage to Russia

The sources are clear and the linkages are similar. It is important to the article.

1. Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum (June 17, 2016), "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin", The Washington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
2. Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
3. Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
4. Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
5. Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
6. "Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
7. Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
8. "Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
9. Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
10. Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
11. Wasserman, Harvey (December 12, 2016), "Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated", The Huffington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
12. Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
13. Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
14. Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
15. Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs (November 1, 2016), "Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank", The Guardian, retrieved December 14, 2016
16. Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
17. Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
18. "Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
19. Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
20. Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016
21. Kim, Lucian (December 14, 2016), "Trump's Men In Moscow: Trump Disciples Suddenly Showing Up In Russia", National Public Radio, retrieved December 14, 2016
22. Chance, Matthew (December 15, 2016), "Why are Trump loyalists showing up in Moscow?", CNN, retrieved December 15, 2016

19:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is extremely well sourced and covered for months. I would ask that User:Guccisamsclub revert this edit. The rationale given does not match the reality of the sourcing and the coverage. Casprings (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with election interference? What are those "ties" exactly and how did they affect the election, according to these sources? Without a clear answer to this question, the material remains a bunch WP:COAT+WP:SYNTH smoke without fire. Since it involves a living person, it is also a vacuous BLP-smear. Guccisamsclub (talk)

No it is supportable by the sources, but I will wait for comment by other editors. Casprings (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What is supportable by sources? Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That this is important context for the reader (and covered by multiple WP:RS) and that this belongs in the background section. You can't use WP:SYCH, when WP:RS have made the connection multiple times and commented on in for context. Casprings (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to be explicit about what that has to do with election interference, which is the topic of the article.

Also, that server crap is a conpiracy theory (promoted by HRC on twitter) that's been debunked and debunked and debunked. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And this was in the background section. Trump's connections to Russia are important background and commented on by multiple WP:RS. I do not believe the server was in the text previously. Casprings (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• The server claim is bullshit. The rest of this seems well-supported, but it's synth to say it's related to this article (I haven't checked every one of those sources, just a few, so I may be wrong about this). I think this belongs in Donald Trump, not here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, multiple WP:RS use these linkages for context for the election interference. A quick Google search will confirm that. If WP:RS think it is important for context, it should be in the background section here.Casprings (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Again, this is mushy as hell and you can't incriminate a living person with a bunch of smoke. The onus is on you to explain what this has to do with the election, using your "numerous sources". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It remains a distinct possibility that Trump has compromising ties to Russia, and even to Russian Intelligence, yet at the same time the Russian efforts to influence the election were taken on his behalf without there being any connection between them. I (preemptively) agree that it's extremely unlikely, but we live in a big world with lot's of people, so unlikely things happen quite frequently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It actually is likely that this is much ado about nothing. Russia liked Trump for several reasons: he was destabilizing, he was not Clinton, and said nice things about Putin. The Kremlin did not have to ask Trump for permission to hack the DNC or to praise Trump. Likewise Trump and his supporters did not have to meet with Russian spies to iron out the finer points of his delirious campaign rhetoric. Direct collaboration between these two parties would have seriously compromised both of them (resulting in imprisonment, retaliation etc.) and would have accomplished nothing palpable. This would have been the dumbest and most masochistic conspiracy ever devised. Reality is much more prosaic: Trump liked Putin because the latter was a strong leader who was bombing uppity Muslims and "upholding traditional Christian values" (popular ideas with Trump's base). Putin liked Trump for reasons already described, though it this love is already wilting. (IMHO all these vague "links", "ties" and "associations" would be at home on Glenn Beck's chalkboard—which is as American as apple pie). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If the Russians decided to support Trump because of or as a result of (note the dichotomy there) his connections to Russia, (which is highly likely but again, not certain) but kept Trump in the dark about this support, they would still be related. The (slim) possibility I pointed out was the chance that one branch of Russian Intelligence said "We like this Trump candidate, let's propose we interfere to help him win," without being aware of Trumps existing ties to Russia, or even another branch of Russian Intelligence, then they would not be related. That I find to be highly unlikely, but it's certainly possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The (slim) possibility I pointed out was the chance that one branch of Russian Intelligence said "We like this Trump candidate, let's propose we interfere to help him win," without being aware of Trumps existing ties to Russia, or even another branch of Russian Intelligence, then they would not be related. They were certainly aware of the "links" (which seem mostly innocuous—I have "links" to Russia as well), but those "links" aren't really needed to explain their support for Trump—in fact they don't explain much of anything. Clinton had "dealings" with Russia too. That's my point. Also note the vacuousness of the language that was used to justify the edit: "links", "ties", "associations", "backround", "multiple sources". Those words don't explain anything. An "explanation" would be something along the lines of what I wrote earlier. Naturally, people are free to challenge my "theory", but we need to work with explanations rather than associations. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

See "Synthesis": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case it is implied synthesis, that you think there is a connection between his Russian ties and the alleged interference in the election. James Kirchick's article was published 27 April 2016 before any of the allegations had been made. Also, since the interference is an allegation, not a fact, you cannot just say this is the background but say that writers have identified this background as relevant to the story. TFD (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

At a more basic level: Relevant how? At this point it's little more than hand waving (But but Russia? But but emails? --OK, what about them?). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, if the writers say it's background but don't justify it, so long as we use source voice to say it's background, we're covered. But again, I don't think "some writers said this makes good background info on this story" is sufficient justification to include it here. The articles Donald Trump, Russia, USSR, FSB, Hacking and countless others are good background info on this story, but we're sure as hell not transcribing them all here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. However, if Casprings could provide an explanation (preferably one that RS agree upon) as to why the Kremlin appeared to welcome Trump and vice versa, we could include that. I have a feeling the explanation is pretty banal: they agreed on some issues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere as how Mr. Trump used a public address to call upon Vladimir Putin to hack Sec'y Clinton or the Democrats' emails? That would seem to close the triangle. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Trump was sending a message to GRU via basic cable. That was campaign rhetoric/sarcasm.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your OR. RS do not share your "opinion" Sensitive messages are often embedded in public speech, which is a mode of communication that could be colored not to violate the Logan Act. Here:s some discussion with WP:RS citations:

In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email of Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 Presidential Election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, also commented on the incident saying, "Trump's "jokes" inviting an adversary to wage cyberwar against the U.S. appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason."

SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Devastating. Add this content to the article immediately. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just cause your POV was refuted, nobody considers you "devastated" I take it you agree to inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The stuff you just cited purports to show how Trump and Russia were actively colluding. Clearly, it is relevant to the article: straightforward and to point. As I've already said, I have no problem with your proposed content—ADD IT RIGHT NOW. What I am emphatically against is including a section on Trump's "ties" without any explanation of what they mean or what impact they've had on the election. Is that clear enough? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto what Gucci said, only I want to change "-ADD IT RIGHT NOW." to "-ADD IT! ADD IT NOW!"

And to be clear, it should be read in a distinctive Austrian accent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Gucci, please review the sources. And do your own adding. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The connections between D. Trump team and Russian government were widely published and highly relevant for this page. How much of this background information should be provided is debatable, but something must be said about it from the very beginning of the section. And let's respect 1RR rule on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

@JFG: Your edits of a few hours ago suggest that you are.

1. Cybersecurity analysis. "Consequently" is editor’s POV, and I’m pretty sure that you are familiar with the Commentary and reactions section, subsection Hillary Clinton.
2. Cybersecurity analysis. Your edit: "Some dissenting security experts questioned the connection between the hacks and the leaks, stating that a "sloppy" email leak would not match the sophistication of Russian spy agencies." One cherry-picked, slightly rewritten sentence from the article (date July 26, 2016, not exactly breaking news). The original reads: "But other security experts say that a sloppy email leak, filled with evidence of Russian involvement, would be uncharacteristic for the country’s sophisticated spy agencies." Editorializing aside: Also flawed reasoning - I may have the most highly sophisticated spying tools in the world, but if a simple proven method like spearphishing is successful, I’d go with it. And if I was a twenty-something getting paid to do what I love to do, i.e., hacking and trolling, why wouldn’t I figuratively thumb my nose at my victims by using the Cheka guys name (nyah nyah - catch me, if you can) where it will be seen?
3. I haven’t figured out yet what your "consolidation of duplicate sources and keeping of those most relevant to text" involved. Why are the ones you removed less relevant to the topic? You added the two overcites at 02:00, 2 February 2017, waited a couple of weeks and then "cleaned up". Please, self-revert the edit and discuss first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x, I'm happy to explain my edits. The section "Cybersecurity analysis" had suffered from overcite for several months, as I noted on February 2. Besides, it was hard to read, looking like extra citations had been thrown there without paying attention to what was already reported. Seeing that none of the original contributors stepped up to improve the status quo, I decided to tackle it. My approach was first to read every cited article and determine which of them were simply duplicating others. On that basis I removed a few cites that did not bring more information. Then I saw several cited sources which spoke about other stuff, and had to decide what to do with them:

• an article mentioned Fancy Bear in relation with the Olympics doping scandal, so I added a sentence to summarize it, although it could be considered off-topic and removed;
• an article talked about the Clinton campaign blaming Russia following the hacking reports, so I added that; I agree that there's already a section for this, so we don't need to repeat it here;
• an article simply reported the Wikileaks of 20,000 DNC emails; I removed it as this issue was already mentioned elsewhere on the page;
• an article presented several opinions of security experts, both supporting and questioning the connection between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence, so I added the contra opinion for balance (that's the reason for part of my edit summary "add counter-opinions already cited in sources");
• an article speculated about potential hacking of future German elections; I removed it as off-topic and crystalline;
• an article talked about DCLeaks and hacks of NATO General Breedlove and Soros' foundations but there was no text, so I added some; this could be considered off-topic and removed.

After sorting through the sources as explained, I formatted the remaining citations properly, performed some general copyediting and re-ordered things chronologically; I also grouped the pro and contra arguments to reduce confusion about who said what. Note that I inserted or preserved text on both sides of the "it's the Russians" debate, so I deny pushing a POV here; I'm just trying to make the article clearer for readers. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:You claimed on your talk page that this was just "clean-up" but it should now be clear to you that I am not the only one who views this as a significant revert. Please undo your 1RR violation, so that we do not need to ask Admins to adjudicate this. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the paragraph extensively as explained in detail here. How is this a revert? You then expurged some parts of the section, and I haven't reverted you there. — JFG ^talk 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For those interested in a moratorium

Please see this discussion at AN regarding a possible moratorium on page moves for this page. Thank you. SkyWarrior 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Detritus

There's still a ton of UNDUE, out of context, poorly sourced and cherry-picked text in this article. I just removed and fixed some of it. Others are encouraged to do the same. This is an example of why "longstanding content" should only be applied to content where explicit consensus or extensive discussion was evident on Talk. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO also lack of independent reliable (secondary) sourcing is what it is. Marginal opinions and commentary that is actually at the point of obscurity, do to lack of RS, really should not be in this article. We are supposed edit in agreement with content policies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, there have been several instances wherein secondary details, that were only incidental to the RS' topics or views, were helicoptered out and placed in a different context as if to support a narrative not contained within the source. I've just fixed one of those regarding the statements in an Ars Technica article. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael T. Flynn

Without commenting on what content or how much weight to be added, I'm pretty baffled that this article has 0 mentions about Michael T. Flynn. I feel like his resignation being indirectly connected to this should be mentioned at least somewhere. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen RS that links Flynn's inappropriate contact with the Russians specifically to the Russian hacking or attempts to promote Trump's chances in the election. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much that, than interference by the Russians resulted in the conversation that Flynn had with the Russians. He contacted them the same day the Obama administration said there would be retaliatory measures for the interference. I just think Flynn's contact and resignation afterwards could be mentioned here since it seems to be a direct result. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the most constructive way to approach this would be for you to propose specific article text and source citations. You may have found useful material that others have not seen. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Any source you provide must make the connection. TFD (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's what I gather, in the section about Flynn's downfall from his position. Here is an article I found about his contact with Kislyak (it should be pretty easy to find others):

Dec. 29: Flynn places five phone calls to Kislyak. These calls were apparently on unsecured lines, and monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the same day, Obama announces measures meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election.

It is this contact that resulted in the investigation for inappropriately having communications with the Russians (Kislyak) and resulted in his resignation. I would imagine the text added to the article be something along the lines of (under #Sanctions_imposed_on_Russia) Flynn had made contact with Kislyak on Dec. 29 on the day Obama announced sanctions against Russia, which after an investigation, later resulted in his resignation as National Security Advisor. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How did "interference by the Russians result[] in the conversation that Flynn had with the Russians?" TFD (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Masha Gessen

JFG has violated 1RR with this revert [8] concerning Masha Gessen's view of the Russian Hacking. The content he removed is clearly verified by the text of the article, which states that she does not dispute the Russians hacked the election. Gessen went on to say other things that don't relate to this article, namely that it's pointless to speculate that the Russian hacking was the decisive factor in the outcome of the election, and she then goes on to discuss the similarities between Trump and Putin in style and substance. In his edit comment, JFG misrepresented her statements about Trump/Putin similarities, mis-attributing Gessen's remark about "conspiracy theories" to the hacking, when in fact Gessen used that term to refer to speculation that Trump is a Putin "puppet" with a direct connection to Putin. I'm going to assume good faith and just think that JFG did not read the article carefully enough, but at any rate the text he reverted is straightforward and verified, and it is content that should be in the article if it is to present her view at all. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a single revert, not a DS violation, and I maintain that the gist of Masha Gessen's statement was misrepresented by SPECIFICO. The whole report quoted by SPECIFICO summarizes a lecture by Gessen where she makes the case that Trump has, in her opinion, no connection with Putin, and that American media and IC are engaged in "conspiracy thinking" (her words). As an aside, the commentator notes that she doesn't deny that the DNC was hacked, but adding this to our short summary of her stance is cherry-picking to push a POV. The most interesting part of her lecture for me is this:

“Putin watches ‘Putin TV.’ He tells a lie one night, watches himself on ‘Putin TV’ the next morning, and believes himself all the more. Trump has — amazingly — reproduced that same effect without state TV. They both live in a reality of their own making,

But that's of course totally off-topic for this particular article. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Having explained this in detail on JFG's talk page, it's hard to view this as anything other than misrepresentation of the source. The source text is as follows:

"While Gessen spoke on a variety of subjects Thursday night, the primary focus of her lecture was the similarities she sees between Putin and Trump.
She prefaced this portion of her remarks by saying that she thinks Putin and Trump are “very, very different people.”
Gessen was also dismissive of the idea that Trump is Putin’s “puppet,” or that there is any substantive connection between the Trump administration and Moscow.
She called such claims an, “exercise in conspiracy thinking, which can sometimes be comforting.”
While Gessen did not dispute that the hacking of the Democratic National Committee was perpetrated by Russians, she said that the idea that Russia decided the U.S. election requires a  “big leap in logic.” She said she doesn’t find dwelling on the hacks to be “particularly useful,” and pointed out that blaming Russia and claiming that Trump “wasn’t elected by the people  of this country is easier to take.”

The article text that JFG reverted is as follows: "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC."

That text is serves to contextualize the other text attributed to Ms. Gessen, in which she was addressing the report but which WP readers could misunderstand to think that she is stating the Russians were not the hackers. Either this text needs to go back into the article or we could remove Ms. Gessen's comments altogether since, after all, she is not a cybergeek computer expert. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting a long excerpt of the source, which vindicates my stance that her "not denying" that Russians hacked the DNC is just an aside, therefore misrepresenting her stance. And no, she is not a random cybergeek, she is a well-respected critic of Putin, which makes her dismissal of anti-Russian hysteria on this issue particularly significant and noteworthy. — JFG ^talk 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG and SPECIFICO I didn't realize a discussion of this edit was taking place. I added what I think is something more balanced, that is meant to satisfy both sides of this dispute. Also, I think this is a new edit that never existed before. Does this seem acceptable? Again sorry, I did not realize a discussion was taking place. I can self-revert if that is what people want. Also, take into consideration, to me Gessen seems useful due to her coverage in reliable sources. I am surprised at her stance, which seems to validate both sides of this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the "exercise in conspiracy thinking" seems not directly related to hacks that influence the 2016 election. It refers to Trump being Putin's puppet, which Gessen sees as an "exercise in conspiracy thinking". Here is a two line quote that supports this:' "Gessen was also dismissive of the idea that Trump is Putin’s 'puppet,' or that there is any substantive connection between the Trump administration and Moscow. She called such claims an, "exercise in conspiracy thinking, which can sometimes be comforting."" Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The source puts it in context, while the edit does not. It concludes the passage by saying "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC." That's like explaining how a NASA scientist debunked UFO conspiracy theories, then concluding by saying that he or she did not did not rule out that aliens had ever visited Earth. It's hard to prove a negative. TFD (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could put the referenced bits in reverse order, that would be fine. Surely you recognize the difference between the fact that the Russians hacked and the unprovable conclusion that the hacking was solely responsible for Trump's win. She is affirming the former and denying the latter. As should we all. It's very straightforward, but JFG has fabricated something entirely different and misrepresented her clear statement. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The passage in the source does not conclude with "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC". I am sorry, but JFG's statement does not seem credible. I accurately chose the passage that statement belongs with. Apparently this is a push to include other unrelated stuff or synthesis. I am amazed. As SPECIFICO said, it is very straightforward. In fact, he aptly summed up the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I don't understand what you mean by a push to include other unrelated stuff or synthesis. All I did was revert SPECIFICO's addition, I did not push to add any unrelated stuff. Now your edit provides more context but I find it overly lengthy. Could we perhaps just say "Gessen opined that the DNC hacks did not strongly influence the election.", which I would see as a reasonable summary of her position? — JFG ^talk 13:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got a cherrypicked snippet from Ms. Gessen that criticizes the report. It's used in the article to suggest she doubts that the Russian interference occurred, rather than to doubt that the unclassified information gives conclusive proof. Quinn has corrected that misimpression. There is not consensus for the bare version that misrepresented her view of the Russians' interference. We can either leave his version as it stands or we can delete the Gessen bit entirely. She is neither a cybersecurity expert nor a political scientist. The whole bit is close to being UNDUE. It's grasping at straws for snippets that can cast doubt on the Russian interference, when there is no such doubt among mainstream journalists and accredited experts. No doubt. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Specifico, you are looking at this backwards. You introduced a new source about Gessen, I didn't. You cherry-picked a statement in there that is an aside, to insert in the article text. I simply reverted this as a misrepresentation of the source that you yourself introduced, then you started complaining and you are now accusing me of cherrypicking and introducing biased stuff. OK, you may argue with my edit summary, not with my pointing out your cherrypicking. — JFG ^talk 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the Gessen bit belongs in this article, for the reasons I stated above. If you agree, feel free to remove it and we can all move on. Also, kindly don't make any more snarky edit summary comments. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As a prominent Russian-American journalist known for her strong criticism of Vladimir Putin, Masha Gessen's somewhat contrarian view of this affair is eminently relevant, in a section about media commentary. It doesn't matter whether random Wikipedia editors such as you or me agree or disagree with her. — JFG ^talk 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to warn you to stop making personal remarks insinuating that other editors are pursuing their POV or "I don't like it" or otherwise ignoring policy. I stated that her opinion is UNDUE because she is neither a cybersecurity expert nor a political scientist. Those are facts not personal opinions. Putin is not the subject of this article. She is an expert notable commentator on Putin, Russian government and politics and other subjects, but not on electrical engineering, software, networking, email security, etc. This is cherrypicked because she happened to say something about the report -- not about the hacking -- that you inserted and you alone are adamant about keeping. It doesn't belong in the article. If you choose to reply, please stick to policy and content, and do not comment on, or further denigrate, other editors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG I wasn't talking about the reversion of SPECIFICO's edit. And it is true that you did add anything else in its place. It seems SPECIFICO can do either with or without the new edit as it is. However, they are against altering this edit. I am also against altering this edit. I didn't realize it might be UNDUE, so I will look at this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: We have a section called "Media commentary" and Gessen is a renowned journalist, eminently qualified to discuss US–Russia relations, that's a fact too. I don't see any consensus to restrict DUE comments to cybersecurity experts or political scientists; if that was the case we would remove an awful lot of contents from this article, which consists mostly of comments and reactions by various parties about the Russian interference hypothesis. About personal remarks, have you ever heard of the pot and the kettle?

@Steve Quinn: Your comment is noted, thanks for the clarification. I am still of the opinion that the second Gessen source is off-topic, as she speaks mostly about similarities between Trump and Putin in that lecture. The first Gessen source, on the other hand, directly addresses the election interference report, so it should stay in. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This argument is pure sophistry and is absurd on its face. Al Roker is media. Tim McCarver is media. Jimmy Fallon is media. Do you advocate putting their views in the article? Think "necessary but not sufficient." SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted - by removing the text and the reference per UNDUE (first identified by Specifico) and this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. — JFG ^talk 06:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But the rest of the Gessen bit should also be removed. It takes her comment about one report and makes it sound as if she is doubting that the Russians hacked and intervened. That's unverified by the source it's UNDUE and she is not a notable expert in the area of the subject of this article. Her comments on the Russians and other topics are important for other articles and subjects. Any mention of her view here must accurately convey her view. She has been touring the lecture circuit with her statement that there's no doubt the Russians hacked... It is not an off the cuff, incidental, or misinterpreted remark. It's reported in the press reports of her speaking appearances. So either that fact needs to preface her discussion of the report or the whole Gessen bit needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed stuff reinstated w/o consensus

I removed Ritter, which content had no consensus to restore, despite an edit war that resulted in it being reinstated w/o consensus - per now archived talk thread. Also trimmed Binney bit, including his straw man about the "goal" of the unclassified report being to give "proof". Do not reinsert without demonstrating consensus on talk. And don't claim "longstanding" 00 which would not stand scrutiny at AE given documented lack of consensus. The only reason it was the existing version is because those favoring it edit-warred, while those opposing stepped back. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

I quickly looked at the page and think some materials here should be "challenged via reversion". In particular,

1. Section "Media commentary" should be removed. This whole page is sourced to media. Adding a few opinion pieces does make better this already very big page.
2. Some citations are excessive. For example, while the involvement of Wikileaks was important (as a matter of fact), the personal views by Assange are hardly so important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both points, which I first raised here over a month ago. There are many reasons, all based in WP policy, to remove both and I hope that there does not need to be extended discussion of this. Thanks for moving forward on article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for opening a "Suggestions" section but you have been a bit quick to follow your own suggestion (just 5 minutes later!) and remove lots of material without leaving a chance for discussion, and you are mislabeling your action as a reversion; this is disruptive. I will now genuinely revert you and then editors can discuss whether the material is DUE and whether it should be kept, deleted or modified. — JFG ^talk 04:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Reinsertion w.o. consensus is a DS violation. Please undo. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. MVBW removed lots of material without prior discussion or consensus (BOLD), I restored it (REVERT), now we can DISCUSS. — JFG ^talk 05:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that you self-revert here [9]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [10]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no arguing with this now. It has been fleshed out. Also, I am sure this is supported by a content policy WP:V per WP:BURDEN. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The "Media Comentary" section relies on unacceptable PRIMARY sourcing of minority opinions that has probably not gained traction in independent reliable secondary sourcing. There is probably no widespread support for any or all of these opinions, which are supported by opinion pieces written by the authors themselves. This is where WP:BURDEN comes in. The material has been challenged and it is up to the reinstating editor to provide reliable independent secondary sources to re-insert the material. I am inclined to remove this material myself because reinsertion seems inappropriate at this time. Especially, in light of the current AE.

The Assange comment definitely has no place here. He is not a reputed expert on cyberwarfare, cyber espionage, or any related computer field. Placing this comment in the article intro is below the threshold of balanced view in the NPOV content policy. Especially, that it is in the intro. I will also add, edit warring to place content back into articles is no longer a tenable position. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The material restored by JFG should be left out as WP:UNDUE. Most of the opinions are from primary sources. Including them tends to legitimize a fringe viewpoint. Also, it does appear that JFG violated the DS restriction on restoring material that has been challenged by reversion.- MrX 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors are misunderstanding "fringe" to mean "minority", thus arguing for exclusion of all but the majority viewpoint. Minority viewpoints held by notable commentators are often due (as in this case.)

Regarding JFG's supposed violation of the DS, NeilN's 2nd example in Thucydides411's AE appeal describes the sequence here:

1. Editor A removes long-standing material - this is their first revert

2. Editor B reinstates the long-standing material - this is their first revert

3. Editor A removes the material again - this is their second revert, violating both the "consensus required" restriction and WP:1RR

4. Editor B, relying on the "consensus required" restriction, re-adds the material - this is their second revert, violating WP:1RR

WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing".

My very best wishes (editor A) violated the "consensus required" restriction by removing longstanding text – JFG's (Editor B's) single revert was within policy.

If My very best wishes wishes to be more specific with his objections I'll address them. His broad complaint that the Media commentary section is "sourced to media" is perplexing. James J. Lambden (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, my edit was a revert (quite obviously), however it did not reinstate any edits previously challenged through reversion. Therefore, I did not violate the editing restriction. On the other hand, the edit by JFG was obviously reinstating an edit that have been challenged (via reversion)" made in my edit. Note that I fully explained here the reasons for my edit, several contributors agreed with me, and that was a reasonable reversion. I think one of the admins who made this restriction should clarify who was at fault here. If this is me, I am completely at loss what was the logic behind this editing restriction. I thought the idea behind this restriction was actually simple: to remove all poorly sourced or otherwise questionable materials from these high profile pages. That is what I was trying to do in my edit. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello My very best wishes, personally I do not think that you violated an editing restriction; you and I played out steps 1 and 2 in the scenario quoted by James J. Lambden above, so there's nothing wrong here: neither you nor I committed a DS violation. I'm just saying that you made a BOLD edit by removing a full section merely minutes after posting what you called "suggestions" on the Talk page. I assumed that if they are suggestions, they are meant to be discussed before being implemented. In that spirit I reverted you, pending participation from a few people in a discussion about your suggested changes and hopefully reaching a consensus to include, exclude or rephrase. I do disagree with your edit summary claiming that you were "challenging an edit by reversion", because you didn't revert anything recent, rather you blanked a whole section + a sentence in the lead, all of which had been around for a while and tweaked by various contributors. To me, a REVERT is a relatively rapid reaction to an editor's BOLD action, per the standard BRD definition. This doesn't even involve DS restrictions.

Regarding the DS/1RR restrictions, I do not believe their goal is to remove all poorly sourced or otherwise questionable materials from these high profile pages; rather their goal is to promote article stability and encourage civil discourse on the Talk page about any contentious material. Hope this helps clarifying my view of the situation. Now let's discuss the merits of the contents, — JFG ^talk 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• So-called "long standing" is not a supportable rationale for keeping material that contravenes WP:NPOV and WP:V (content policies), nor is consensus:

  "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies...This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus...While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

  Also JFG has not established a consensus for reinstating the material. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: My explanation to MVBW above covers your objections. I'm happy to discuss the contents on their merits, and I don't have a preconceived notion about the outcome of such discussion. We've had quite a few discussions towards improving the article and will have some more, this is why we have a talk page and a process. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The changes I suggested above were minor and obvious. If we can not agree even about such minor issue, well, I would rather do something else. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Openly courted

The lead states (last sentence), in WP:s voice, that Trump openly courted Russia's help in order to win the election. Should it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No it does not say that it says "It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power".Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so, "we" say that some earlier candidate might have dunnit but Trump definitely did it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We do not say he did it, we say people think he did it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have looked more closely before my "yes" above. Has any RS suggested that a previous candidate openly courted a foreign power? Maybe we need to make the statement more straightforward. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It´s a thought. Just so I´m sure I understand, this is the courting, correct? "“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." [11]. Perhaps the quote should be added to the article? My train of thought is that this is an extraordinary claim/extraordinary sources thing, and the sources in the lead didn´t seem that extraordinary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying it is not widely believed he did this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "claim" -- it was witnessed by hundreds of millions of humans and its noteworthiness has been established by verification in hundreds of reliable sources. Even Suddeutsche Zeitung! SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• To channel another politician, it depends what the definition of "widely" is. I don´t think it´s supported by the three sources used for that sentence, Salon says "Despite mounting evidence suggesting that Trump’s administration has been compromised by Russia, his public continues to back him." Maybe that means "widely" but I´d prefer something less interpret-y.
• There we disagree - I do think "It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power in order to win an election" is a claim, and an extraordinary one, WP:BLP and all that noise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I will fix the article text to remove the "believed to be ... " What part of this is extraordinary? It's a pretty simple evident fact. Don't you watch the telly? SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably not the same channels you do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added the factual reports that give context to the "first time" bit. I'm not sure what "first time" adds to the lede. Perhaps the "first time" statement should be elsewhere or nowhere in the article. The fact as to Trump's exhortation, however, is uncontested, widely reported, and incontrovertible. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I take it you haven´t seen Kellyanne Conway on your telly?[12] ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, unfortunately we don't get satellite reception here :) Did my additional text and references address your concern about the article text? SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the addition, like you said, it should be somewhere in the article. It seems the last block of text in the lead should be a summary of Allegations of collusion between Trump and Putin section, and that text is much shorter, so migrating text from lead or expanding that bit might be a good idea.

Pain in the ass time, I still have a problem with the last lead-sentence, source-wise.

"It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power in order to win an election, a potentially treasonous offense, which has led many to call for Trump's impeachment. "

• The first source supports "potentially treasonous offense", nothing else. Two democrats give their opinion.
• The second source says "making it unlikely in the extreme the accusations that Trump and his aides conspired against America will go anywhere beyond the purview of late-night comedians and the president’s hardest-core detractors." But it also supports "potentially treasonous offense".
• The third source states "Trump has repeatedly shown that he is a fascist authoritarian" so I don´t think we should use that source.

References

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Articles must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions. In this case, the sources cite opponents who present their opinion, but the sources themselves do not claim these opinions are true. Also it is unnecessary to have more than one source. In my experience, multiple sources generally indicate that none of the sources adequately support the statement. TFD (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: This is "well sourced and relevant" as they say. There's a ton of sources and you can't argue with all of them here — let it stay. Enough bickering folks. Please review the talk page to see why discussions like this one are neither substantive nor productive. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced that many of his opponents said Obama was born in Kenya. That doesn't make it true. TFD (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The belief that Trump stumbled into treason and that Russian meddling played a crucial role in in the election (undermining the "very fabric of...") is far more "respectable" than birtherism. Furthermore, birtherism is falsifiable in ways that the content you're objecting to is not. Don't waste your time. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Slatersteven. As written, we do not tell that opinion was true. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• FYI I have deleted the part that started with "It is generally believed …" as this inflammatory material was inserted recently by a serial block evader from IP 63.143.240.38. — JFG ^talk 05:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Remove whole paragraph from lead. It is terribly written, and just one long insinuation that the president of the United States, whatever you think of him, is a Manchurian Candidate for "the enemy." There is no reason why this kind of inflammatory commentary should be in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly caution you against blanking that whole paragraph. There are two parts to it - the second part about "believed to be..." and the first part, which is factual, clearly NPOV, DUE WEIGHT, and well written. If you wish to improve the diction or style, propose your changes, but blanking well-sourced content is disruptive. And please don't use inflammatory language comparing current events to a work of fiction -- Manchurian Candidate. That's makes no clear, specific, or intelligible contribution to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are in fact several reliable sources that call Trump a Manchurian Candidate. So that's "well sourced" too. Serious question: can I add the fact that Trump has been called this to the article? Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's off topic and UNDUE for this article. If you have many RS citations, which I have not seen, I think that would go in his biography or an article about his campaign or political views. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly ON topic. The Kremlin interfered (and vice versa) because it saw Trump as a tool to advance its agenda. And Trump played along. In that sense, Trump was a Manchurian Candidate. Since we already have a section on "collusion" (and could add Trump's "dealings" for good measure), it would hardly be off topic or undue to wrap it up with a discussion of the "manchurian candidate." Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies REVOKED at this page

I applied active arbitration remedies (the {{2016 US Election AE}} template) to this page on 13 December 2016. I regret it; I think they're more trouble than they're worth, and very difficult to understand. I've removed them. The page is no longer under 1RR, and there's no rule about consensus being required to reinstate any edit that has been challenged. I hope people will get on well with normal constructive editing and talkpage use. Of course any discussion which involves these now moved goalpoasts will have to be treated with a lot of AGF and common sense; any problem that arises in mid-stream will be my fault, I'm afraid. I've put a note on WP:AN, because I'm not aware of these remedies ever being revoked before. Of course that may lead to another admin reinstating the remedies pretty soon, or, we can hope, to a constructive discussion that leads to the template being improved, and less mysterious for the future. Sorry everybody. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

I would suggest a simpler remedy, but the truth is that the simpler the rules, the more complicated the act of interpreting them can get. So for now, fingers crossed and and I'm still staying out of the discussions until I see something that really needs a response and hasn't gotten one yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bishonen: thanks for your note. Is it possible to still keep the page under 1RR? That would at least slow down any conflict. I appreciate your lifting the DS however, given the confusion over what they mean exactly. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I've lost heart and have strewn ashes on my head. Let another admin do it. I've posted on AN, so there should be some admin attention. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: haha OK. I have some date palm branches if you need to replenish your supply, though truthfully, the simple act of applying the remedies here doesn't merit repentance, I think. -Darouet (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider this article under the normal WP:1RR restriction. I will add appropriate notices shortly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede Sentence - Conclusion versus accused

I wanted to start a discussion based on my revision of the first sentence based on my edit and user:JFG's revision. The two versions are below. I should note that I have taken the liberty of adding some different sources to the second sentence. Basically I added sources that use the word concluded.

(A) The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.

Versus

(B) The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

I am of the belief that the second version is superior. This version clearly states what happened. It wasn't that the POTUS gave a speech and accused Russia. It was that the Intelligence community made a public conclusion that this occurred. This is what is historically significant and should be the lede sentence.Casprings (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Per my edit summary.- MrX 13:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the same edit back in January, and the old version was reinstated without consensus by Thucydidies. It's hard to understand any reasonable objection to this edit. This is not an assertion of fact as to the hacking. It's an assertion of fact as to the US Government's conclusion, which is undeniably the mainstream view. So even those who, for reasons of their own, deny the underlying facts, this wording is an uncontroversial improvement. This should not be removed again. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I've just seen that JFG is also edit-warring this text. This is a violation of ARBAP2 and must not recur. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, one revert does not an edit war make… — JFG ^talk 14:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have detailed, yours is not the first attempt to suppress this edit. So "one" is not applicable. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's my only revert today, and I'm not going to check thousands of edits of history before reverting in a totally normal BRD process. Hey, look we're Discussing! Feel free to go check my history if you doubt me. I wish you stopped harassing me with repeated spurious accusations on a daily basis. Let's focus on contents please. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Both assertions are true: US intelligence agencies have determined that Russian intervention occurred, and the US government has publicly accused Russia of trying to influence the presidential election. What should be the deciding factor for the lead sentence? In other words, what is the core subject of the article? Is it the intervention reports by intelligence agencies? Use phrase A. Is it the US firm position towards Russia as a consequence of those reports? Use phrase B. Is it the Russian intervention broadly construed, in which case maybe we should craft a more inclusive sentence? Is it Russia–US tensions over the election cycle? Then it must be yet another sentence. What do editors see as the central subject in today's version of the article? What should be the central subject? Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it as the intelligence agencies concluded that it was true. This is the central thing that is historically significant. The rest can be covered in the article, but this is the key fact. Casprings (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Petition for SCOTUS to nullify the elections

I saw on Twitter that there was a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case about nullifying the elections due to Russian hacking. It's Twitter, so I was skeptical. Turns out it's true. Secondary source, primary source. I have no clue if it should be included? I am not very familiar with these kinds of edits. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm — JFG ^talk 14:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that goes a long way to explaining what is wrong with the suggestion. How does this help?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how that helps, JFG. I am just trying to help here, which is why I came here. I am not sure if it should be included. I know it's early into the process. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think (though given the in depth analysis I might be wrong) that JFG is trying to say that your sources are a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just expressing my feeling about having to entertain yet another rumor about this affair. Of course if it's reliably sourced, this call for nullifying the election must be covered here. We really live in interesting times! — JFG ^talk 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I urge you to redact your personal attack above. @Callmemirela: has about the same number of WP edits as you do, and she has brought something important to the talk page for us to consider and to track in whatever additional sources develop. I am at a loss to understand your behavior. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What personal attack? You're the one who keeps attacking my every word. Stop it now. — JFG ^talk 15:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that my comment may give the impression of just gossip or for "entertainment", but I don't see how that comment was necessary. A simple "No, it shouldn't be included for x reason(s) would have sufficed. Please keep it to a minimum next time. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I don't get it. I said that your suggested material should be included. I agree with you. Are you offended by my facepalm reaction? This wasn't directed at you; it just reflected my state of mind upon reading this news. I said "Sorry" just a few minutes later. Sorry. We agree. Peace. Happy editing! — JFG ^talk 21:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well lets see what sources we can find [13], primary. So far this (apart form a Daily Kos article, and the ones already here) this is about it source wise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to track this and see whether RS report this as a significant event or just another filing that goes nowhere. As an experienced editor, @Callmemirela: did just the correct thing, to bring this to the talk page awaiting further details. I hope that no editor makes any further disparagement or discourages this from being addressed here. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Article about US Congressman's view on nullification. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this stuff should be added immediately. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What stuff? Do you want to draft a proposal? Not clear to me we have met WEIGHT at this point. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that there aren't a lot of secondary sources to back this up since the petition is not old enough and the judges haven't decided whether to hear the case or not, so there is not a lot of press coverage. But I believe the case should be mentioned in some way. Also, I'd like to point out that an ex-intelligence member also called for a revote back in November (I forgot their name and where I read it). I don't know if that's notable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Call me, I more or less agree with what you've said. But I am interested to see what Gucci proposes, and then we can have a concrete discussion and perhaps bolster the content and sources he suggests with additional material. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We should only mention it if it gets wide attention in mainstream media. I don't have a crystal ball, but it will not be heard. Petitions should go to a lower court and the respondents have no power to recount the electoral votes or order a new election. TFD (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not even 24/7 Trump-bashing CNN is covering this. Also, the US Congress has already certified the election results on January 6, thus the reason Trump & Pence took office on January 20. I wouldn't add mention of the petition, as the odds against it (no US prez election was 'ever' nullified) being successful, is massive. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Silly lawsuits get filed all the time. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)