*Given the enormous amount of coverage this topic has recieved and the huge amount of material (including interviews) that's out there, I agree that a remark in an interview (even by the ranking member if a committee) isn't inherently noteworthy here. We should only include such remarks if they get significant coverage in other, major newspapers or similarly weight-y sources. I have no idea if that's the case here or not, but if so it wasn't clear from the sources used. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
*Given the enormous amount of coverage this topic has recieved and the huge amount of material (including interviews) that's out there, I agree that a remark in an interview (even by the ranking member if a committee) isn't inherently noteworthy here. We should only include such remarks if they get significant coverage in other, major newspapers or similarly weight-y sources. I have no idea if that's the case here or not, but if so it wasn't clear from the sources used. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
::I agree there are issues about not including everything given the volume of statements and opinions on this, and it is fair to say it was mostly picked up by conservative media, but that's not surprising really. But then you risk running into asking for meta-sourcing for everything rather than relying on what is already a good secondary source, ie CNN. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
::I agree there are issues about not including everything given the volume of statements and opinions on this, and it is fair to say it was mostly picked up by conservative media, but that's not surprising really. But then you risk running into asking for meta-sourcing for everything rather than relying on what is already a good secondary source, ie CNN. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:05, 26 May 2017
Before you edit this page:
This page relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Your behavior on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, 21 December 2016, /Archive 2#Requested move 21 December 2016
MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Endorsed, 7 January 2017, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, /Archive 3#Requested move 29 December 2016
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, No consensus, 7 January 2017, /Archive 3#Requested move 7 January 2017
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, No consensus, 4 February 2017, /Archive 5#Requested move 4 February 2017
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
While the discussion above has evolved into a source battle over depicting Russian interference as fact or allegation, I'd like to submit the updated lead section as amended by myself and several editors before yesterday's revert by MrX. This version does not call the intervention alleged, although several editors have failed to acknowledge this simple fact. Besides the "alleged" controversy, some editors have expressed concrete concerns about awkwardness of the first two lead sentences and general "poor writing style". I say the first two sentences can be improved, and the writing style was even poorer before. Now, here's my proposal, with an amended first paragraph to address the discernable concerns. Please comment in the survey and discussion below.
Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear associated with Russian intelligence.[7] In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face "serious consequences".[8] Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.[9][10][11]
In December 2016, Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008,[12] while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation.[13][14] President-elect Donald Trump initially rejected the intelligence reports, dismissing claims of foreign interference and saying that Democrats were reacting to their election loss.[15][16] Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI,[17] the Senate Intelligence Committee[18] and the House Intelligence Committee.[19]
Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates.[20] Six federal agencies have been investigating possible links and financial ties with the Kremlin, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone.[21][22] Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.[23]
On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals.[24] Russia did not retaliate.[25]
List of citations has not changed; they will appear correctly in the article, as most of them are culled from the article body.
^Cite error: The named reference rg-20161230 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Survey
Please indicate your support or opposition to this version of the lead section, with a short rationale.
Support paragraphs 1 and 3 only - "US" should be changed to the more conventional "U.S". Important material about investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page have been omitted from the second paragraph."Provided" should be "leaked". "Cut it out" should be change to "warned". The sentence: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." is not lead worthy.- MrX11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I switched to "U.S." per MOS:US, except in the citation of the report, which spells it "US". Investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page are mentioned twice in paragraph 4, just not named individually: Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. The Clapper statement is the only "status report" about those collusion investigations so far, hence relevant to the lead. "Provided" vs "leaked" was to avoid saying "leaked to Wikileaks" which looks awkward; what's wrong with "provided"? "Cut it out" is a direct citation of Obama's language, which gives some personal tone to the statement; we could instead paraphrase, e.g. "warned Putin to stop", but that's a bit dull. — JFGtalk15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the individuals being investigated should be named, but the rest of the sentence is fine.
"... and provided their contents to WikiLeaks." is a little vague. Perhaps we could say: "... and gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks."
"Cut it out" is not a quotation of what was said on the call; it's a quotation of Obama's reflections of what what said. Do you really believe that he spoke to Putin in idiomatic slang? How about this as a more faithful account: "In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop such cyberattacks or face serious consequences."? Mentioning the red phone is fairly trivial.
Thanks; I have incorporated all your suggestions except Kushner who is not named in the cited sources, and the word "stolen" which is redundant with "hacked"; replaced "provided" with "forwarded"; used "stop interfering" per source, to avoid repeating "cyberattacks". Hope this addresses your objections so you can move to a full Support !vote. — JFGtalk06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: I'd like to know if you now approve the full text with the latest amendments. Your voice is particularly significant as you were first to revert the proposed lead changes. — JFGtalk08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Everything except the first sentence looks acceptable to me. Articles such as this should be written from a historical perspective. The use of present tense in the first sentence is jarring and sounds like breaking news. I also strongly prefer "officially concluded" or "concluded" over "highly confident".- MrX11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK, amended again with "has concluded with high confidence" directly in the first sentence, so there's no need to repeat it in the second one. Good? — JFGtalk14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support para 1 with the following edit — with due credit to Geogene. Afaics no one else has suggested using the phrase in the Oct 2016 joint statement that is the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? The progression from "is confident that" in the 1st sentence citing the Oct 2016 statement to "expressed 'high confidence' that” in the 2nd sentence citing the Jan 2017 report uses simple phrasings, allows all sides to move on peaceably, and can be further appended in a timely manner with -results- of the next official work product. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support other paras as long as para 1 comports with either my suggestion above or your further mod below in Discussion. 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Humanengr: Do you agree with the latest amendment to the lead sentence saying "has concluded with high confidence", per discussion with MrX above? If we get consensus between the two of you on this part too, that would be immense progress… — JFGtalk14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- and with that in the lead sentence, I'm ok with the non-qualified (and ergo more certain) "stated … that x" in the 2nd sentence and "stated that y" in 2nd para 1st sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current lede is much better than this version - The version above removes the "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015" fact from the first paragraph. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gouncbeatduke: That's only because this phrase was added to the lead after the RfC was opened; we could certainly incorporate it in the proposed new lead, perhaps in a more logical spot, I'll think about it. What do you think of the rest of the text? — JFGtalk11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the same wording as discussed and agreed upon a few days ago: "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015". Pinging SusanLesch who led that discussion.- MrX12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had to edit it slightly to fit the placement in the paragraph discussing inquiries on links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Just now tweaked the wording to be closer to Susan's version: Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Fine? — JFGtalk12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most significant part of this is that the FBI has an open investigation that "included looking at whether associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."(Comey) The paragraph needs to directly state that, not mention "ties" nor mention 4 individuals, which makes it appear that the investigation only includes them. I also agree with MrX's comments above.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a disaster of wiki-process, to launch another RfC on this topic and then short-circuit it by continuing to change the article. The result has been that one of the two RfC options no longer exists. Given this situation, we should close this RfC. There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question. Then, we can then either revert to the pre-RfC version or we can work to improve the current article version, which is no longer what the RfC proposed. SPECIFICOtalk22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make heads or tails of your comment. We shouldn't open an RfC without waiting for consensus first??? Assessing consensus is precisely the goal of opening an RfC. I don't see why this one should be procedurally flawed. I also don't see your specific objection to the proposed text, which has been evolving to take into account other editors' remarks. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears. — JFGtalk05:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler statement: It's disruptive to make changes to one of the alternatives while the RfC is ostensibly comparing its now-defunct text to a proposed alternative. SPECIFICOtalk15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<<"has stated" is the most truthful>> doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand. Please rephrase your point about "has stated" and "most truthful" in terms of WP policy and RS treatments of the matter. SPECIFICOtalk20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: Given the outcome of the other RfC "concluded vs accused", I believe we should stick with "concluded with high confidence" at this point. About Russia's denial, I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion without going into excessive detail. Perhaps simply add "Russia dismissed the allegations." with one of the relevant citations. Do you have a better suggestion? — JFGtalk20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I don't see any big red flags but I see some major improvements. I would add that the "intercepted communications" (fifth paragraph) were "suspicious" – because that's what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Politrukki: Thanks. Not sure "suspicious" adds much value to this particular sentence. It's not even in the current lead or full article. I think communications between Trump-related people and Russian operatives are suspicious by definition. — JFGtalk21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this must be decided in this RFC but the relevant discussion was archived before I had a change to raise this point. My opinion is that "suspicious" is somewhat important because every Russian having discussions with Americans is potentially a spy. Politrukki (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current lead paragraph is clearly messed up, but this RFC started a long time ago and therefore omits recent developments in the news. The current lead starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that conclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence; why not run an RFC like that? Then we could discuss what, if anything, ought to be added to the lead paragraph, and/or cut from the rest of the lead. Two items that seem appropriate in the lead paragraph's overview might be that Russia is not believed to have interfered in vote tallying, and/or no evidence has yet emerged regarding collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section discussion
Please place suggested amendments or longer discussions here.
The lede as of this version was much better. While a few editors have said they don't like the version I've linked, I don't think they've articulated any clear reason why, beyond disagreement with the word "alleged." The first sentence states the subject of the article:
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election.
The second sentence gives a very short summary of the events that led to the scandal:
Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.
The third sentence paraphrases what US intelligence has claimed about Russian interference:
An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".
Well, that "alleged" is a big deal. Other than that it's ok as far as the first three sentences go. The major problem with your version is that it then proceeds to conceal/remove a bunch of pertinent info that follows those three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've presented several major news sources (BBC, Financial Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde) that use "alleged" or equivalent language. If you don't have any answer to that, then you should withdraw your objection to that language. Right now, you're simply blockading without any reasonable rationale. You've cited WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at me several times now, and it's highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The objection before was that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact. That's not true, as the sources I've cited show. So now that you've been presented with evidence, has your opinion changed? If not, why not? You can't just ignore the evidence and continue citing policies. Reliable sources say "alleged." That's what the article should say, unless you have a substantive objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their policy of not saying things they don't know to be true. "Some sources" includes the BBC, the Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, the largest papers in Germany and France, and NBC News. If they're not willing to say that "Russian interference" is a fact, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. We're having this discussion because MrX reverted changes to the lede that several editors had hashed out together in one of the few productive discussions I've ever seen on this talk page. If you're going to declare this a dead horse, then you should do the honors and restore the reformulated lede yourself. One can't revert and then refuse to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop pinging me Thucydides411. I'm actively watching this page. You conveniently neglect to mention that several of these same news agencies do treat the Russia interference as fact. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. I'm going to join in the chorus of others asking you to let this go. This incessant REHASH has become disruptive and could result in you being topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned.- MrX12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: I hate to jump into this discussion, but I'm afraid the sources you just cited are reinforcing Thucydides411's case: Le Monde 1 says "allegations of Russian interference" and "Russia was accused by US intelligence services or interfering in the presidential election", Le Monde 2 says "Hacking attributed to Russia" and "The report by intelligence agencies affirms that the Russian president influenced the American election campaign.", Reuters 1 says nothing (just quotes Senators about requesting sanctions over "attempts to influence" the election), Reuters 2 mentions "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election" within a list of issues addressed by Tillerson (doesn't say it's a fact or an allegation, it just names the issue), NBC 1 says "allegedly meddling in the election", NBC 2 says "alleged ties between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government", AP 1 talks about "the House probe into Russian interference" (doesn't call it a fact, just says there's a probe), AP 2 talks about "an investigation into Russian meddling" (same thing). So out of 8 sources, that's 4 explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged", 1 saying nothing of substance, 1 just naming it as an issue among other things, and 2 talking about the existence of investigations. — JFGtalk14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I agree with JFG's assessment of the sources. MrX, when you say that a source treats Russian interference as a fact, you should say in what way you can tell it treats Russian interference as fact. Reading through your links, I don't see the news agencies making any assertions that Russia interfered in US elections.
You and the chorus of people asking me to let this go should instead be asking yourselves why you're holding onto your position in the face of mounting evidence. You guys haven't been able to quote a major newspaper saying directly that Russia interfered in US elections, and there have now been dozens of articles posted on this talk page where major newspapers explicitly call "Russian interference" an allegation. So rather than threatening to try to topic ban me (for what - doing research on what reliable sources say and then posting it here?), why don't you actually consider the evidence here, and possibly change your mind? If you don't change your mind, you at least need to express some rationale that passes a basic plausibility test. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the dispute is not new either: here's FallingGravity pointing to plenty of RS explicitly calling the allegations "allegations" in January 2017.[9] The reply from the "it's an undisputed fact, DEADHORSE" chorus? Crickets… — JFGtalk15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, your analysis of my sources is flawed across the board. For example in Le Monde 1, the word "allégations" is from a quote from an unnamed third party, not the voice of the newspaper. "Hacking attributed to Russia" means "the hacking that Russia did", not "the hacking that Russia is alleged to have done". My reading of the body of sources makes it very clear that sources overwhelmingly treat the Russia interference as fact.- MrX16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't care any longer whether Russian interference is called "alleged" in Wikipedia's voice, but I can't just remain silent when you guys keep straight denying that a very large fraction of RS articles either express no opinion on the U.S. intelligence officials' accusations against Russia or call them explicitly "allegations". (I knew I shouldn't have jumped into the source battle, but now I'm there…) Back to Le Monde, the first article quotes a Washington official using the word "allegations", that's even stronger than the journalist's neutral voice; the second article merely says that the attribution of hacks to Russia "has become the official position of the American administration". And the title word "imputé" does convey an attribution, effectively saying "somebody (US intelligence) is accusing somebody else (Russia) of something". Best translation would be "Hacking blamed on Russia". Don't take my word for it, just check the numerous examples in a French analytical dictionary. — JFGtalk16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, examining NBC2 as per your example: Meddling is used twice, once with, once without alleged; interference/interfere is used four times (Russia’s election interference, Russian interference in the election, Putin … became personally involved in the campaign to interfere, Moscow’s interference). So by your reckoning this source is "explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged""? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Given the excerpts you cite, you must be talking about NBC1. So let's look at the context around the words (emphasis mine): "Sen. Ben Cardin […] called for an independent commission into election meddling", "sanctions imposed by the Obama administration against Russia for allegedly meddling in the election", "a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election", "U.S. intelligence officials believe [that] Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election", "Trump frequently denied the claims about Moscow's interference", so yes by my reckoning this source is not taking an affirmative position about the nature, scope or impact of the interference, it correctly attributes the claims of interference to US intelligence services, it mentions calls for investigations and it does call the meddling alleged in the journalist's voice. — JFGtalk17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK good, cause even the non-RS say that Russian Interference is a fact [12] With JFG no longer contesting the fact, next step would be to deep six (American Nixonism) the latest lede RfC. SPECIFICOtalk17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour.[13] It seems to be a fairly common and evenhanded term used when police or others have made accusations against living people that have not been proved in a court or other tribunal. Here's ABC an article called, "Charleston Shooting: A Closer Look at Alleged Gunman Dylann Roof". That did not cast doubt on whether Dylann Roof was the gunman. That's just how serious sources report things. TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is so difficult to understand that it needs to be explained in the lead, then maybe we should change it, to something like "Alleged Russian …"? No, wait, been there, not done that. Replacing hacking & providing to WL with "release of emails", "leaks" - did the DNC and Podesta turn them over to WL? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SPECIFICO, but I don't know what C16 means. I don't have a copy of the DNC talking points glossary. FYI, people who commit crimes against the United States or its citizens are subject to prosecution in the U.S. Osama bin Laden for example was on the FBI ten most wanted list despite having never entered the U.S. and attempts were made to by the U.S. government to apprehend him. Closer to the topic, Julian Assange, who released the DNC and Podesta emails, is currently under criminal investigation in the U.S. for possible violation of the Espionage Act. Guccifer, a computer hacker living in Romania, has been indicted on multiple counts in the U.S. and is facing extradition. TFD (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it is possible to reply to my statements without going off on a tangent? Guccifer is a name for Marcel Lazăr Lehel, "an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution." Whether or not Assange takes credit for wikileaks, he does not take credit for conspiring with the Russian government to subvert democracy in the United States.Any person regardless of nationality or current whereabouts may be prosecuted by U.S. authorities if they were involved in hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails. So just concede you were mistaken about your strawman argument accusation and move on. TFD (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK we'll get serious cause folks don't know you're just flirting with me. The tangent is bringing up examples of OTHERSTUFF instead of sticking to whether mainstream RS overwhelmingly accept the fact that Russia took various actions to interfere with the US elections. So let's reboot and you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is not that Russia tried to interfere. SPECIFICOtalk18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they consistently qualify the claims with terms such as "alleged." And they will continue to do that until evidence is presented and experts provide their opinions. That does not mean they question the intelligence any more than they questioned WMDs in Iraq or that accused criminals are guilty. And that's how this article should be written according to policy. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're going round and round here. There were a couple of threads on this earlier (such as the hatted discussion about Iraq in this RfC). The TL;DR is that both the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies were complicit in aggressively overselling intelligence about supposed Iraqi WMD. In the years afterwards, we in the public found out that the internal, classified conclusions of the intelligence agencies were much weaker than had been publicly stated. We had been told they were certain about things that they weren't actually certain about. That's a cautionary note for everyone to take to heart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' opinions are required when assessing the reliablity of sources. U.S. intelligence has consistently provided conveniently misleading information and therefore is not a reliable source. Whether or not specific claims are accurate is something we determine based on what reliable sources, such as mainstream news media and academic research, say. TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now we have your opinion, and then we have U.S. intelligence declarations published in RS. Hmmmm...which should we choose, your opinion and OR about their reliability, or the RS? Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an ongoing investigation, and as more has leaked out, we have discovered that any seeming dissembling by them was because they had to protect the investigation, and what has been revealed is that the seriousness of the interference is far more than anyone of us realized, and that the likelihood of collusion seems stronger as well. The latest revelations about Carter Page, and his denials (which draw quite the revealing picture) are very interesting. His denials are like dots scattered on the floor, with an area with no dots, and that area is a picture, exactly the one described on page 30 of the dossier. Without being accused, he "doesn't" mention it several times in several different interviews. How odd. It's as if he knows something. Stay tuned.
My point is that your OR seems more based on personal POV than upon the revelations coming from RS, so I suggest we just go with them, and time will tell. Otherwise, this is the talk page, and this is an interesting discussion, but we can't put yours or my speculations in the article....fortunately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal OR. However, having an opinion quoted in a reliable source does not make that opinion a fact, unless the reliable source says it is. And reliable sources policy does not mention U.S. Intelligence agencies as reliable sources. Anyway you know that, I know that you know that etc. TFD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: You really hit on the heart of the problem. The fact that a reliable source quotes person A does not mean we should treat that person A's statement as true. Putin has been quoted by reliable sources as saying that Russia did not interfere in US elections. That doesn't make Putin's statement true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed text cites the Nakashima article about the January 2017 report; we could cite an extra source mentioning the October 2016 report; their conclusions are essentially the same. As you recently pointed out, mentioning an exact date was superfluous in the lead sentence itself. — JFGtalk07:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: We are not relying on "US Intelligence" - we are simply reflecting what RS say. Mainstream RS could report on a confident idiot in a cage and we would need to cite that. It has nothing to do with our opinion of the opinion, let alone our opinion as to the facts. SPECIFICOtalk12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Re "their conclusions are essentially the same": Yes, contra the 1st sentence, neither report said "concluded that".
The Oct report said "x was confident that y". The Jan report said "x had high confidence that y" -- as noted in the 2nd sentence after the title and 1st sentence have set the tone for the entire article; too late. (Good to link 'high confidence' though few will follow that; the damage has been done.)
The certainty of the title and 1st sentence are reinforced elsewhere in the lead paras.
Any RS's that reports that the USIC "concluded that" are lying about the degree of certainty and should be disqualified as RS; their error-checking is meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, but feel free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think you can get other editors to concur with that reasoning.- MrX12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that different sources may use different words to convey the same information, right? I don't understand why anyone has difficulty understanding why journalists would interpret "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises..." to mean "USIC concluded that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises...". See alsoWIKT: conclusion: "A decision reached after careful thought."- MrX13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the context used, those two statements are semantically equivalent. I thought that was obvious from my previous response.- MrX13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have precious little time to help improve this article, and this discussion is not helping to fulfill that goal. Cheers.- MrX14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the DNI does not see those statements as semantically equivalent, is there any improvement you could make that is more substantive than to use their language in the lead sentence? Why propagate a misrepresentation? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: And yes, I can understand some "journalists would interpret …". They inhabit a common culture with common biases that distort. The DNI report is clear and succinctly indicates degree of certainty., There is no excuse except our own biases not to use DNI language in the very first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Humanengr: Report said "determined" which was in the article briefly but reverted by one of the POV fringe edits. It's really important everyone review the history of the article and the talk discussions, because the more we reopen rehash and relitigate settled discussions, the less participation we're going to have here and the worse the article will be served. SPECIFICOtalk12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Humanengr: I kept "concluded" because any other word is going to be fiercely contested, and because there's an open RfC about using this exact word vs "accused". I once suggested "affirmed", which sounds more neutral and factual to me, hoping we could get consensus on that… Opinions? — JFGtalk15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: I appreciate your efforts. 'Affirmed' seems both nebulous (affirmed what?) and too certain (the 'that x' part). Here’s a thought that afaics no one else has expressed: How about using the phrase in the Oct 2016 report that is in the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? As much as I don’t think it helps to continue to refer to the older report now that the newer one is available, it does allow for a short accurate summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: On the chance that Geogene agrees (see discussion above), given the time constraint, would it make sense to incorporate this into this RfC, start another or ?? Humanengr (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Humanengr: I would support this alternate wording; please add it to the survey section, similarly to MrX's amendments "Support, conditional on suggestion XYZ", so that other editors can follow the draft evolution without going through walls of text. — JFGtalk05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the second sentence already says "high confidence", we would have to rephrase it slightly. I would suggest:
OK as I understand the situation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were highly confident the Russians had been behind the hacks. What about the rest of the US intelligence community? The FBI see to have said the Russians did do it. GRIZZLY STEPPE accuses the Russians. So the lead must reflect the fact that much of the US intelligence community has said the Russians did it.
"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, much of the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.[1] However an assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton..."
@Slatersteven: It seems we are converging. My focus is almost (but not completely) on the 1st sentence. Re your proposed 1st sentence, 'alleged' works for me but not for many here as we have seen. Re your cmt at Teahouse re 'high confidence': JPG's mod (immediately above at 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) shifts that from 2nd sentence to 1st. IMO, that accomplishes much. I can explain further and comment on the rest, but wanted to get your reaction to that. Humanengr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're "converging" with one editor? That's not converging. That's diverging. Your proposed words are much worse than what's currently there, and your negotiations among the scant minority of editors who will even bother responding to you are fruitless. SPECIFICOtalk21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I think we mostly agree on the first paragraph. The only change I'd make to your proposal would be to remove the word "However," because the statement that follows "However" doesn't really contradict the preceding sentence. This proposal is very close to what a number of editors worked out together earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A number of editors worked out" What number do you claim? I count about 4 out of 30-40 editors who've collaborated to produce the current consensus text. SPECIFICOtalk22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comment -- I'm finding this RFC to be hard to follow. I'm not even sure what we are supposed to !vote on. Generally, I'd like to convey that the use of "alleged interference" is not some nefarious way of casting doubt on the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Essentially, Wikipedia is reporting on a current event (investigation of said interference) and it's good journalistic practice to qualify the incident in question as "probable" / "likely" / "evidence of", etc, and not as a statement of fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we are not journalists and this and the alleged RfC can be ignored. Various parts of the article actually need work right now. SPECIFICOtalk17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another scarecrow. I said to take it to a Sandbox page and work out something that has a snowbowel's chance of being accepted. I suggest you withdraw it and do that now before more time is wasted on this. SPECIFICOtalk02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to reply here, rather then above as this discussion is far too long and rambling.
It is clear that whilst one arm of the US intelligence services has used ore diplomatic language to make the claim much of the rest (and it seems to be the majority) have not caveated their comments and have asserted that Russia did it. Our lead must reflect that, any thing else is weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping in here. Slatersteven, I assume we're discussing this sentence: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played ...." Is that correct?
So the first part is without "alleged" (I totally agree), and the second part is with it. What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? I'm just throwing this out there to probe your thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Perhaps BullRangifer mistook your "OK as I understand …" para as a proposed lead para?)
Re 'alleged': As others here have objected to that word, can you offer an alternative phrasing to the lead sentence that captures your intent? Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I was referring to the first and second halves of your sentence I copied in my comment. Here it is again: (1) "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to (2) the alleged role that the Russian government played ...."
Yes those are the words I used, I am not sure what there is to not understand. It is an allegation, so it has been alleged. As to alternative wording. However I am wondering what we are arguing about, as it stand the opening paragraph of the lead seems to sum it up. |Maybe wee need to make it clear that not all the US intel agencies were quite so equivocal, but I do not see what about the lead paragraph is a problem.
"A number of US intelligence agencies officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[1] In January 2017, whilst another U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.[2] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015"
It is odd that it says that "everyone" and then goes on to say "except these people". This is the germ of the debate, the fact we do over egg the cake over the degree to which US intelligence had concluded the Russians did it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, we aren't arguing about anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. My questions were just as much to figure out your meaning as to learn from you. I'll repeat them here.
What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? Why use alleged? I thought there was a lot of certainty about the involvement of the Russian government, enough that we wouldn't need to use the word "alleged" there. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure this out. I've read most RS, but there are other RS and other ways of looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot as not absolute. And whilst there may be "a lot of certainty" this is not 100% (even in the US intelligence community). it is not "a lot of certainty" that is needed but "beyond reasonable doubt", and that seems to me to not be the case yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing the reformulated first paragraph
I think it's time to reinstate the reformulated first paragraph of the article. Here it is:
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."
I'm not saying this first paragraph is perfect, but it is much stronger than the current first paragraph, and I think it has greater support from active editors on this talk page than the current lede. The advantages of this first paragraph, in my view, are:
The first sentence states generally what the article is about.
It gives a brief description of the major background elements of the affair (the release of emails by Wikileaks, the claims made by US intelligence).
It uses the appropriate word, "alleged," to refer to the allegations of Russian interference. Many reliable sources use exactly this word regularly, and almost all treat "Russian interference" as an allegation.
A number of editors worked together to formulate this intro paragraph. It was then reverted by MrX (diff). In the ensuing discussion, several more editors have expressed support for the reformulated first paragraph, and I think that it has majority support here. The main bone of contention with this text has been the word "alleged," but I think the above source discussion has shown that "alleged" is completely in line with reporting from numerous reliable sources (among them the BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC News, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde, although this list is by no means exhaustive).
Since the source discussion has established that "alleged" is a completely mainstream designation for Russia's alleged interference, I think this objection is now moot. I'd therefore propose to reinstate the reformulated intro paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.
What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.
Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:
"It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
"Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
"discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.
"No, just no" is not a very productive attitude to take. If I understand your above post, you're saying that since US intelligence agencies ("Those who understand these things best") have said Russia interfered in the US elections, we should take that as fact. That's not how Wikipedia works. We go on the basis of reliable sources, and the large majority of reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. I say "large majority," because I'm holding out the possibility that one or two newspapers might state unequivocally that Russia interfered. I haven't seen any such clear statements from reliable sources, and they're apparently sufficiently difficult to find that (to my knowledge) they haven't been posted in this talk page yet. We go with source like the BBC and Reuters, not with allegations made by intelligence agencies.
We should absolutely describe the allegations made by US intelligence agencies, and the reformulated first paragraph does that. Reliable sources have reported heavily on those allegations, so we will, of course, describe them in this article. That's very different from taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact, which is something we're not going to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, you wrote "large majority". You must have missed my explanation of the flaws in your thinking. There are plenty of RS which don't use "alleged". Your search, which "includes" alleged just confirms your bias. Others have performed the same search "without" alleged and found plenty of RS. This just shows that the search, especially without a complete (that would be hundreds of references) analysis on a time line, really doesn't prove anything other than that we can find RS which use it and which don't use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I responded to your points here. The fact that a newspaper does not use the word "alleged" in a particular article does not mean that the newspaper does not treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There are synonyms for "alleged," and there are plenty of ways of describing an allegation without endorsing it as true. Anyways, what I said above is that the large majority of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, and based on our discussion of sources above, that's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t seen anyone here taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact. Exaggerating what other editors have done does not convince. I’ll say it again, if you are attempting to convince other editors, you are using the wrong tact. This talk page is way too long, filled as it is, with the same repetition . Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: BullRangifer clearly said, in reply to my proposal, that we should take the claims of US intelligence agencies as fact. That is specifically what I was responding to. I assume you disagree strongly with BullRangifer on this - if you don't, please correct me.
Thank you for the note about my tact, but I'm proposing something concrete here. What do you think of the proposed wording of the first paragraph? I think the source discussion above settled the issue of whether "alleged" is a mainstream way of describing "Russian interference" (again, please correct me if you disagree), so I think we can move on to reimplementing the reformulated first paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should just ask my two questions directly:
Do you agree with BullRangifer's statement that we should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts?
Do you agree that reliable sources often use "alleged" when describing "Russian interference," and that they generally treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, without endorsing it as fact?
I really don't know what would convince you, but I think I've shown what needs to be shown: that reliable sources generally frame "Russian interference" as an allegation. I've also said why I think the reformulated first paragraph is better than what we have now. If you don't agree, it would be more helpful if you'd say what it is you don't like about the reformulated first paragraph. "You do not convince" isn't productive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point. The community can't allow a talk page to be bludgeoned against consensus. We all need to accept reality when our views are not shared by the consensus of editors on a given issue. SPECIFICOtalk03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, you're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say that we "should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts." I believe they are correct, just as you, as an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow, think the U.S. intelligence community is wrong. (Okay, I guess Putin has a right to have someone defending his POV here, and God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process. C'est la vie.)
What we should NOT do is make the intelligence community state it as an "allegation", when they have "concluded" it happened. Don't misquote them. They are certain, even if you aren't. The current lead sentence is: "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Don't change that to "alleged". That's dishonest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have you read the proposals? Thucydides' text does not connect "alleged" with the intelligence agencies' statements: he says that this article discusses the alleged role of Russia in the US presidential election, and that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks", that's pretty unambiguous. Alternately, my proposed lead in the RfC totally removes "alleged" and states, in their exact words, that said agencies are "highly confident" that Russia interfered in the election. Isn't that satisfactory? — JFGtalk03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: The text I'm proposing is the one that you helped write. I don't think your comments here apply at all to the text that I proposed above. For example, the text states unambiguously that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks." I'd really appreciate if you gave it a second look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty tired right now (jetlag), and this is a bit confusing,so maybe I'm conflating things. Somewhere on this page is a discussion to rename the article to some kind of "alleged" whatever. I think that's wrong, but I suspect that both of you support that idea, even though multiple intelligence agencies (USA and foreign), plus multiple competing cybersecurity companies, all conclude that the Russians did interfere in the election. That's factual, and there are plenty of RS which say it. That's the view which should get the most weight, and the title should reflect it.
I have made this comparison before, because I see what's happening here as similar to what has happened with the subject of climate change/global warming. The scientific consensus among 97% of published real climate scientists says that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but there are multiple non-climate scientists and many amateurs who say it's not true. So in people's minds they see the 97% as ONE (as here they count the 17 US intelligence agencies as one), and the long list of people in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as a whole lot of people (because they are named and can be counted) against that ONE. They think the deniers have the weightier argument. Fortunately the Wikipedia community gave the climate scientists the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, here I see the opposite happening. The amateur deniers get to push their POV and get more weight than the real experts when it comes to naming the article. They want the title to enshrine the doubt. I see that as problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW neither Thucydides411 nor I are suggesting to change the title. We do agree with Adlerschloß and others that the article is biased towards the "official" POV, especially the lead section, and there are two proposals being floated to make it more neutral: this section and the open RfC. — JFGtalk05:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is being misframed as an either/or. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the intelligence agencies have concluded something does not mean that it ceases to be an allegation in the wider sense. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and the CIA etc do not act as the sole adjudicators of fact. The comparison with climate change is a little off-beam. The agencies are not a wide range of disinterested parties relying on the objective scientific method to look at hard data, but partisan players, from a narrow and specific sector, who are in the business of making often subjective assessments about actions and motive etc. With a history not only of getting things wrong but of deliberate misinformation. There is widespread scepticism IRL, at least among those not too heavily invested in blaming Russia for everything that went wrong for Clinton and right for Trump, about their claims on this point. The page should reflect that, not privilege the IC conclusions, let alone take them as read or as the last word N-HHtalk/edits08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not relying on them alone. The strongest evidence comes from competing cybersecurity companies whose individual interests would be best served by not agreeing. Instead CrowdStrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect agree that Russia was behind the hacks. They are essentially looking at the DNA left under the fingernails of those attacked. It's strong evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: Have you had a chance to look again at the paragraph I'm suggesting above? It's the same paragraph that you were involved in formulating, and that you previously expressed support for. I think it pretty clearly states the position of US intelligence, which seems to me to be your main concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't, and I've lost any desire to do much more here. It's fruitless and a waste of time. Nothing I say will make any difference. There are far too many threads rehashing the same issues. It's just too complicated. I'm not removing this from my watchlist, but I feel it's hopeless here. RS have documented what experts say, but when those experts are not given the weight they deserve, there isn't much point in continuing. Just retitle the article Rebuttal of the unfair charges that Vladimir Putin would ever have any desire to destabilize western democracies, and then sign it, since that's the opinion of a number of editors here. This was obviously the doing of some 15 year old kid, just to mess with us. It's not at all notable. Nothing happened. There's nothing to see here folks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that editing here is frustrating, but I think you have the completely wrong idea about what I'm proposing here. It's a fairly limited change to the article, and one that you previously wrote you thought was an improvement. But yes, it is frustrating to edit here, and the environment is far from collegial! -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This version is inferior to both the current version and the amended version proposed by JFC above. The first sentence (basically "Interference refers to interference") is just poor writing because it is redundant. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy."). Neutralitytalk14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: No, the proposed first paragraph does not way "Interference refers to interference." It says, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election." The proposed first paragraph gives a concise description of the subject of the article, and properly refers to it as an allegation. It's vastly superior to the current first paragraph, which picks one random aspect of the subject to put in the first sentence, and doesn't give any background to the subject. The background is the publication of emails from the DNC and Podesta, which US intellgience alleges were given to Wikileaks by Russia through intermediaries. Any decent first paragraph would mention that. Instead, we have a jumbled lede that includes random elements of the subject, in a random order, and which gives far too much weight to the views of the spy agencies of one particular country. A lot of editors here seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between reliable sources and US intelligence any more, which is one of the reasons the lede is such a garbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the first sentence is unacceptable and would never fly in a formal RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest JFG, I've read through the long thread above and it's unclear to me where we stand. Regarding your proposal at the very top, and considering N-HH's comment on the nature of intelligence organizations, I'd propose only to attribute the statement of confidence:
@Darouet: Thanks for your comment. The wording of the lead sentence was developed by compromise between very opposed positions of MrX, Geogene and Humanengr. Personally I would be fine with your variant "has stated it is highly confident" instead of "has concluded with high confidence" but we'd need those other editors to agree as well. Apart from this first sentence, do you think the rest of the proposed text is an improvement compared to the current lead? — JFGtalk06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Yes, generally I support other aspects of your revision. I had done a bunch of legwork earlier on this topic - reviewing editorial policies about how this topic is presented in the media - but just haven't had the time to come back here, with real life work (teaching, research). I apologize for that, and hope to be more involved at some point. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we would need consensus among all the editors who are active on this page or who come to this page to discuss. We can't make progress by using the consent of a few editors as if it were the consensus of the larger group here. SPECIFICOtalk15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC puts a comprehensive text forward and specifically asks editors to suggest changes which could gain their support, as part of a consensus-building effort. You are obviously free to oppose, and other editors are free to support the outcome of this collective work towards article improvement. — JFGtalk15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG - Thucydides411 is correct that alleged is the more prominent sources and majority of all sources. Google count for '"russian interference" us elections' is 1,250,000 with alleged vs 721,000 without. The with list firstpage is aol, cnbc, bbc, foxnews, nbc, and dni.gov; the without list firstpage is indivisibleguide, talkingpoints, resistencemanual, usnews, euractiv, and cbc. Also, those top 8 'with' all seem factual reporting, while the 'without' snippets seem only 2 are factual reporting (resistencemanual and euractiv) and the rest opinionating (cbc opinionating there will never be a smoking gun for this). Going several more pages in you do see some flakes in the 'with' and a few bigger names in the 'without', but it looks like 'alleged' retains a clear quality of RS and quantity lead.
Otherwise, I'll agree the RFC process looks a bit broken/confused by now, and largely rejecting the text as proposed -- 'prior version was better' crowd plus the 'only part A' crowd seem a majority. It might be better to tackle it para by para or individual points to avoid overwhelming size because 'alleged' goes on a bit. Concerns I can see with the top text here is is that a couple of the cites I tried are funky, and that the narrative is rather skipping about (2017, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2016..) and not a linked or overall picture -- even parts of the same para may be a puzzle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: Thanks for your comments. The discussion about using the word "alleged" has wasted enough editor time and we will never get consensus on it one way or the other. This perennial conundrum can be solved elegantly with the proper attribution of the "Russia interfered" statement to the intelligence community, as implemented in the proposed text. We don't need to choose between "A did B" or "A allegedly did B" when we simply write "C said that A did B".
For the rest of the lead, I agree that it does skip back and forth in dates, because it is rather arranged by themes: US intelligence statements (Russia meddled in the US presidential election), how Russia interfered (email hacks and online propaganda), political investigations, and finally diplomatic retaliation. I'm open to re-arranging the narrative in chronological order, but I think we should first de-clutter the current lead. Do you think the proposed text in an overall improvement compared to the current version? Do you have specific suggestions for further improvement? — JFGtalk06:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Podobnyy/Page, Prince, Hayden, etc.
I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:
(1) Page's past contacts with Viktor Podobnyy before becoming a Trump advisor - although this incident took place in 2013, it's relevant because, as the sources reflect, Page was dumped from the team after the FBI investigation into the Podobnyy contacts came to light, and because the sources more generally cover it in the context of the 2016-present investigation into 2016 election interference. I added text to make clear that although the FBI interviewed Page in that case, he was never accused of wrongdoing, which I think we must mention. The relevant, full-length citations are:
(2) Regarding Trump/CIA rupture - deletion of the word "unprecedented." - I can't understand the rationale for this deletion at all. The sources directly describe the rupture as being unprecedented. This is valuable historical information because it signals to readers how unusual it was. The citations reflect that:
New Yorker ("Never before has a President or President-elect spoken so dismissively of the C.I.A.")
ABC News ("an unprecedented public display of acrimony")
(3) Erik Prince section - this was deleted completely. I don't get this deletion as well. Although the Prince/Seychelles meeting occurred after the election, it's clearly related to the page topic. See Washington Post cite ("U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump."). We do appropriately mention that Prince had no formal appointment on the transition team, but that alone does not make the material irrelevant. If there is something we can do to shorten the text without omitting important information, or to add text that reflects any kind of doubt on the significance of the meeting, then of course I'm open to that, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem to be called for here.
(4) Hayden sentence - I've restored a shortened version of the Hayden op-ed. Hayden is a very influential figure (he is more important than McMullin, who gets two sentences), the weight (literally one sentence) is proper, and it's clearly relevant here. Neutralitytalk22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed rationale and partial revert with precise changes, that's refreshing. Here's my take on your remarks:
The Page anecdote of 2013 is over-extended but you explained it more clearly than the version I had trimmed, so I'm fine keeping it this way; some WP readers may appreciate spy novels…
I had removed both qualifiers "immediate and unprecedented" which are non-neutral; keeping "unprecedented" is fine, per sources.
This is a complete side story, entirely based on one source which quotes unnamed officials and remains prudent about the connection and the motives: "an apparent effort to establish a back-channel", "the full agenda remains unclear", "Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.", "alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump". Both the White House and Prince strongly denied the innuendo: "“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Therefore, I still think this entire section should be deleted. Or at least radically trimmed and balanced with denials.
Thanks; I'm glad we can narrow the range of items under dispute. I don't think that a lack of clarity necessarily demands deletion; given the subject matter, a lot of this is shrouded in mystery. I understand that you would like to see the Prince section go altogether, but what do you have in mind for a "radically trimmed and balanced with denials" alternative? If you have some suggestion, maybe we can agree on a version we can all live with? Neutralitytalk01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes on the entry for Prince.[15] It is perfectly fine to report allegations even if false provided they have received adequate attention. See for example "Freddie Starr ate my hamster." But we must always explain whether they are facts or allegations and if so whether they are disputed. Furthermore, in this case it is important to explain the supposed reason for the alleged meeting - to get Russian assistance on Iran. Otherwise the implication is that it was part of the alleged Russian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, where did the idea that the meeting's purpose was "to get Russian assistance on Iran" come from? Maybe I'll have to read the source again. I just don't recall it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD - Half of your edit introduced content directly at odds with the source. There is no dispute that the meeting took place (Prince through his spokesman acknowledged that it took place, but said "The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump"), so the addition "allegedly took place" and "allegations" of a meeting is wrong). The statement "The Trump administration denies the meeting took place" is also incorrect (Spicer said "We are not aware of any meeting"—which is very different from an outright denial). Best, Neutralitytalk20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, the article says, "Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions."[16] I now see that the article did not question whether the meeting took place. However, it is incorrect to imply that it's purpose was to subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GOD BLESS AMERICA!! But are you saying that WP should not report on the foes of America who may subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known? Battlestations! There's cleanup to be done on the Nixon, Jefferson Davis, & Alger Hiss. I'll take care of Tokyo Rose. You can work on the Rosenberg's. SPECIFICOtalk17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFGtalk07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is an exact even split of 7 to 7 at the BLPN discussion; I have carefully listed all editors who commented there. But of course you reverted the contents claiming no consensus… Well we can say there's no consensus to remove the story and we can say there's no consensus to retain it, so how do you propose we solve this? Per BLP policy we must err on the side of caution, so "no consensus to keep" should trump "no consensus to remove" in this case (pardon my pun). — JFGtalk11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you've miscounted; it's 8 to 4 or 5. If you'd like me to list each editor, I can. There is zero consensus that mentioning the cited Erik Prince activity is a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This contention there's a problem with RS content is a nonsense attack that has been decisively rejected at BLPN, where it made its unfortunate appearance as an ex-post defense of a 1RR DS violation. And P.S. we don't count votes around here, especially by involved or self-interested parties. Anyway, the aye's are above the no's. SPECIFICOtalk13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin.[1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."[1]
It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFGtalk07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: You just reverted this change, saying "There was no consensus to short this at all." Perhaps you had not seen this talk page section and the BLP/N discussion which shows consensus to shorten? Looking forward to your comments. — JFGtalk22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus anywhere for your edit, which alters the meaning of the text and is less faithful to the cited source. Your "silence procedure" link has nothing to do with WP editing policy. In general, the more relevant issue is WP:BLUDGEON. Folks get worn out repeating the same policy-based arguments and so they retreat from being asked over and over to justify their clearly stated viewpoint. Maybe we need a "safe word". SPECIFICOtalk22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No I did not see this discussion in which you incorrectly claim that there was a "consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok". You removed the corroboration by two intelligence official but you left in the shallow denial from the white house. I see no justification for shortening the material. - MrX22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those were editors with opposing views on the BLP issue, who reached an agreement through civil discussion. I call that consensus. Note: Dumuzid and Masem were *not* involved in this page, as far as I know, they just reacted to the BLP/N thread. — JFGtalk08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MrX here. There was no closure in the BLP/N discussion and I don't see a consensus to shorten there. Even if it should be shortened as a matter of style or weight (not BLP), the shortened form that you propose is (as MrX and SPECIFICO write), less faithful to the cited source and emphasizes the wrong things. Like MrX said, I can see no justification for leaving in the White House's cursory denial but taking out the corroboration from intelligence officials. Neutralitytalk23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is a bilateral negotiation consistent with your view that there was a community consensus at BLPN? Wouldn't you need to reopen the whole thread if in fact there had been consensus there? Not clear what process you are proposing. SPECIFICOtalk23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The process looks clear to me, but I'm happy to recap what happened:
Once upon a time, a new section on Erik Prince was created in the article.
I deleted it among a bunch of other things which looked off-topic or newsy.
Neutrality restored parts of my edit, improved the contents and started a discussion
I answered and found consensus with him on all disputed points except the Erik Prince part, which I considered a BLP violation
I opened a discussion at BLP/N.
Meanwhile, several editors continued tweaking the text here.
The BLP/N discussion demonstrated a sharp divide among editors considering this section to be a BLPVIO and others who didn't
On 19 April, three editors from opposing views at BLP/N reached a consensus to mention the affair briefly, with "two lines, including the denials". Nobody commented further.
Two weeks later (4 May), I posted a text proposal here to implement this outcome, soliciting comments.
After 6 days with no comments, I applied the proposed text.
MrX reverted, and we are discussing. (That's healthy!)
I have invited editors to amend my proposed summary, so that we collectively reach an acceptable version for everyone involved.
I don't think we should re-litigate the BLPVIO issue, but if we fail to agree here, I suppose we could request a formal closure of the BLP/N discussion.
This is nonsense. The fact is you edit-warred your preferred version into the article, falsely claiming consensus in your edit summary, and a torrent of opposition ensued. SPECIFICOtalk02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you consider that applying the WP:BRD process in collegiality with opposing editors as a form of edit warring? Invoking the outcome of a bona fideWP:BLPN discussion is "false consensus"? You repeatedly tried to focus the BLPN discussion on a bogus DS claim against me, and you got sanctioned for that. Please address contents soberly instead. — JFGtalk07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this is well-sourced, and I preserved the source, I just summarized the core assertions made in the source. I did post on this talk page when opening the BLP/N discussion.[17] Many editors participated in that discussion. — JFGtalk08:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So your only notification to editors on this page was one message given as a response to an editor mid-thread and telling that editor to wait. Seems to be the conversation was going against you here and you were engaging in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPCasprings (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFGtalk08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, I still think that lacks important detail. We should stay close to the main source. Here is my proposed version:
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign.[1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.[2]
I tweaked the wording and arrangement of a couple of sentences. I removed DeVos who is not relevant in any of this.- MrX11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First thoughts:
Your version asserts as a fact that the FBI is investigating the meeting when actually the FBI declined to comment.
When I rewrote the material, I assessed weight of many claims against the Washington Post piece and ten additional sources. If I recall correctly, DeVos was mentioned in all of them.
The Washington Post reports "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." No objection to editing the material so that it more closely aligns with the source, but there's no value in stating that the FBI didn't comment. I don't object to adding DeVos back in if other sources point that out.- MrX14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit too long on details. Here's a middle-ground variant:
On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles.[1] The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."[1]
Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.[2]
Shorter version looks less weaseled to me. Prior version is still long on content-free prose such as "at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community". Yeah, that's something we already say a dozen times in this article… — JFGtalk14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to adding DeVos again for context. I had her in my first proposal, MrX omitted her and added Bannon. — JFGtalk08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be shorter. The editorial point about "major donor" should go. It still is only a single day story with absolutely no followup. The contradictory accounts by "sources" cast enough of a pall that we shouldn't be tossing the mud that the Washington Post couldn't make stick. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial point" but the donation was a fact that both sources found noteworthy enough to report.- MrX20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That amount does not make him a "major donor." $10 million is around the "major donor" category. WaPo's animosity towards Trump has been noted elsewhere. The comment was neither disparaging nor gratuitous but it is an accurate observation that neither party holds the other in high regard. If we are going to use one as a source, we should be honest with their intent. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to replacing "... was a major donor to..." with "... donated $250,000 to...". We have not disqualified The Washington Post (or The New York Times or CNN) as sources for Trump-related information, so I don't see how your comments in that regard apply here.- MrX22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you cherry pick a donation out of the entire article? Stating a donation doesn't impart any relevance other than he supported Trump. Why not highlight the inconsistency in the article where it attributes Prince statements to UAE as a connection to Trump but when they really want to link it to Trump they say no meeting would have been scheduled without his explicit okay (which would thereby negate reasoning they use to introduce Prince)? It's like they are stretching whatever line they need to make it more nefarious but not realizing that it invalidates other accounts. Also, no one is investigating "Trump-Russia" ties, they are looking to see if there were links to the Trump campaign, not Trump the person or Trump as President. That is a significant difference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.
The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS
Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald [18], Harper's [19], and Fortune [20]) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: [21]) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
Conditional support - I would support a shorter version of this, without direct quotes, provided that someone can find at least one or two solid additional sources. The Miami Herald and VOA are reliable, but I'm concerned about the story being promoted in Breitbart, The Daily Mail, fringe blogs, and RT. Carr seems to dismiss CrowdStrike's findings on rather flimsy reasoning, in my opinion. Regardless, his expert view should be represented once it passes WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the two additional sources presented (Harpers and Forbes), I now believe that a couple of sentences discussing Carr's criticism of CrowdStrike's findings should be included per WP:NPOV. Softlavender, did you really just reject a reputable source because of it's geographic proximity to Trump's other White House?- MrX15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose It is (as I say below) not exactly accurate as to what the sources say. It needs rewording, not just shortening. There is also as issue with Undue, CrowdStrike are not the only IT security firm to claim Russian interference, so it rejects just one piece of evidence, the article is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of Voice of America material, since that is simply Trump's mouthpiece. Also Oppose use of Miami Herald as a source, as that regional newspaper is way too close to Trump's Mar-a-Lago. If there is a major reliable unbiased national newspaper that says the same thing, then I would be open to reviewing that. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre rationale to exclude mainstream sources! Who said VOA is "Trump's mouthpiece"? If the Miami Herald is too close to Mar-a-Lago for comfort, then would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower?? Where does this end??? This argument makes no sense at all, sorry. Focus on the contents rather than the messenger. — JFGtalk15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower??" No, because New Yorkers hate Trump. That's why he goes to Mar-a-Lago every weekend. Plus the New York Times is a highly respected national and international newspaper, and is the newspaper of record for the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support These are reliable sources and coverage in various sources establishes weight. I agree that coverage in unreliable sources does not establish weight, but that is a red herring since none have been presented. TFD (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally Oppose The problems with the text are manyfold. First, there’s too much speculation. Carr admits he doesn’t have all the evidence known to the agencies that have reported Russian influence in the election. He criticizes one of the sources based on a belief that they were incorrect in another case, while ignoring other sources. He argues that a report does not prove a case; but that report cannot include classified info. He was not a part of any of the deliberations behind the report. He is a private consultant with no direct connection. I’m also bothered by the statement growing doubt in the computer security industry. He does not speak for the industry and provides scant evidence for such a general statement. Pronouncements like this reflect poorly on his testimony. I also am troubled by Carr’s statements that he knows what investigations the FBI did and did not perform. I’m also bothered by the attack on CrowdStrike in a different case. CrowdStrike and Carr may be competitors and Carr has made strong statements about CrowdStrike in the past. (Apparently he detests McAfee whose execs funded CrowdStrike [27].) As an aside, Carr’s comments in Harpers are sarcastic in nature and comments elsewhere are dismissive. It just sounds like someone on the outside upset he isn’t on the inside. I’m not casting any aspersions, it just doesn’t sound like a good source. BTW, I think he is no longer associated with Taia Global Inc. Possibly a one or two sentence mention with a better source is acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeJeffrey Carr is barely notable, and this opinion column by the former TV columnist of a lesser-tier newspaper doesn't elevate JC's expertise to anything near significant enough to publish in Wikipedia. And how reliable is the source when the columnist refers to Carr as being CEO of this defunct wannabe cyberstartup that apparently raised a total of $80,000 venture capital funding before its demise? Talk is cheap, but WP is not. Lesser opinion columnists will smile-and-dial until they get some fodder for an op-ed, but consider the source. And the biases that (however unfortunately) select against the best expert comment appearing in the least expert publications. SPECIFICOtalk16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per WP:NPOV, but agree with MrX that a couple of sentences is sufficient. Other sources that quote Carr include: Associated Press, PBS Newshour, McClatchy and Arstechnica, not in depth coverage from these particular sources mentioned, but still enough to indicate that Carr's opinion was given some weight, and with the additional sources listed above I believe that a couple of sentences is warranted per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Prior to this (in 2014 and 2015), Carr's opinion has also been featured in Newsweek and CNN.Isaidnoway(talk)16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Carr was not the only one pointing out that the incriminated hacking tools were freely available to anybody, and not exclusive to people connected to Russian intelligence services; a bunch of cybersecurity experts have cast legitimate doubt on the inferences attributing the DNC hacks to Russian sources, e.g. John McAfee and Kevin Poulsen come to mind. However I think we can do with shorter prose, and we don't need to repeat Carr's statements about CrowdStrike's reputation. Here's proposed text with other sources: — JFGtalk16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cybersecurity analyst Jeffrey Carr stated that CrowdStrike's inferences pointing at the Russian intelligence services were baseless because the incriminated X-Agent tool was freely available for anyone to download.[1] Wordfence and Errata Security noted that the PHP malware referenced in the JAR was an out-of-date version "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world."[2]
Um, gee. This RfC is about Carr. Let's try to stay focused here. RfC should be closed, since nobody really seems to think Carr is a notable cyberexpert security guy. SPECIFICOtalk17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Carr has been cited by a number of newspapers, as well as the wire agency AP ([28]). In connection with another cybersecurity story, he's recently been cited by the New York Times as well ([29]), so he's clearly regarded as an expert commentator by at least several newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TFD. Anyone who doubts he's notable should check out his bio and mentions here, here (there are more) and of course the Miami Herald. He is on of the more notable and knowledgeable voices on the issue. Keep in mind however that the malware fingerprint was not the only evidence found. So Carr can cast doubt on some of Crowdstrike's findings, but the he never said that the evidence was nonexistent, only that it is less conclusive than some think. Editors who are afraid that readers might misinterpret the proposed text as saying that no evidence exists, should actually take a moment to learn something topic and summarize the existing evidence for the readers — instead of trying to keep notable minority view points out. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here is text under discussion. It tells, among other things, that CrowdStrike itself was found by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2017 to have used data erroneously to falsely accuse Russia of being responsible for hacking a Ukrainian military artillery app. (ref). First of all, that is irrelevant to the subject of this page. Second, after reading the source, it appears that a report by CrowdStrike (on a different subject!) was disputed and needed some corrections, but was not actually wrong. This suggestion looks like a poisoning the well. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed per several editors above. Yes, per MVBW, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at a POV poisoning the well. Yes, per Geogene, the person is not really notable. On the other hand if this can be properly worded - perhaps the way that Guccisamsclub suggest with the "less conclusive" conclusion actually in the text then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor include - google is showing me reports about these on VOA, PBS, Politifact, Harpers, Wired, Ars Technica, Slate, Mother Jones, Daily Mail, News Day, .... so has some mainstream presence. But the quantity of mentions is much smaller and the ones I looked at had him as a brief bit, more of a side remark about a dissenting voice in a larger article. So I'd say shoot for a minor include is OK, but kind of optional and not to be done if there is something else giving doubts with larger prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SPECIFICO Yes, as I recall basically Google turned them up from '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking', and then I paged thru and noted the URLs of places that seemed notable, and read the google snippet and clicked thru to read detail sometimes. (If you want a specific one then make it '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking VOA' or whatever.) Again, those seemed mostly to give him just a brief mention -- but that he is noted by them seemed some WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support including Carr's claims given his reputation and coverage of the claim (Miami Herald, Fortune and particularly Harper's.) Wait for additional sourcing on International Institute for Strategic Studies report – VOA is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: What the article really needs is balance. While the article should be substantially shortened (it's become a coatrack for everything Russia-related in US politics), we shouldn't be excluding only material which is critical of the allegations made by US intelligence agencies. The significant criticism of US intelligence reports should be noted in the article. The article is chock-full of lengthy quotes from US intelligence, and has a separate section for nearly every single allegation that some person is connected to Russia. Until that bloat is addressed, I don't think we should be paring down the underrepresented dissenting viewpoints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support JFG's text proposal as well-sourced and one of a number of other critical commentaries that should likely appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT if it's weighted appropriately with other sources. I'm not persuaded that the Miami Herald isn't sufficiently a reliable source for this information, and somewhat surprised that came up as an issue. Voice of America is definitely a WP:RS. If we use Crowdstrike as a source to document facts in this article, their credibility is an issue. It's really important for our readers to get a balanced presentation of facts on contentious issues. It deserves brief mention with reliable sources cited so readers can read the stuff that doesn't fit in a summary weighted with the other information. loupgarous (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly oppose I don't have strong opinions about whether or not Carr's opinion is included, but I'm opposed to attacking CrowdStrike because of an updated report to "corroborate" someone's opinion per WP:SYNTH. It's akin to attacking a source because it issued a correction on an unrelated story, which is actually a signal of fact-checking per WP:RS. FallingGravity22:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we have one bunch of "industry outsiders" opinions I see no reason why we should not have another.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC):However your text, I think, does not reflect very well what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carr was not really "speculating" about anything at all but describing problems with CrowdStrike's report and how it does not amount to proof. And we already include citations from several "industry outsiders" expressing degrees of agreement with the CrowdStrike report. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, indeed it is opinion not fact. But so is the entire story. And weight requires us to report opinions. TFD (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adlerschloß, you need to indicate in your OP what "information from Carr" you are talking about, who "Carr" is, what "CrowdStrike report" you are talking about, and what "information from IISS" you are talking about. Otherwise, this RfC is completely incomprehenible and invalid. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding additional reliable sources requested by MrX, Carr's viewpoints were also discussed in Harper's [30] and Fortune [31]. These discuss more than just the CrowdStrike report but would be appropriate to include in the same section (Cybersecurity analysis). Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Softlavender's remarks alleging the Miami Herald to be unreliable for reasons of geography, I will point out that Mar-a-Lago is 90 miles away from Miami, and that the Miami Herald endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election: [32]Adlerschloß (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. Trump won the election and is in power, and that regional newspaper is his regional newspaper. Carr lives in Seattle. The fact that only the Miami Herald would interview him is telling, as is the fact that he is the founder of a failed cybersecurity startup, and the fact that he only posts on Medium (a blogsite) and LinkedIn. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MMfA has mentioned the coverage.[33] I note that no other papers have picked up the story from the Miami Herald, so we need to be sure that we be clear the story has had limited mainstream coverage, but was widely reported in right-wing sources, the Daily Mail and RT. TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's disruptive to jump from one bad edit to a month-long RfC struggling to shoehorn Carr back into the article. It's already well-established consensus on this talk page that JC is not RS this stuff. SPECIFICOtalk16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using Carr as a source, we are using the Miami Herald. Note that reliability relates to facts, while the issue is whether to include his opinion, which is an issue of weight alone. Whether or not his opinion should be mentioned is decision of reliable secondary sources, such as the Miami Herald.TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Miami Herald opinion columnist's references to Carr's bio read like out-of-date material from Carr's LinkedIn page. "International cybersecurity expert" etc. Entrepreneur etc. Grey Goose etc. All defunct. From the best available information, JC appears to be a retiree who may be available to answer the phone for a journalist but is hardly in the loop these days. SPECIFICOtalk00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Miami Herald article referenced is not a column, but a news article appearing in their national section. And as other references in above discussion and survey indicate, Carr's analysis on this subject is considered noteworthy by many reliable sources. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding remarks by Myverybestwishes accusing me of bad faith edits -- it is potentially valid to argue that the erroneous CrowdStrike report on Ukraine is irrelevant to this specific article (although I disagree, as VOA in two separate articles linked these errors to CrowdStrike's narrative on election interference), but you are not accurate in flatly stating that CrowdStrike's report "wasn't wrong" in some objective sense. CrowdStrike retracted their allegations of combat losses caused by a military artillery app hack (their false reading of IISS data was the premise behind their overall narrative) while not retracting their larger claim that a hack occurred (although per their corrections it would seem they argue a hack occurred that was meaningless or had no tangible effect); but the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense argues that neither the combat losses nor the hack occurred at all, see: [34]Adlerschloß (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you misinterpreted these sources, possibly because you did not read them carefully. Here is your link, and here is "retraction" by CrowdStrike your source refers to. This "retraction" tells, According to an update ... the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations and This previously unseen variant of X-Agent represents FANCY BEAR’s expansion in mobile malware ... reveals one more component of the broad spectrum approach to cyber operations taken by Russia-based actors in the war in Ukraine. It further tells (as relates to the subject of this page): The collection of such tactical artillery force positioning intelligence by FANCY BEAR further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces operating in Eastern Ukraine and its border regions in Russia. This is not retraction, as also clear from reading your link/source completely, instead of indiscriminately citing only the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My Very Best Wishes mentions that the IISS criticizes CrowdStrike for another analysis supposedly unrelated to the current one and therefore we cannot mention it. But it is a reasonable assumption that if a CrowdStrike has been wrong in the past they are less likely to be right now. Not something we can say, but a conclusion in a reliable source that we can report. Unless one subscribes to the gambler's fallacy. TFD (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also a tiny minority viewpoint, far out of line with coverage in the bulk of sources. I don't see how the alleged hacking in Ukraine relates to the DNC hacks, and I also don't see how CrowdStrike's choice of sources for Ukrainian battlefield casualty rates are related to its competency (or lack of it) in regards to cybersecurity. As far as I know, they aren't in the kind of business that Stratfor or Jane's Defence Weekly are in. So all of this seems like a tremendous stretch on both counts. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you were joking about mean reversion. Our article on that topic clearly defines it as "the assumption that a stock's price will tend to move to the average price over time". Mean reversion depends on sound inferences drawn from huge amounts of financial data. Crowdstrike's record of accuracy vs. inaccuracy is a very small data set compared to that. In evaluating the record of an intelligence analysis firm (or any other source or processor of intelligence) you have to rely on their record. I don't think that Crowdstrike's inaccuracies in one field are irrelevant to their overall reliability as a source of information, either. loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly joking, just trying to point out how preposterous was the reference to "gambler's fallacy" in a content/sourcing discussion here. SPECIFICOtalk02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE
There has been a little bit of an edit war to shoehorn the opinion of Dan Goodin into this article. I don't see that his opinion is widely-cited. It seems WP:UNDUE and we have much better sources than Ars Technica to rely on for expert opinions. I think this content should be removed. What do other think?- MrX14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE This is clearly FRINGEy COATRACK stuff at this point. As established at previous talk discussion, Goodin is not a notable journalist and this content does not belong in the article. The edit war has been stopped and the content will no doubt be removed by the next passer-by. SPECIFICOtalk15:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Remove based on WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk),
DUE – Ars Technica is a highly respected technology publication and they regularly publish relevant commentary on cybersecurity. Dan Goodin is one of their top journalists. I see absolutely no reason to discount his analysis as fringe or undue. — JFGtalk18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to a personal opinion but he is not wp-NOTABLE. eom. That's a first order screen of random opinions by journalists or pundits. As you know, this bit is out of date and reflects a view that is currently so marginal as to be extinct among notable journalists and accredited experts. SPECIFICOtalk19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DUE – Ars (which leans left) has a record of publishing well-researched, authoritative pieces on several technical topics. It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than the author (security editor Goodin) at any major publication. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
James J. Lambden, are you able to support your claim that "It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than [Goodin]" with some evidence—perhaps some cites?- MrX20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR isn't relevant here. MrX asked about Goodin's qualifications, and James J. Lambden showed that Dan Goodin is cited in various books about cybersecurity. WP:OR says that we can't insert our own original research into articles. It says nothing about us not being allowed to figure out whether someone we're considering citing is competent. Throwing around Wikipedia policy acronyms out of context isn't at all helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Find 5-6 mainstream publications that cite Mr. Goodin's opinion on the report and you will begin to make some headway on this. Also, please. It hurts my feelings when you accuse me of disruption. Thx. SPECIFICOtalk22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, and MrX: Thank you for posting here. Let's be honest, "FRINGEy" is not a policy. Neither Goodin [35] nor Ars Technica are "fringe" sources and you've provided no links or data to suggest as much. Furthermore COATRACK doesn't apply to a source about the Joint Analysis Report if it is cited a section called "Joint Analysis Report." A coatrack for what - the subject at hand?
Here is what Goodin writes:
Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
.
Goodin also writes that "anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves," and
Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks... [the JAR] largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity.
Goodin's analysis, and those he cites, are consistent with other publications from the period. Counterpunch has a piece [36] that states,
For a document that purports to offer strong evidence on behalf of U.S. government allegations of Russian culpability, it is striking how weak and sloppy the content is. Included in the report is a list of every threat group ever said to be associated with the Russian government, most of which are unrelated to the DNC hack... nowhere in the document is any evidence provided to back up the claim of a Russian connection. Indeed, as the majority of items on the list are unrelated to the DNC hack, one wonders what the point is.
This is similar to analysis from a news piece in The Guardian suggesting the report had little credibility among experts:
The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late... Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.
France 24 has a somewhat more political take on the affair [37], writing that the report is theatre to justify the expulsion of diplomats (JFG pardon me if my translation is off in some way):
To justify sanctions against Russia, Barack Obama relied upon a report from the FBI that made Moscow responsible for the hacks during the American presidential election... In effect no concrete element placing responsibility for the cyberattacks on Moscow can be found in the FBI and DHS conslusions.
Similarly, French BFM TV writes a skeptical article [38] titled, "Election hijacking: FBI accuses the Russians ... without apparent proof." Arguing that this material is WP:UNDUE requires ignoring all this reporting.
Not only is Goodin's analysis consistent with others, it also reflects what a chorus of editors here (TFD, N-HH, Thucydides411, K.e.coffman, Adlerschloß, etc.) have been saying for months: there is a difference between what intelligence agencies might state, and what we actually know via reliable sources. There is no reason in policy to exclude every source that disagrees with the statements of American intelligence services and your personal political views. And that's OK. You can (and should) cite critical commentary without leading readers.
Lastly, I see that Lord Roem has taken upon themselves to ban Thucydides411 for adding the Goodin material, which is a pretty impetuous or aggressive move considering the context. Markbassett and JFG have both argued here to include Ars Technica as a source (recently), and a consultation of the archives appears to show consensus for its inclusion in the past (Archive 3). -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE Unsurprising that not every expert out there agrees that Russia is at fault, but the overwhelming majority of them do. This non-notable one doesn't merit inclusion. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geogene that's not an accurate summary of responses to the JAR and you've provided no evidence to indicate otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Goodin's analysis does not gain credibility simply because you found a few sources that have reached similar conclusions. What would be much more convincing is to show a list of sources that cite this "top" journalist from this "authoritative" publication.- MrX20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these examples were given in response to the comments suggesting his conclusions were "FRINGEy." Other sources reaching similar conclusions are directly relevant to that point. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards no inclusion -- not because the opinion is "Undue" or "Fringy", but because the para is fine as it is without the Ars Technica quote (shown in the diff by the OP as the "before" version). This is veering towards excessive intricate detail, especially as the Daily Beast quote in the same para is really good. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thus do we confirm what was already known: There is no consensus to include this bit in the article and it may be safely removed like a hotswap hard drive. SPECIFICOtalk21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DUE: Ars Technica is obviously a fine source for analysis of the technical case on alleged Russian hacking. It's a well-respected technology publication, and this sort of issue is its bread and butter. Dan Goodin has been writing for over a decade on computer security, for the Associated Press, The Register and Bloomberg, and is now the "Security Editor" for Ars Technica, so he's clearly competent to write on the subject. His article on the JAR is a good run-down of what various cybersecurity researchers thought about the report. Goodin's view isn't "Fringy" (he's reflecting the views of several prominent security researchers), and it isn't UNDUE (it concerns the JAR directly, and summarizes the dominant view among security researchers). I frankly don't understand the vehement opposition to including a quote from his article. Does anyone care to explain why they're so adamant that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited? It's just puzzling to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ars Technica is notable, Goodin is a senior editor for it, and has worked at other news agencies around the world. Of course he is. Arguing otherwise is extraordinary, especially at a tech-centric place like Wikipedia. If you want to convince anyone and if your objections are good-faith, go to WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article is not an opinion piece. Goodin reports on facts, analysis and opinions of various experts about the subject matter. It's called journalism, as your former press card surely shows. — JFGtalk19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My original argument still stands. It should be removed because it's outdated by further events and better sources.
I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions. They are therefore NOW fringe opinions, even if they may not have been in the early days where much was not known. To give them prominence now gives them undue weight in relation to newer information from better sources. Remove it, and other sources with equally outdated opinions of that nature.
If we were to keep Goodin and others of that persuasion, they should be moved to a "history" section which shows that in the early days with little evidence, there were doubters. Their opinions are now relegated to the rubbish heap of outdated theories. Such a rubbish heap exists for medical and scientific matters, but I'm not sure we want such a heap in this type of article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, and the harsh reality is that, unlike in medicine and engineering -- where the state of knowledge is constantly advancing -- reportorial rubbish is more frequently associated with efforts evincing less knowledge and insight. SPECIFICOtalk02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: What "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions" do you mean? Dan Goodin's article discusses the JAR, and summarizes the very harsh reviews it got from cybersecurity experts. We have a section on the JAR, and that section should note how it was received. Are there newer, better sources that say the JAR was well received by cybersecurity experts? Please list them, because I haven't seen them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the abundant RS which affirm that the foreign and American intelligence communities are convinced that Russian hackers performed the hacking. The 35-page dossier gets even more specific, mentioning not just Russian hackers, but also Romanian hackers controlled by Putin, but paid by Trump. Note that evidence of who performed the hacking isn't only found in technical data, but also in evidence from surveillance of involved persons talking about it. To illustrate, a burglar can be convicted on technical data (finger prints, possession of stolen goods, etc.) and/or surveillance evidence of their own speech or the speech of accomplices. When crooks brag, that too is evidence.
At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it. Only fringe sources and older references express such doubts.
I'm not going to do any OR to second-guess the best sources, and I'm not going to give credence to outside and fringe observers who try to second-guess them. I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are "abundant RS" that contradict Dan Goodin (and the cybersecurity experts he cites) and say that the JAR contained strong evidence, then it should be easy for you to list a few. So far, you haven't. "I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources." I don't know what original research you're talking about: I'm talking about an article by Dan Goodin in Ars Technica, not my own research. I also don't know what "fringe" sources you're talking about. Ars Technica certainly isn't "fringe." And I don't know what your point is about the article being "old" (5 months, to be precise). Are you suggesting that there's some newer source that does a better job of describing the JAR?
"At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it." Please read the section immediately following this one. BBC and Reuters treat "the Russians did it" as an allegation that may or may not be true. Are BBC and Reuters not serious?
Please, be more concrete, because you're making a lot of very bold statements without showing any evidence. Give a reason why BBC and Reuters should not be taken seriously, and list sources that contradict Dan Goodin's reporting on the JAR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abundant RS affirm that US intelligence has issued an assessment. That is not the same as affirming the truth of that assessment, which obviously has not occurred to this point. Intelligence agencies are dubious as sources; it is important to report what they are saying when that is notable, but treating them as either perfectly competent or perfectly honest, when the underlying evidence beneath their claims has not even been displayed, would obviously be inappropriate, or even evidence of an "authoritarian mindset" that has always plagued societies (some people feeling they do not need to see evidence for a claim, because they trust a structural authority). Intelligence agencies are often incorrect, incompetent, and dishonest, full stop. US intelligence even in recent years has often displayed these attributes.
It stretches comprehension to claim that RS reporting the stated assessment of dubious intelligence agencies (an assessment offered without proof, to "protect intelligence sources", conveniently) would qualify as making earlier technical analysis actually based on evidence "outdated."
I am unsure why you would even mention the 35 page dossier in this context when RS pretty universally describe it as "unverified" or worse. Bob Woodward called it a "garbage document." Adlerschloß (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Looking at the above discussion, I count 5 editors in favor of inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis, 5 against, and one leaning against (K.e.coffman). You've removed not only Dan Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but that of Kevin Poulsen, saying, "looking at talk this does not appear to have support." That's not an accurate statement, given the 5 editors above favoring inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis. Moreover, K.e.coffman explicitly said in their statement that the Daily Beast quote is "really good," so I take it they wouldn't favor your deletion of that quote. Instead of there being "no support" for the material you've removed, there appears to be a majority here that would actually oppose your deletion. Given that, you should self-revert, and you should refrain in the future from leaving false edit summaries. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct -- Either Ars Technica or Daily Beast should be included; see the "before" version here: diff. I participated in an earlier discussion on the Daily Beast quote and the material arrived at seemed to work fine back then. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DUE. Ars Technica is an excellent source and Goodin is a well-known security journalist. An anecdotal aside here, years ago in San Francisco I was recommended to seek employment at Ars, and Goodin was the person I was actually supposed to speak with. That ended up not happening; but I can note that the person who referred me to Goodin was a keynote speaker at multiple computer security conferences, and was nominated for multiple Pwnie awards over the years (receiving an honourable mention at one, which is actually mentioned in our Wikipedia article on the subject). Goodin regularly attends the Baysec computer security professionals meetup in San Francisco which is one the most elite such gatherings in the entire world (and I'm sure "Russiagate" has been extensively discussed there), basically he can in no way be derogated as "fringe" in contexts of the industry. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You showed up for a job interview and didn't meet Mr. Goodin therefore the non-NOTABLE Mr. Goodin whom you didn't meet should be quoted in this WP article? And you say you've heard that Mr. Goodin hangs out at an open meetup called Baysec? SPECIFICOtalk18:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are mischaracterising my recounting. My point was that Goodin was held in very high regard by one of the leading reverse engineers in the world. Regarding Baysec, attending regularly for years would entail Goodin communicating often with globally-leading information security experts, from both the private and public sector, in an informal setting in which everyone is "saying what they really think." I am sure "Russiagate" and evidence regarding that narrative (or lack thereof) were substantively discussed.
Any source that contradicts a narrative that is being strangely and anomalously pushed on en.wiki through pointing out the obvious, namely that none of this has been proved and almost no evidence has been offered to substantiate the allegations, is being maligned and dragged through the mud, called "fringe", as occurred with Jeffrey Carr. The point is, I happen to personally know that Goodin is not regarded as fringe by anyone whose expertise would be relevant in this context. It is bizarre and confusing why anyone confident of their own assessment on this matter would be working so hard to keep sources out of the article that display what is, again, the obvious: that there is no technical proof justifying the US intelligence assessment of this. Generally those confident about their own viewpoint do not work to censor opposing arguments or evidence, and the repeated pattern of this here is suspicious itself (I feel rather agnostic on the specificity of accusations against Russia, but the behaviour of those wishing to depict that accusation as proved or universally accepted when it obviously isn't is suspicious enough to cast the accusations themselves in a new light for me). Adlerschloß (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adler, I have read what you said about Mr. Goodin. You are presenting your personal conclusion, based on the sort of inference and circumstantial information every human uses in everyday life. We all sink or swim by our savvy reactions to people and events. But WP editors are not supposed to rely on our personal opinions when we propose content for the encyclopedia. I hope that with some reflection you can understand that your personal confidence as to who's who in the IT world is yours alone, and that it cannot relied on by the community here without RS documentation as to Mr. Goodin's standing as a WP:NOTABLE expert whose opinion needs to be published in an encyclopedia.
It's amusing sometimes to watch the Americans on their cable-TV news programs. I read the mainstream US media and I do sometimes indulge in some CNN and the like along with my BBC and RAI. I haven't seen anyone pausing to say "alleged interference" in a long time. Occasionally last year, occasionally in January this year, but as of May 2017, it's a WP:FRINGE POV that the Russians did not interfere. And anyway it's telling that you appear to think Goodin's questioning the interference when in fact he's criticizing the US Gov't's need to withhold classified information from the published summary report. Finally, your wrap-up is kind of surprising. If the efforts of 20-30 WP editors who struggle to sustain the mainstream narrative here makes you doubt the underlying facts as to geopolitical events, that seems like one giant leap for mankind -- logically speaking. SPECIFICOtalk12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: What level of "experience in counterespionage" would you require a journalist to have before you would agree to quoting them in the article? I would have thought being the "Security Editor" for a well-respected technology publication, and a former cybersecurity journalist for major publications like Bloomberg, AP and The Register would be enough qualification. Does he have to be a former intelligence agent? I'm just trying to get a sense of what threshold you're setting before we can cite a journalist's work here. After you've set that level, perhaps we can go through the article and remove all the reporting by journalists who don't meet it (and since Goodin is probably one of the most expert journalists we cite, we'll most likely have to delete most of the journalistic sources in the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably have more experience in the area than he, going back to the 70s. And I most certainly don't think I have the gravitas needed. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know as he has never been a part of the intelligence community. He is a writer in an online mag. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest include - I'll say seems obvious here's a prominent tech publication's cybersecurity lead giving an evaluation of the intelligence papers ... obviously relevant source with authority on topic, and seems more relevant than including right behind it of 'former hacker' from the Daily Beast who is saying much the same thing: both saying 'that did not give evidence'. Leave it in and move along, or else put it to a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled at the suggestion that a non-WP:NOTABLE writer is being called an authority on the technical subject of cybersecurity-cum-counterintelligence. Moreover as many editors have said many times: The non-classified report is not the basis for the human mainstream's near-universal acceptance of the fact that Russians interfered. If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that the US Government is too dumb to figure this out with the vast resources and information available to the US and its allies' intelligence services. Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist. When there are important points deserving DUE weight, there's no scarcity of RS citations. I would like to see an acknowledged counterespionage cybersecurity expert, perhaps a distinguished former intelligence official (not an Iraq-war-era weapons sleuth) who articulates the problems in a compelling way that can provide the basis for article content. SPECIFICOtalk01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing puzzling about it. Dan Goodin is the Security Editor for Ars Technica, and he previously wrote for Bloomberg, AP and The Register on cybersecurity. If a respected tech publication like Ars Technica (along with AP, Bloomberg and The Register) thinks he's qualified to write on this subject, and even to make him their senior editor on such topics, then he almost certainly is qualified. "If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means." That's your own personal speculation. All we can do in the article is reflect what journalists have written about the JAR. "Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist." This may surprise you, but some of the best tech publications are published on the Internet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The responses you have posted to half a dozen editors here are entirely unresponsive, misrepresent the demonstrated flaws and objections, and pose straw man deflections instead of simple proffers of the material that would support inclusion of your POV in the article. BTW there are millions of journalists roaming the planet, each of them with their fans and admirers. SPECIFICOtalk01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are moving the goalposts. Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. — JFGtalk20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I reverted this edit of yours (but recovered your citation fix), because the context of the articles by Goodin and Poulsen is clear. They were both written shortly after the JAR was published, so there's no reason to repeatedly state the publication dates. You wrote in your edit summary, "add dates for context. When these opinions were written is crucial. ALL early reports were "alleged" and doubting, while many later ones are more certain." I don't see any evidence for the dates of the opinions being crucial. You've now claimed several times that there are abundant reliable sources that contradict Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but so far, you haven't posted a single one. I don't think the general evaluation of the JAR as a very weak report has changed since early January 2017. If you have sources that say the evaluation of the JAR has indeed changed, by all means, please post them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: Your edit summary includes an explicitly POV rationale: "The dates are necessary to show this is ancient information." In other words, you're trying to downplay the articles written by Goodin and Poulsen. You've stated repeatedly that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR are contradicted by newer reliable sources, but I'm still waiting for you to find even a single source that supports your assertion. So, do you have those sources, or are you going to admit that you don't have them?
Enough is really enough: Goodin and Poulsen criticized the JAR heavily (as did other prominent cybersecurity experts, cited in Goodin's article). You can't just relativize every fact you don't like in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed those dates before, and we shouldn't have to keep restoring them. Just as with attribution for opinions, including dates for time sensitive commentary can be important. We often do this. Since we haven't yet created an actual timeline of events, as suggested, this is the next best thing. As for your comment about "weasel words", the part you removed was from the source. Without those words, the content is misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: Again, can you post your sources that contradict Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR?
Also, the version you've reverted to emphasizes one very minor aspect of Goodin's commentary - one that only gets a single sentence of mention in Goodin's piece. I can't help but conclude that you're just trying to downplay Goodin's criticism of the JAR, especially since you said explicitly in your edit summary that you'd like readers to know the criticism is "ancient." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the current wording (my bold emphasis). A parsing of the whole concept, and of certain phrases, is crucial for any discussion about how editors here should determine due weight, and that's what the following is about:
"... Goodin criticized the Joint Analysis Report for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted so as not to reveal sources and methods of cyberattack detection."
Leaving out the bold balancing words of that second phrase of the sentence was really bad and clearly your "truther" attempt to push the idea that the Russians were not involved and are innocent. By doing so, undue weight was given to Goodin's other words of criticism. Even Goodin realizes that the report cannot be expected to tell the whole story, and, like any other intelligence report, it doesn't reveal all that is known by the experts in the investigation.
Criticisms on that basis are naive and should not be given much weight. While called an "analysis report", it's really just a morsel reluctantly thrown to the masses to appease them, rather than a completely open and comprehensive attempt to inform them. That's how the intelligence community functions. They have to do that. Everyone wants more info, including experts, and they are frustrated when they don't get more. C'est la vie. They should be happy they got anything at all. As long as the investigations are ongoing, and right now they are intensifying as more things are confirmed, we're not going to get the full story. If Trump's obstruction efforts are unsuccessful, we may see this cleared up in court.
I share the POV expressed by "former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, [who] stated that while there is solid evidence of Russia's interference from other sources,..." It is that "solid evidence" which should get more weight, and complaints given less weight, or not even mentioned when they are obviously contradictory to the facts. We shouldn't give "truthers" (your POV) any weight here. A passing mention showing how foolish they are would be all that should be allowed.
The reason I don't give this criticism of the JAR report much weight isn't because of other technical details which might find fault with it, if they even exist, but because there is so much other evidence (Kevin Poulsen's POV), which we also mention in the article. It shows that Russians were behind the hacking and interference. No doubt about it. Period. Full stop. (Only truthers doubt it.)
Technical data, especially the incomplete bits we know, should no longer be your sole focus. Stop giving it so much weight in your thinking. It doesn't change the bigger picture. Look at the big picture and realize that right now the technical data is a minor aspect which is deliberately slurred from our view, and therefore criticisms of it should not be given much weight at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the arguments made on this talk page appeal to the authority of the unseen evidence which remains hidden for protection of sources and methods. But the reliance on the classified version of the intelligence report is overblown. Even people who have seen it admit that there is not much more in there than in the declassified version.
The new report incorporates material from previous assessments and assembles in a single document details of cyber operations dating back to 2008. Still, U.S. officials said there are no major new bombshell disclosures even in the classified report. A shorter, declassified version is expected to be released to the public early next week. — The Washington Post January 5, 2017 [39]
No, that just says that it's clear the Russians did interfere and that there are no conclusive pointers ("bombshells") to the further facts and details that are currently under investigation. SPECIFICOtalk16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I find this wording in the first phrase of the sentence rather awkward, especially the highlighted words:
"... for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted...."
I suspect there is some ambiguity there, so I'd like to know what you think that means. How should it be parsed?
Does it suggest there may not be any connection between the hacking and the Russians? Is Goodin a "truther", like you?
Does it mean we haven't explained well enough how the Russian hacking actually affected the elections?
As editors respond to BullRangifier's very clear and well-founded concerns with respect to this content, bear in mind that the declassified reports are not the subject of this article. So to the extent that these critical pundits and blogotypes are directing their criticisms at the reports or at the fact that the intelligence agencies do not share all their sensitive and privileged information with the internet, this content is really off-topic and classic UNDUE. At some point we need to just get it out of the article and work on the mounting backlog of relevant significant RS reporting on core content. SPECIFICOtalk16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer hasn't presented any well-founded concerns with respect to this content. BullRangifer keeps asserting that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses are out-of-date (despite refusing to give any sources as evidence of this), and then goes on to try to denigrate anyone who wants to include reliably sourced criticism of the JAR as a "truther." BullRangifer is giving explicitly political reasons for excluding or relativizing Goodin and Poulsen's analyses.
"[T]his content is really off-topic": Criticism of the JAR in a section about the JAR is not off-topic. Reliable sources criticized the JAR heavily, but you're trying to exclude that criticism from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is just an assertion. As I asked BullRangifer almost a month ago:
(BullRangifer speaking): No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.
What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(JFG speaking) Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.
Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:
"It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
"Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
"discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.
Never received an answer. Please enlighten me as to this "mounting backlog" of evidence confirming the Russian intervention since the initial allegations of June 2016. — JFGtalk16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been asking for BullRangifer to post their sources for a while now, without any luck. BullRangifer keeps claiming that "abundant" RS say one thing or another, but doesn't actually cite any RS when asked to do so. For example, BullRangifer said that
"I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions."
I asked what reliable sources contradict Goodin's article about the JAR. I still haven't gotten a reply, even though BullRangifer continues to revert my edits on the rationale that Goodin's article is obsolete. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to make light of it, but that's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your dog?" -- You won't find articles that bother to scrutinize relatively weak opinion on the internet for the purpose of debunking it. This is an issue that comes up all over WP. Fringe or inexpert or non-notable comment is not refuted by the mainstream -- it is ignored. Goodin, as a non-notable journalist, is not daily on the radar of the Wall St. Journal, NY Times or Washington Post. SPECIFICOtalk19:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the question before answering? Thucydides asks BullRangifer to show "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions." He doesn't ask for somebody to opine about Goodin's qualifications, just somebody who would refute his point. A point that most cybersecurity experts have made too, i.e. the abyssal weakness of report after report. And yet every time somebody dares question the official narrative, they are mocked with "look at the reports, the proof is there, the facts are clear". — JFGtalk23:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everybody has a viewpoint that is inconsistent with Goodin's and as to "refuting" Goodin, that can only be done with specific reference to Goodin and such reference will not be found in the overwhelming majority of cases wherein a WP editor cites minor, fringe, or non-notable opinions on widely reported issues. Please consider whether your "did you read it?" was civil or constructive. SPECIFICOtalk23:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It having now been demonstrated that there is no consensus to include, and with no secondary reference to Goodin's view supporting DUE WEIGHT to include it, the disputed Goodin sentence should now be expunged from the article, leaving the Poulsen bit in place to move to the head of that paragraph. SPECIFICOtalk16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of true WP:NOTABLE experts whose opinion is widely regarded as dispositive, there will be many secondary RS citations to that notable expert analysis. In this case, Goodin is quoted in a nice piece in Breitbart, on a few fake news blogs, and on a scattered and scant sample of other venues. And that's not even before we get into how the current text misrepresents Goodin's own emphasis on the report not the acknowledged Russian interference. SPECIFICOtalk20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the above input (in bold), it looks like there's more support for inclusion of Goodin's article than opposition. Given that, the edit summary of its most recent deletion is inaccurate. Since editors here lean towards including Goodin's article, let's figure out what sort of phrasing would be acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an election. This is just one of those things that does pretty good in the popular vote but doesn't make it across the finish line. There's no consensus for this stuff. Time to get back to more important work here. SPECIFICOtalk10:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't an election, then who determines if there's consensus? You?
A majority of editors supported inclusion. You haven't given a good argument for excluding Goodin's research. You've been throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks: WP:FRINGE (Goodin's analysis actually represents the mainstream view of the JAR), WP:UNDUE (the JAR is central to this article, and cybersecurity experts' views on it are important to note), your idea that Goodin isn't an expert (he's written for a number of respected publications on cybersecurity throughout his career, and his analysis is publised in a reliable source, so your objection about expertise is spurious).
You challenged inclusion of Goodin's analysis, and it turned out a majority of editors didn't agree with you. Unless you have some constructive suggestions on wording, I'm going to reinsert Goodin's analysis using the same wording I used in my original addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: consensus & elections: Please review WP policy and guidelines concerning closing of contentious discussions. If Mr. Goodin's view were shared by the mainstream view of reliable sources, we would not have to reach into Ars Technica to pluck it on the table here. SPECIFICOtalk00:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the policies. Again, if not a majority of editors, who determines consensus? You're just asserting that there's no consensus, despite the balance of opinion falling in favor of including the Goodin article. It sounds at this point like you're asserting your personal veto on the material.
We're not reaching at all by citing Ars Technica. The Ars Technica article happens to be a very good summary of various cybersecurity experts' analyses of the JAR. There are other articles that also note the negative reaction to the JAR, such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung article cited in the JAR section. I simply picked the Ars Technica article because it gave a good overview, and this subject is one that Ars Technica often covers with greater competence than some larger publications. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you think this guy has any expertise in the narrow fields of cyber intelligence or counter-espionage, or knowledge of the particulars of this incident. As I understand it, he’s a guy that writes articles on security of interest to server and PC owners. That’s what the readers of Ars care about, not government cyber-warfare. He has demonstrated no government security clearance or knowledge of top secret analysis methodology, or any of the particulars in this specific investigation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made the argument above that (essentially) only former intelligence analysts should be quoted. I don't agree, and a majority of editors apparently didn't find that argument persuasive. Effectively, your argument is that if a journalist didn't spend time working at the CIA or NSA, we shouldn't quote them when they write about a US government report on cybersecurity. Your argument, if we followed it, would introduce a very serious bias into Wikipedia, in favor of the official US government position.
If a journalist is assigned by a reliable publication to write about a given topic, that means that the reliable publication considers that journalist competent to write about the subject. I don't have to sit here and list Dan Goodin's CV to you. He writes for Ars Technica, and has written for a number of other highly respected publications on similar topics throughout his career. He doesn't need to have done a stint at the CIA to be able to report on these issues. If we only quoted former US intelligence analysts, as you're suggesting, we'd end up writing horribly biased articles.
Please, don't reinsert that stuff. You can post a request at WP:AN to have an uninvolved Admin close the thread if you believe that it justifies reinsertion, but it will accomplish nothing to continue your edit war based on your personal preference. SPECIFICOtalk11:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: You keep making the same claim over and over again, namely that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited because he's "not notable". That is not the question: we are not writing an article about Dan Goodin, we are citing his bona fide journalistic work published in a reputable reliable source. Moving the goalposts and repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your view. When I asked you: Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. you responded with… crickets.
The other objection we see, notably from BullRangifer, is that Goodin's study is ancient and has been superseded by more recent sources. However, the age of his article doesn't change its validity, just like the age of the ODNI reports doesn't change what they say. Intelligence services have published reports in October 2016, December 2016 and January 2017; each of these publications has triggered feedback from various commentators at the time. Since then, no new report, no new feedback, and prior feedback remains valid unless substantial new information comes to light. Given the lack of new information, understandably, when asked by Thucydides411 and Adlerschloß to provide these "more recent sources", BullRangifer responded with… crickets.
At the beginning of this thread, answering your unsubstantiated claims of WP:FRINGE and WP:COATRACK, Darouet asked you: Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? You responded with… crickets.
On pure editor count, we have now 8 people considering this content DUE (JFG, Thucydides411, Darouet, Adlerschloß, PackMecEng, James J. Lambden, Markbassett, Jrheller1) vs 7 people considering it UNDUE (MrX, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, Casprings, Geogene, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek) and one neutral (K.e.coffman could accept either Ars Technica or The Daily Beast but doesn't think both are necessary). If this were an RfC, the closer would evaluate the strength of the arguments on both sides, in light of policy. In a discussion about inserting some contents, where proponents demonstrate the suitability of said contents per policy, while opponents fail to justify the arguments they cite or just go "me too", I don't see why we should abide by the same opponents' vocal calls that "the matter is settled, there is no consensus". Your repeated attempts to curtail discussion by declaring the issue settled while you are heavily WP:INVOLVED are at best disruptive, at worst evidence of bad faith.
Finally, spending weeks and walls of text discussing a simple, journalistically well-sourced sentence in an article that otherwise is quite wordy and repetitive, strikes me as counter-productive; possibly something we agree upon. Let it go! — JFGtalk14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he's a simple editor heavily involved in the discussion. That gives him even less authority than an involved admin to act as judge, jury and executioner on said discussion thread. — JFGtalk15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG please re-read my statement. I said that this would be resolved by soliciting an uninvolved close. It's surprising to see you misrepresent my clear and straightforward statement. SPECIFICOtalk15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, "yes you did today" -- What did I do today? Did you intend this to be a response to my previous post? In what way is that a response? Please have another look at the words in my previous post. SPECIFICOtalk16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this ought to be excluded as well. It is out-of-date, and I think there are significant weight concerns. (As a compromise, the Kevin Poulsen stuff might be OK - don't see why we need both him and Goodin). Neutralitytalk16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The faction promoting the UNDUE source here is experienced enough to understand the difference between editors stating the obvious -- that there is no consensus for inclusion -- and on the other hand, editors declaring this a settled, formally closed issue. And that is why this thread has devolved into a time sump of monumental suction. The simple remedy of the aggrieved complainants would be to articulate a convincing theory for inclusion that could tip consensus to their view. SPECIFICOtalk19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opening
Timothyjosephwood, some time ago you proposed something of an overview to begin the "background" section of this article:
Archive 4.
Now, the "background" section simply begins with a lengthy block quote from American intelligence agencies, with no introduction, no explanation of what this text even is until after it's appeared, and not a single voice of skepticism or nuance appearing anywhere (nor, for that matter, Russia's own position via Putin himself, other spokespeople for the Russian government, Russian media, etc).
It's probably fair to see this section as an allegory for the article overall: I'm not sure how it's happened but despite heated argument every day here for months, there is little to no balance. Surely we as a community can do far better than this. To ping some longtime editors who've been active here (and disagreed with me) @MelanieN, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, and Softlavender:: do you see this as appropriate? -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and Reuters
The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:
"On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."" BBC 26 April
"Then the roiling controversy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election turned Moscow into a toxic subject in Washington." BBC 13 April
“A US intelligence report released in January alleged that Vladimir Putin had tried to help Mr Trump to victory, allegations strongly denied the Russian president.” BBC 10 April
“US Congressman forced to step down from the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.” BBC 6 April
“Both the House and Senate intelligence committees and the FBI are investigating alleged Kremlin interference in the US election” BBC 4 April
“US Senate to probe allegations of Russian involvement in presidential election” BBC 30 March
“The committee is examining Russia's alleged interference in last year's election.” BBC 29 March
“FBI chief confirms criminal probe into alleged Russian interference in 2016 US election” BBC 21 March
“Did Russia interfere in last year’s presidential election? A US intelligence committee is hearing evidence about the Kremlin’s alleged involvement.” BBC 20 March
“The US House Intelligence Committee will hear the testimony of the FBI Director James Comey as they look into allegations of Russian interference in last year's American presidential election.” BBC 20 March
“FBI director James Comey has confirmed for the first time that the FBI is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.” BBC 20 March
“Hearings are being held on alleged Russian interference in the US election campaign, at Capitol Hill.” BBC 20 March
“We speak to a Democrat Congressman about the latest on the allegations of Russian involvement in the US Presidential election.” BBC 20 March
“President Trump's Attorney General says he'll step aside from involvement in any investigations about Moscow's alleged interference in last year's election.” 2 March
“Last week President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US over the alleged hacking” BBC 7 January
“US expels 35 Russian diplomats as punishment for alleged interference in the presidential election” BBC 29 December
“President Obama vows action over Moscow's alleged interference in the US election.” 16 December
“Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues. Those include alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election…” Reuters 10 April
“Russian-state media service RT reported, citing his wife, that Levashov was suspected of being connected to hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election” Reuters 10 April
“House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is stepping aside from the panel's probe of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election” Reuters for WSJ 7 April
“Michael Conaway (R-TX) awaits for FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to testify to the House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election… But unlike Devin Nunes - who on Thursday stepped down as leader of the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, including possible collusion with Trump associates - Conaway was not a member of the incoming president's transition team. Russia denies the allegations… And in a January interview with the Dallas Morning News, [Conaway] seemed to make light of the alleged Russian meddling in the election” Reuters 7 April
“The House Intelligence Committee wants Susan Rice, a top aide in the Obama administration, to testify in a probe of alleged Russian election interference” Reuters for WSJ 5 April
“The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee will ask the directors of FBI and the National Security agency to appear in a closed session in its probe of allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections” Reuters 24 March
“U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Monday it was not known whether any Americans helped Russia in an alleged hacking campaign aimed at swaying the Nov. 8 election” Reuters 20 March
“FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the agency was investigating possible Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election” Reuters 20 March
“The charges came amid a swirl of controversies relating to alleged Kremlin-backed hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election” 16 Reuters March
“President Barack Obama retaliated for Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Reuters 9 February
(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):
“Even before Trump ordered last week's strike in retaliation for a nerve gas attack, Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues, including Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election” [41]
Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?
Other language Wikis
I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.
For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”
The Accusations contested:
Absence of proof
Credibility of authorities placed in doubt
Alternative hypotheses
Conspiracy theories:
To direct attention from stolen emails
The explain Clinton’s defeat
To sabatoge Trump’s election
These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:
Edward Snowden, “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.” Le Monde
Investigative journal Mediapart: “despite multiple accusations, often proffered to the press anonymously by intelligence officials, American authorities have brought no definitive proof that the Russian government is behind Guccifer 2.0” [42]
Cybersecurity expert Nicolas Arpagian, “we still have but solemn political declarations. But no proof, no distinct or incontestable element…” Liberation or journalist Stephane Trano, “American intelligence services… are not required to produce the least element of public proof, since their information is by nature classified.” Marianne Or cybersecurity expert Gerome Billois, to the effect of, “many people could have hacked the DNC” France 24
Statement from le Quotidian, “it’s impossible to take Washington’s words as good coin” after the recent claims of WMD, or the Gulf of Tonkin for that matter [43]
Jean-Paul Bequiast, Florian Filippot MediaPart blogLe Monde, and a humorous commentary from Afrique Asie: “After a careful reading of 25 pages of the declassified, redacted report concocted by the American Intelligence Community, the ODNI (CIA, FBI, NSA, and fourteen other agencies), just one word comes to mind: nothing” [44]
Congratulations, you've managed to cherry picked some opinions statements that exist on the internet. That's great. Why should we care? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Threaded discussion
By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).
We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment French Wikipedia is a joke. They are still trying to figure out who shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, and their article gives "equal time" between the Dutch Safety Board and Putinist propaganda. [45]. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, they, the Spanish, and the Germans appear to generally follow a neutral editorial line as set out by the BBC and Reuters, whereas we do not. -Darouet (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant what other language Wikipedias do. And by "follow a neutral editorial line" you simply mean "I like those versions better". Which is your right, but like I said, irrelevant here. Different Wikipedias have different policies. Likewise, BBC and Reuters aren't encyclopedias so they also do things differently. See WP:ALLEGED. We've been over this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BBC or Reuters editorial policies and attitudes are not irrelevant: these are considered flagship sources globally. If they write that hacking / interference is "alleged," they are not treating it as a fact but as an allegation. We have to be honest that if we treat interference as a fact, we are diverging from their policies about what is known, or not known. And while we are not obliged to follow other wikis, I've listed the approach taken by other language wikipedias because those approaches are consistent with reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, whereas our approach is not. -Darouet (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not challenging that RfC's close, since I think the issues raised here are broader than a choice between two options for a first sentence. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have to stop having this same discussion. That the Russian election interference happened is the neutral, widely-reported point of view. What is still to be determined is whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.- MrX00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MrX: No, that's not neutral at all, and what the above quotes that Darouet has put together show conclusively is that BBC and Reuters do not treat Russian interference as a fact. To reach compromise, we have to have a common basis to work from. One important aspect of that common basis has to be an acceptance by all editors here that reliable sources do not generally consider Russian interference a fact. We simply can't keep having this argument over and over again. Enough evidence has been presented to show that RSes generally treat Russian interference as uncertain, and to keep insisting that it's an established fact isn't reasonable at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a signature and I'm too lazy to search the history. So who took a quote from Trump and tried to attribute that as being the BBC's editorial stance? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not even going to bother clicking on the rest of the links when the first one is that bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is humorous: "alleged" is the BBC, the rest is Trump. If you are too lazy even to read one sentence, sure, why read anything else? -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: The BBC says, On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups." Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is WP:PASSINGMENTION not an essay yet? Apparently it needs to be explained thoroughly and in-depth to a number of users. Not by me, though. I don't have the patience to deal with editors still complaining about something that's been settled by countless RfC's and talk page discussions. But I'll give it the passing mention treatment: Trump's words are the ONLY part of that quote that actually makes a claim. The rest is just semantics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BBC explicitly calls it "alleged Russian hacking," as they regularly do when discussing the subject. We've had countless RfCs, but something I've noticed is that whenever we get to a discussion of sources, you and a number of other editors declare that we've already discussed this and refuse to actually acknowledge how the sources treat this subject. Darouet just listed a few dozen BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or a claim of unknown truth, rather than as a known fact, but you're not acknowledging that fact. This is how most reliable sources are treating the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your post addresses this at all. You've been presented with a list of BBC articles that refer to "alleged" Russian interference, and your only response (other than that you're not willing to read them) is that one of the articles doesn't deal with the issue at great enough length. I'm sorry, but that's not a real argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Whenever the BBC mentions "Russian hacking" or "Russian interference" in the US election, they always write "alleged." The same is true for Reuters. That is all this list shows - that they have had a consistent editorial policy that these are allegations, not facts. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, VM did not do anything of the sort. VM quoted two articles in which Reuters quotes US intelligence officials. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or in any way endorse what they're saying. News agencies quote Trump all the time, but that doesn't mean they agree with him. When Reuters covers "Russian interference," it generally uses "alleged" (or a synonym), unless it's clear that Reuters is quoting someone else. When quoting someone else, it's clear that "Russian interfernce" is an allegation, and Reuters doesn't have to use the word "alleged." This is a really simple concept, and it's incredibly frustrating to go round and round in circles on it. Darouet has provided proof above of the editorial position that the BBC and Reuters have taken, and you're essentially ignoring it. We have to have a basic agreement on facts if we're going to get anywhere, and it's clear that BBC and Reuters treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: Many thanks for putting together this list. This shows us that BBC and Reuters do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact, but rather prefix it with "alleged," "possible," and similar phrases. To the editors who are quickly dismissing this (above: Casprings, Geogene, SPECIFICO, MjolnirPants), please take Darouet's effort a bit more seriously. Darouet has done us all a huge favor by going through BBC and Reuters articles and showing what their editorial policy is regarding "alleged." I really would like to think that Wikipedia is a collaborative place where people are able to reach compromise on how to present contentious topics - even topics as contentious as current American politics. But compromise requires that editors be open to changing their mind when evidence is presented. The above evidence shows that what several editors have been insisting (reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact) is simply not true. If we can't have agreement on something as basic as this (something for which solid evidence has been presented), I don't think we'll be able to reach compromise on anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I typed in "Reuters Russian Hacking" into google. I got this [46]. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". The second hit was this. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". So I'm guessing the above lists was cherry picked to make a WP:POINT or is outdated. Regardless, there are also plenty of other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, your first source attributes the claim of Russian hacking to US officials: "Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday." Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing: "Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump." Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what's being discussed. We're not discussing what precise wording reliable sources use. We're discussing how they treat "Russian interference." Do they report it as a fact? Do they report it as a claim that certain people/groups are making? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but is there a point you're trying to make about the article? You said in your opening statement that you don't want to read the sources above, and now you're linking to random images on the web. I don't see what any of your posts here have to do with article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly acknowledge that the NYT and WP often write about interference from Russia as a fact. Reuters and the BBC never do so: for them it is always an allegation. But all four of those sources would never doubt the truth of evolution by natural selection, or the fact of the holocaust. In other words, among educated people and reliable sources, we recognize that we can have certainty about many things, but the fact of Russian interference in the US election. Right now we are taking a different, radical approach that is inconsistent with what we know via reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: It's fucking crazy how Wikipedia basically just parrots CIA/DNC propaganda on everything these days. What the hell happened to being an encyclopedia anyone can edit. 108.41.8.44 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reboot
The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.
Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.
This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the opening sentence is to be as above, then this page needs to be retitled "What the US Intelligence Agencies Think About Russian Interference". Equally, given that this page actually has the broader title "Russian Interference ..", the topic should not be defined from the outset by one (interested) party's view of the matter. A page about a noted historical unsolved murder which has been the subject of wide-ranging inquiry and speculation would not simply start "The Police think Mr X killed Mr Y". As noted previously, yes the CIA et al have declared/concluded (with some caveats) the interference occurred but it remains, at the same time, an allegation, because the CIA is not a court of law with the power to declare facts. There is no contradiction there. The page should say at the outset that these are allegations; then go on to set out that the IC say this, others say that. Sadly, the reaction to the detailed evidence presented above as to how third-party sources are quite deliberately and consciously treating this story as an allegation (something which is obvious from watching and reading media in the UK) is symptomatic of the simplistic politicisation of the issue in real life and on this page. N-HHtalk/edits09:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but equally what is the point of RfCs if they are just railroaded by the same editors who have long been most active on the page and the outcome is at best wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? Plus as noted by the starter of this thread, the issue is slightly broader and relates to the structure of the page as a whole rather than simply the exact wording of the first sentence. AFAICT, the option was between two versions of phrasing to describe the views of US agencies. My point is that we shouldn't privilege the views of US spy agencies or frame the article from the outset around their views, however we describe them. N-HHtalk/edits11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Time heals all wounds. Come back in 6 months. Maybe consensus will change. Maybe BBC will change. Nothing to see here for now. SPECIFICOtalk11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is this supposed to mean - the BBC and Reuters treat this as alleged for now, but maybe eventually they won't? That's not the way this works. "Nothing to see here for now" is equivalent to writing "who cares what reliable sources write?" -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Ars Technica source [47] being debated above, Goodin makes two interesting observations. One is that the government's report on the North Korea Sony hacks was criticized on the same grounds, and two, that it was "likely" that the reason the report was light on evidence was because the intelligence community doesn't want to teach the Russians how to evade detection. Last two paragraphs. So it's not an accurate representation of the source to throw in a quote from Goodin that says "no evidence!" [48] and leave it at that. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to include Goodin's analysis (and so far, there is no consensus to do so), we should summarize his key points rather than quote the entire lede.- MrX01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy edited the material to properly summarize the source. That should not be interpreted as an endorsement for keeping any of the Goodin material per my previous comments.- MrX14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a better summary of the source. It took one very minor element of Goodin's article, and then prefaced it with a suggestive wording that's not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article ("while acknowledging that ..." suggests that what follows is true, even though we don't know if it is). I've restored the previous summary of Goodin's article. The above discussion suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article. Before changing this passage (and I don't see why it should be changed), propose the changes you'd like to make, and see if there's consensus for them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "above discussion" DOES NOT "suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article." There are strong objections. It's still UNDUE and should be minimized or removed altogether. SPECIFICO is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does show the majority favor inclusion. Discussion has slowed with no new arguments or editors since the 10th (I believe.) We can revisit this if new information comes to light or, if an editor feels strongly they can start an RfC. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. For the record, I'm also opposed to including it per the arguments above. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are "strong objections" to nearly every aspect of this article, but that doesn't mean that us editors with strong objections get to blockade everything. The strong objections to including Goodin's article on the JAR have been noted, but a majority of editors thought it merited inclusion.
@Fyddlestix: The above discussion showed a majority for inclusion, and the arguments against inclusion were simply weak. I asked BullRangifer several times to support their claim that Goodin's analysis of the JAR has been contradicted by later reporting, but BullRangifer was never able to provide any sources to back up that claim. A number of other arguments were tried, like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, but the JAR is an important part of this story, so expert reaction to it is eminently WP:DUE, and the reactions that Goodin goes over are anything but WP:FRINGE. They were the mainstream reaction among experts to the JAR. The arguments fell flat, and a majority of editors favored inclusion. That should be good enough for inclusion.
Just generally, I don't understand why there's such opposition to including a short journalistic summary of expert reactions to the JAR. This is a very small addition of a larger article, and the addition reflects a completely mainstream analysis, so I don't understand how one can object so strongly to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[52] -- At least one White House insider is quoted as saying it's more "terrifying" than "goofy" -- we need to see more RS reporting on this. SPECIFICOtalk01:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell and Georgetown University professors quoted on the seriousness of the national security risk of the Trump administration apparently letting Russian government bring electronic devices into oval office. Here: [53]. Former Deputy Director of the CIA and a former KGB spy's comments also were also reported. Trump staff claimed to have been "tricked."[54][55][56].
This is being widely discussed in the mainstream media and it appears increasingly significant to the topic of the article. SPECIFICOtalk11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reports indicate that a White House official photographer was present as well as the official Russian photographer. Amusing anecdote for the ongoing spy story but this is certainly not related to election interference. WP:KITCHENSINK? — JFGtalk14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel again. What reports? RS please? The POTUS slipping highest security access to the Russians is not kitchen sink. And that is not my opinion, because I have no particular interest in the Americans. But this is receiving huge ongoing coverage including coverage of real accredited experts, not the "consultant pundit" and blogmeister types. SPECIFICOtalk14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG:Waiting to hear back from you what RS reports that the a White House official photographer was in the Oval Office for the meeting of Trump+Russians. The exlcusion of US press has received ongoing coverage in light of the subsequent leaks of discussion in that meeting, including Trump's remarks concerning his dismissal of Director Comey and his boasts that he shared information which intelligence experts believe compromised Israeli intelligence assets in Syria. @MelanieN: I'd be interested in your current thoughts as to whether you still agree that the exclusion of non-Russian press was just an amusing anecdote. I am inclined to add some article content on this. Also pinging @Slatersteven: who commented below. SPECIFICOtalk19:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you prefer CNN on May 12: The White House blocked US reporters from photographing the meeting, opting to allow only White House and a sole Russian photographer to capture images of the leaders' interactions. — JFGtalk19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether the American media was excluded. According to every RS report, the American press was excluded. The CNN video on the page you link above states that the American media was excluded around 3:20 in the video. It is irrelevant whether an White House photographer under Trump Administration's control was permitted in the room. That's not American media and it doesn't help address our editorial duties to deflect from the issue. JFG has cited a stale report that did not have the full context of subsequent revelations concerning the meeting. It is contextualized in the majority of more recent mainstream accounts, e.g. [57][58][59]. SPECIFICOtalk21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely answering your question about a source stating that a White House photographer was present in addition to the Kremlin photographer: I gave you two sources. Now you ask why the press was excluded; I have no idea but methinks you're reading too much into this. Trump met the Ukrainian foreign minister the same day and it doesn't look like the press was invited either. — JFGtalk22:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the description "amusing anecdote". It is not part of this story (Russian interference in the election). And it is not receiving "huge ongoing coverage", at least not in mainstream/neutral sources. It was a best a one-time sidebar. Reflective, perhaps, of Trump's ongoing eagerness to be pals with the Russians, but that is not (at this time) part of this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just grabbed a few quick RS discussions, but apparently if JFG is seeing revisionist accounts of the matter it must be receiving ongoing attention both from the White House and from the mainstream press accounts JFG has seen. According to the links I found, the possibility of a Russian surveillance device in the Oval Office is a big deal. Why is the appearance that US officials may be facilitating ongoing Russian interference in the US any less relevant than the long list of other follow-up events that we have included in the article? SPECIFICOtalk 15:01, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
Now it finally all makes sense: Russian intelligence services worked very hard to get Trump elected, so that they could plant a microphone in the Oval Office and listen to him fuming at CNN all day while Putin strokes his white cat. Bwahahahahaha!!! — JFGtalk18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The strange and unprecedented and exclusion of US media in favor of a Russian "photographer" from Tass is once again in the news with the reports in RS press that Trump compromised US national security by sharing classified information from which US intelligence assets locations or identities can be inferred.[60][61]SPECIFICOtalk23:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia
I also agree, whilst telling it also may just be Trumps inability to engage brain before opening mouth But I also do not think that "Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia" what he (literally) says is that it was a thing he was thinking about, not that it was the reason he fired him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with this interpretation of his comment. Trump did not "literally just admit" he fired Comey because of Russia. Not even close. He was talking about the firing, and he mentioned the investigation in the same breath, but that is a long way from saying the investigation was the cause. He might just as well have been talking about the timing: "I know this looks bad with the investigation going on, but I'm not worried because that is a phony issue." See discussion below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that viewpoint. However, it is still noteworthy that when Trump explains this, his next sentence is about Russia and this occurs on the same day the White House Spokesman says that the firing would hopefully help bring the investigation to clousure. Moreover, this is support by WP:RS's. Let's use the needed wording, but I still believe that is notable.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it is OR, sure if an RS makes the link we might be able to say "according to X,Y,Z Donny's decision was seen as questionable" (or some such) we cannot say that this was the reason for the firing, only an accusation. Even then I am not sure this is all that note worthy, it rads just a bit too nudge nudge to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say it said that. It says that: "President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.". That is what RS sources say, in general. Casprings (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I assumed you were using it to support your thread title as a text for inclusion. What wording are you asking to be included?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?"
These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.
"In April, the Guardian published a story revealing GCHQ’s role, under the headline “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia”. On Monday, Clapper confirmed the report – an unusual move. Asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein whether the article were true, he said: “Yes, it is and it’s also quite sensitive … The specifics are quite sensitive.”
The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:
You know I'm a liberal, but right now I wouldn't state as fact anything that comes from Clapper. Attribution should be required, as he is clearly not an unbiased source at this point. I'm not saying not to use interviews with him, but I wouldn't go overboard with it.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Attribution is the rule for opinions. Only uncontested facts (the sun sets in the west, etc.) don't get refs, and opinions do get attribution, especially if they are controversial. This has nothing to do with whether we actually use content from a RS. Of course we use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says we do not know anything, but quotes two controversial former intelligence officers whose previous statements have been questioned. TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we "know" is ultimately irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. That can easily be judged as OR. What we do "know" is what RS say, and we document what they report, without censorship. If they have a bias, we must, per NPOV, preserve that bias, unaffected by editorial bias or censorship.
What we know is what the article says and it says we don't know anything. Accurate reporting of sources is not OR, it's what we are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, even if some detail of their statements has been questioned, most of their statements have not been questioned, but instead confirmed, and they certainly know more than any of us or the public, and definitely more than the Trump people, because they are being kept in the dark as any suspects would be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When intelligence officers say "I'm not sure about the accuracy of that article", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. When news outlets omit important information, I'm not so willing. Politrukki (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. Show a bit of respect for your fellow editor's work. I don't alter your comments, and you don't alter mine. Okay? These sources are potential content, so those refs may be helpful, even if you don't think so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what I was referring to with my comment earlier was to mean that anything which Clapper says about the investigation, Trump or Russia should be carefully attributed, including claims of fact for which he would otherwise be considered a reliable primary source.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants, you also mentioned Clapper in relation to bias. We should expect everyone to have a bias, and that having a bias is not necessarily a bad thing in real life, and for Wikipedia's purposes, does not preclude using them. On the contrary. We want to document real, biased, opinions. We should just attribute them. No big deal and nothing unusual. He should not be treated any differently than anyone else (but if you were to put him up against Trump, he's obviously more honest and reliable). That goes without saying, so attribute both of them, as usual. We don't censor them or use them less because of any bias.
If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: and anyone else reading my comments: I had a serious, ongoing brain fart. I had completely mixed up James Clapper and James Comey, leading me to be mistaken about what the sources were saying. I agree with you about Clapper and am striking my comments above (I still feel the same way about Comey, but as this isn't a case of Comey commenting on the investigation, those thoughts aren't applicable). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.05:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the lead
The last sentence of the lead is poorly worded and not a significant fact worthy of the lead. I think we can do better than highlight that the administration has once again bumbled its stories. I think this should be left out entirely:
The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but later a White House spokesperson expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end and Trump stated “When I decided [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”[1]
The President stating he fired someone because of an ongoing investigation evolving his campaign seems pretty significant to me.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The President most certainly did not say that he fired Comey because of an ongoing investigation. He said “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” - MrX11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this last part of the sentence should be removed. It is a stretch beyond the sources to claim he said he fired Comey because of the investigation. He didn't. He mentioned the investigation in the same breath as saying he fired Comey, that's all. But I do think there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article. Maybe we could restore the wording of that sentence the way it was before the Trump quote was added:
The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but a later White House comment expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end, and FBI insiders said they thought he had been terminated because of his refusal to end that investigation.
We should let the hullabaloo calm down before summarizing the fundamental, potentially longstanding, information into the lead. Too early to judge. In the same interview, Trump also said he wanted the Russia investigation to be pursued until the FBI gets to the bottom of it, and quickly at that. What do we pick? His rambling "I said to myself…" has no encyclopedic value. People who expect to find a smoking gun naturally want the inquiry expanded, while Trump naturally wants it shortened. This can't go on forever either way. — JFGtalk14:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I don't think writing about how the administration continuously changes their story and lies to the public has any place in the lead of an article about Russian election interference. I assume that indictments will soon be handed down, followed by trials and long prison sentences. That's the type of material that belongs in the lead.- MrX14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have anything at all in the lede that shows people making an explicit connection between the firing and this investigation, it can lead to the question "why is the firing of Comey even mentioned in this article?" --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. And if you and others don't think it should be in the led, that's also cool. I think it should, but whatever. It just gets really questionable to me if it is pulled out of the article. That doesn't make sense to me, given the numbers of sources that connect the firing to Russia. Casprings (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @MrX: No. POV and UNDUE, goes way beyond the main thrust of the reporting. Also not really relevant to this article, which is about the investigation, not about Trump. @Casprings: It is already in the article and will stay there. The discussion here is about whether it should also be in the last sentence of the lede. I think it should, as a fair representation of what is in the article and an indication of the connection between the firing and the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it does need to be there. I would also say some of the commentary from WP:RS's go to the point MrX said. I would think the language needs to be weakened, but it should provide some mention for why the firing is important to the article.Casprings (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can censor the POTUS because he sounds "rambling". I think this should be included but it needs to be stated in more specific terms with some attribution, e.g. "press accounts and public opinion polling indicated that..." or something. The article needs to provide a clear exposition for a reader starting with no prior knowledge of the subject or the cast of characters. Editors also must avoid attributing motives to notable individuals based on our POV -- long vs. short inquiry, e.g. SPECIFICOtalk16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to including Trump's ramblings on the body of the article, but such quotes don't belong in the lead, when general summary will better inform readers.- MrX16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @MelanieN: Do you object to the entire sentence, or just the 'obstruction of justice part'? You suggested that "there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article." I think we should talk about why people are making the connection between the subject and the firing, rather than detail about inconsistent explanations from the administration. - MrX16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the "obstruction of justice" part. That is about Trump and possible vulnerabilities on his part; it has nothing to do with the Russia investigation which is the subject of this article. Maybe we can come up with a new sentence that does not put words in anybody's mouth or attempt to interpret a typically hard-to-parse comment from Trump, but just gets across the fact that many people are making the connection (who and how being expanded on in the text). How about "While various reasons were given for the firing, many sources including some from the White House itself suggested that it was related to the Russia investigation." That doesn't necessarily mean Trump; some of his surrogates openly hinted at a connection, and some anonymous administration sources said it outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with leaving off the obstruction of justice part. I think your proposed wording would work, allowing for tweaks as more information is reported.- MrX18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that POTUS' statements do not have to be in the lede. The trick -- this comes up a lot with this subject matter -- is to find brief but accurate summaries that do not omit content or context. If he blurted out an alternative narrative for his decision to fire Comey it's no less credible as a blurt, and it's pure ABOUTSELF on the key point, not hubbledyhoo or blog chatter. SPECIFICOtalk17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep it short and factual in the lead, following MrX's proposal and MelanieN's comments: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was criticized as an attempt to curtail the FBI investigation." (pick one of the gazillion sources making that case) — JFGtalk18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine except for the weasel "criticised" -- and note it's not even the more informative weasel "widely criticised". And we do not ask readers to go pick their own sources. This isn't a roadside peachpick. If it's widespread, we should say so with a source and widespread among whom? SPECIFICOtalk19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I picked an appropriate source from the article body, titled "Donald Trump fired James Comey because 'he refused to end Russia investigation', say multiple FBI insiders". — JFGtalk19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text @JFG: has added to the article does not reflect consensus here and I'm surprised to see it "done" while there's an ongoing discussion as to the clarity of what I feel is a clear example of a weasel participle. Please undo your premature insertion and let's work this through. There are other editors who have not commented on MrX's suggestion yet. SPECIFICOtalk19:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SPECIFICO: Could we please see your proposed version? I don't quite understand your objection to using the verb 'critisized'. Do you have a better word to describe the backlash?- MrX19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criticized by whom, how widely, according to which authority that tells us it is widely criticised. Your version could also in a few words indicate the reporting that this view "criticized" is not based on personal opinion but on Trump's own statement on the tube. Also, we really do need to wait a few hours for others such as @Casprings: who may not spend all day on the computer, to contribute to the consensus. And I don't think adding back a version in the middle of a converging but as yet unresolved discussion, is constructive. I have an evening engagement, but I will give it some thought per your request. Meanwhile it's pointless to rush a significant revision into the article in the middle of a discussion. It's great that you and JFG agreed on this proposal, but let's wait until the other 34 editors here might have a look. SPECIFICOtalk19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would better conclude the lede text, while leaving details to the corpus of the article. "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump fired Comey as head of the FBI on May 9, 2017." SPECIFICOtalk16:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but we already say that Comey was FBI Director at the beginning of this paragraph. I would suggest to cut "as head of the FBI" and just keep "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017." SPECIFICO? — JFGtalk19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MelanieN. The current version in the article is: "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump dismissed Comey as head of the FBI on May 9, 2017." and I just suggested shortening it to: "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017." Before you left, it was: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was criticized as an attempt to curtail the FBI investigation.", Casprings suggested adding the "widely" qualifier, then Specifico switched the sentence around to conclude with the dismissal. — JFGtalk22:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Eyes Cryin: Welcome to this article… Yes, what the intelligence reports actually say differs from what media sources and politicians have been peddling. What security analysts actually say differs from what scaremongering pundits are pushing. C'est la vie… — JFGtalk07:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: You didn't explain anything above. You showed that two Reuters articles report on what US intelligence officials are saying, and then claimed that that disproved the point that Reuters and BBC treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You and everyone else here understands that when a news agency reports, "Person X said Y," they're not endorsing position Y. The "stunt" here is pretending not to understand that basic distinction. Have a bit of respect for the work Darouet put in and acknowledge the stance taken by the BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed. Darouet gave you a long list of BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You then pretended not to understand the difference between citing a US official who says Russia interfered and the newspaper itself taking a stance on the issue. It is getting tiring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, to give you the benefit of doubt for the moment - can you link where "as explained above" refers to? You made a talk post about finding two Reuters sources - [63][64] - which quote the opinions of various U.S. officials and authorities, and never state or imply that Russia did interfere in the election. If you're referring to something else you wrote I'd like to know what it is. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Darouet claim that the BBC and Reuters "always" use the word "alleged" to describe the interference. I then saw VM prove that statement wrong. The evidence is just above on this very page. Asking us to provide you links is just more WP:IDHT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Darouet wrote: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” VM cited two articles in which Reuters is "quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials." It gets tiresome to go over this again and again. Volunteer Marek and MjolnirPants, can't you just admit at this point that what Darouet said about BBC and Reuters was accurate? VM in particular likes to quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so they should understand my frustration here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, Darouet said they always use the word "alleged" and VM proved that they didn't. Not that it would even matter, because one or two large media groups taking an editorial policy to prefer a certain phrasing doesn't change how they actually treat the subject, a discussion you and I have had numerous times over the past six months or so, and which I've observed you to have with numerous other editors over that time, as well. This issue was settled quite some time ago. The fact that there are a small handful of editors who continue to push this POV despite their arguments having been brought up and shot down countless times is evidence of nothing but that old, discredited canard about insanity. I suppose that might be of particular interest to you two, because it shows that a claim which is obviously false can still contain quite a bit of truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: No. This is getting so ridiculous, I can't actually believe you're just making an honest mistake any more. Darouet wrote, “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added). Read the bolded part of the quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Can you please stop replying to my post if you don't even read what I'm writing? My words unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials blatantly contradict your false paraphrase, they always use the word "alleged". -Darouet (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: that is some form of special pleading - every article I cited, and those VM linked as well, either demonstrate or are consistent with the fact that Reuters and BBC treat this as an unsubstantiated allegation. Your initial reaction to the quotes was to so blatantly misread the first that you declared you would read no more. Your attitude hasn't changed at all. You write here like you made up your mind a long time ago and no number of sources would ever convince you otherwise. We need to have some solution that involves outside parties here because this kind of conversation will go nowhere. -Darouet (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly about the need for outside parties to get involved here. We're clearly at a point where no amount of reliable sourcing will change people's minds (see the Reuters/BBC thread above, where dozens of sources were met with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I don't know if dispute resolution is the correct venue, since it's frankly unlikely that many people will participate. Perhaps someone more familiar with the various community input mechanisms can propose a way forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious horse-beating rehashing minor issues and personal insults is not likely to make for attracting new editors here. SPECIFICOtalk23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Anyone can read through the talk page (and the archives) and make up their own minds about who's been more civil here. I have no doubt about what a neutral third party would conclude. The issues raised above are not minor: whether to treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation or an established fact is a very basic question we have to get straight, because it affects how the entire article should be written. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different sources have different editorial policies regarding the use of the word allegedly. We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say which reliable sources constitute that preponderance? Also, if a significant number of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation, why should Wikipedia take a more confident position? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, rather than getting ahead of reliable sources like BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arrghghgh. Stop it! We've done this. This isn't fucking Groundhog's Day where we relive the same damn discussion over and over and over and over and over and over again until it works out to your satisfaction. Your behavior is past being disruptive at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC
I'm not going to stop asking for sources. You and others keep saying things like, "We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS," without actually showing that that is the case. You basically want the article to be a certain way, without actually having to show that reliable sources support your preferred version. You just assert that they do, and complain when I ask you for sources. And when I or others who disagree with you show sources, you reject them out of hand (see the above discussion initiated by Darouet). That's what's disruptive here. If you'd just agree to deal with the sources, you wouldn't be living in Groundhog Day. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an answer. Only use the talk page for discussion of article improvement. Responding with random jokes is disrespectful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same answer that a couple of dozen other editors have given over a period of months. If one surveys "all of them" one finds the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream reports and discussions of the Russian interference does not express uncertainty as to the Russians' interference. The full details and connections to Trump and his associates are not yet demonstrated, and that's why we see those factors widely described as "suspected" "alleged" or whatnot. As a matter of fact, the juxtaposition of those two differentiated modes of reporting -- fact vs. allegation -- is the cat that eats the canary. SPECIFICOtalk12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting all of our time. Back up your claims with actual citations or stop posting. Darouet showed that when it comes to BBC and Reuters, you're wrong. Obviously, Ars Technica has expressed doubt about the US government's case (see the Goodin article), and I've shown that major European papers, Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung, treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. I also showed the same for the Associated Press. That means that for at least five of the most influential news publications in the world, your assertion is wrong. Which papers treat "Russian interference" as fact, and why should we follow them instead of Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ars Technica reported that Trump fired Comey because the latter was not nice to Hillary Clinton. Did Le Monde and Reuters do the same? SPECIFICOtalk16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BBC uses alleged.
The only ref in Süddeutsche Zeitung that I could find was an interview of Germany’s spy chief warning that Russian hackers are pelting his country with disinformation that could undermine the democratic process, echoing concerns already voiced by his domestic intelligence counterpart. [65]
Here Le Monde states that the Democrats were hacked, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain En savoir plus sur, which is to say American intelligence imputed to the Russians, which is what this article says. It says that American intelligence announced the Russians hacked the Democrats; but it has yet to be tied to the Trump team. [66]
Here’s the first related AP story I could find in the AP. [67]. It says: The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.. It doesn’t say alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t find any mention of alleged in this recent Reuters article. [68]
I don’t even consider Ars Technica one of the better tech sites, much less a source of serious news.
Thank you for looking into sources. Let's go through the ones you listed, keeping in mind Darouet's statement about the BBC and Reuters: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”.
I agree about BBC (and Reuters, based on the sources above).
Reuters gives a summary of a Süddeutsche Zeitung interview with the head of German foreign intelligence: [69]. When the Süddeutsche Zeitung interviews someone, there's no implication that the SZ agrees with the interviewee's statements. We can take Bruno Kahl's statements as a reflection of his own beliefs, but not as a reflection of the SZ's editorial position. This is in line with What Darouet said about BBC/Reuters: “they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added).
The Le Monde article you linked does indeed talk of "piratages informatiques ciblant les démocrates, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain" (my translation: "hacks targeted at the Democrats, attributed to Russia by American intelligence services"). Le Monde very clearly attributes the view that Russia is responsible for the hacks to US intelligence, which is in line with what BBC and Reuters do. Le Monde doesn't take a stance on whether or not this attribution is correct. This is what I've found, in general, reading Le Monde.
The AP wire you linked says that "The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election." That's what the Senate Judiciary subcommittee is investigating. I don't see any statement by AP that Russia interfered in the election. I just see a description of the subject of the investigation.
The Reuters article you link specifically attributes the theories expressed in the article to US intelligence officials: "A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters" (emphasis added). This is entirely in line with what Darouet said above about Reuters and BBC.
If this were a straightforward matter of reliable sources treating Russian interference as a fact, it would be easy to find statements in all these publications explicitly saying things like, "Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and passed the documents on to Wikileaks." But what we've found here is that most reliable sources don't make any such explicit statement. They either use the word "alleged" (or some synonym) or attribute the view that Russia interfered in the election to the people making the claim (normally, US intelligence officials). I don't think we should get out ahead of reliable sources like BBC, Reuters, SZ and Le Monde, and make statements of fact that those sources seem unwilling to make. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000:"Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged." The sources that do not use "alleged" are mostly quoting from US intelligence officials. When a newspaper quotes someone, it doesn't mean that the newspapers is endorsing that person's views. A major problem is that many editors here are taking such examples (where a newspaper says, "US intelligence officials say that ...") as evidence that newspapers treat "Russian interference" as a fact.
We have many examples of newspapers explicitly calling "Russian interference" an allegation. We have very few examples of them endorsing the view that "Russian interference" is a fact. I think the balance of reliable sourcing is clear now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have two points with regard to your initial post: First, our widespread practice is to use WP:SECONDARY sources, in this case reputable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets that have reputations for fact checking. Second, your apparent interpretation that an influence campaign in U.S. elections by Russia is somehow substantively different than Russian interference in the U.S. elections underscores why we use secondary sources. Primary sources are far more vulnerable to being viewed through the lens of editor bias, education, intelligence, experiences, culture, and language. Allowing any random person on the internet to interpret primary sources whilst editing Wikipedia articles would erode the integrity of the information that we try to preserve. I imagine that we would become about as useful an encyclopedia as Conservapedia, the 56,319th most popular website on the planet, instead of being the 5th most popular website on the planet.- MrX12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why secondary sources are used, the issue is that the assertion in question is falsely attributed to the primary source instead of those secondary sources. But the issue I brought up here has been so thoroughly derailed that I see no point in wasting any more time on it. Funny how that happens whenever anyone points out demonstrably false statements in political articles. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ironic that one of the extraordinarily small number of editors still beating this dead horse months later has the gal to accuse others of wasting their time. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow
President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI director was the latest in a series of destabilizing jolts to core institutions of the U.S. government, actions that, although driven by the president, have in some ways amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its effort to undermine the 2016 presidential race. And while the Kremlin may have hoped for sanctions relief from the Trump administration, the tumult in the United States is a welcome alternative.
So what? Speculative opinion by a WaPo columnist stuck in a Cold War paranoid mentality, that's all. Do you really believe that the replacement of the FBI director is a "jolt to core institutions of the U.S. government"? The new French president abruptly replaced the head of their intelligence services, without even a justification, and nobody says it's a coup. The tumult in Washington may be fun to observe from afar, but it certainly doesn't undermine the U.S. institutions. Trump does irritate Washingtonians, who voted 95% for Clinton. — JFGtalk05:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the front page lead news story by a Pulitzer Prize winning news reporter in the Washington Post. The French bit is yet another straw man. Different law, precedent, context, and stated motivation. Misrepresentation is disrespectful to the community and to Mr. Miller. SPECIFICOtalk10:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And come on, even Trump's man Tillerson says they did it, without any 'alleged' in there [70]. I'm pretty sure even Trump agreed that they did it (I think the source for that is already in the article). The only question is how and why and who was involved. This is really a pointless discussion at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a pointless discussion at this point. I agree. I would like to point out that the onus for ceasing this endless argument lies on all editors involved, not just those pushing the minority POV. All of us should stop discussing this. I'm aware that the minority view is unlikely to heed my advice, but if the majority view does listen to me, the result will be the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a suggestion here [71] that NeilN consider whether reinstating the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision, which remains in place on most other ARBAP2 pages, would relieve us all of the edit-warring and the need to reply to repetitive minority arguments to change consensus. As it stands, when editors don't reply to each attempt to change consensus, silence is claimed to be assent and edit-warring ensues. The reinstatement of that provision would obviate these repetitive and needless rehash pile-ups. SPECIFICOtalk15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about asking for an admin to impose a "Silence is not assent" provision? This discussion has been going on for months. It is as old as this article, and the direction of the sources clearly favors the majority view. Hell, even without adding any provisions to the DS, one could place a note at the top of the page which would excuse 3RR violations which enforce the existing consensus. Something like "Note that other editors failing to respond to your proposal should not be taken as assent. If your proposal does not get any responses, you should check the page archives to see if it has been discussed previously, and you should abide by the decisions made there. I know for a fact that there are at least two RfC's in the archives covering the "alleged or not" argument. So that would solve that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MjolnirPants! I agree with you that the perennial disputes are as old as the article itself. When you exclude the occasional drive-by editors, there is a core constituency of people who would like to reflect a diversity of opinions about the article subject, and another core constituency who demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of "the mainstream view". That is imho not what a Wikipedia article should be. I have absolutely no problem laying out the majority view as dominant and widely accepted; I do have a problem when that view is the only one tolerated in the article. That creates a strong impression of systemic bias, which would be easily dispelled with a little less absolutism. — JFGtalk16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, your description is correct, but lacking in one key detail. Namely that the consensus lies with the "core constituency" who, in your words "demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of 'the mainstream view'." With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus. But until you can make such a case, the continual arguing over how to describe this is never going to accomplish anything except adding to the list of conservative editors under sanctions in this area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, the editors of the consensus view are not the ones who have been blocked and banned for disruption. It's fine for editors to hold personal opinions contrary to the mainstream, and it's conceivable that the rotation of the earth will change and Lee Harvey Oswald will confess to the hacking. Meanwhile, we need to find a way to avoid this intolerable waste of WP resources and editor attention. SPECIFICOtalk17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Calling one core constituency the "consensus" is an exaggeration. The two constituencies are similar in size, with the "represent only the views of US intelligence" constituency being a majority, but by no means an overwhelming one. The "treat the issue with the same caution as BBC, Reuters, and most other major news outlets" constituency is a very significant minority here. "Consensus" suggests something more than a 60%/40% split, which looks to be approximately what we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet one side consistently looses all RfC's by the numbers (not to mention by the arguments, but since that's been explained to you a hundred times, I doubt doing so again is worth much). And for the record, a consensus is not a majority. You should know this by now. A consensus can still be a consensus with only 10% of the vote, if that 10% can shoot down the arguments of the 90% and a neutral third party is the one who declares it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfCs are typically close. There's clearly a large minority that's in favor of a less US-intelligence-centric presentation of the subject matter. Obviously, I don't agree with you that the majority view wins by the arguments. For example, the minority view pretty obviously has the stronger reliable-source-based argument, and has done much more to show what the sources say.
The issue hasn't been the weakness of the arguments of the minority side - it's simply been the numbers being roughly 60%/40%. These RfCs are almost always closed based on sheer vote count, not based on an analysis of the relative strength of the arguments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus." Sadly, this hasn't been the case. Above, Darouet went through BBC and Reuters reporting and showed quite clearly what their editorial stance is. That was brushed off (which was a great disrespect, in my opinion, since no one else on this talk page has done that much work to go through the source material). I went through a random assortment of press coverage of the issue a few months ago (here), but that also had no effect. Instead, I was accused of cherry-picking (I actually chose the first Google hits for the search phrase "Russian interference in us election"). That's why I'm baffled that every time this issue comes up, a number of editors show up and say things like, "We've already shown abundant RS that treat Russian interference as a fact." Looking through the archives of the talk page, the opposite is actually the case. The majority of the source work - seeing whether sources treat Russian interference as fact - has actually been done by the "constituency" that wants to present a range of views in the article. The other constituency has consistently blown off these discussions of reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point above was that we need to STOP arguing about something you and yours stand no chance of winning. Whether you're ignoring that part of my comments for the sake of tendentiousness, managed to just completely miss the most obvious point of my comments or just can't help yourself really doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, and I'm going to keep advising everyone else to stop humoring you as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point above is that no matter how many times we show that reliable sources, on balance, support a cautious approach to the subject matter, we're told to just give up the argument. I thought reliable sources were supposed to dictate how we cover an issue. Consistently brushing off any discussion of how reliable sources treat the subject, and then saying you're going to stop "humoring" this discussion, looks very much to me like a simple blockading approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a fair number of editors care what it looks like, and a fair number of editors agree with my view about the systemic bias in this article. Refusing to address these issues doesn't make them disappear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough is enough. Even your own sources don’t always use the word alleged or any word like it. At this point, does anyone actually think there isn’t Russian interference in elections? Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” I don't know why, but you (and a few others) constantly ignore the bolded part of that sentence. Can you reply to the bolded part of the sentence? Do you agree that when a newspaper quotes or paraphrases someone, the newspaper isn't necessarily implying that that person is correct? If you agree, I don't see how you can use the absence of "alleged" in the articles you cited as evidence that Le Monde, Reuters, etc. treat "Russian interference" as something other than an allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of thinking there wasn't Russian interference in the elections. It's a matter of not knowing whether there was Russian interference. Most reliable sources do not claim to know whether Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. That's been established pretty clearly by the above discussions about reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, a "claim" is a statement made without evidence (e.g., Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him), the US intelligence agencies have substantial evidence, so they drew conclusions based on the evidence. To say that Russian interference is a claim would be unsourced, non-neutral, and of course, false. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A claim can be made with evidence. It's simply a statement that is unproven. How much evidence US intelligence agencies actually have is unknown at this point. The publicly released evidence (e.g., in the JAR) is very sparse, and there's speculation that there may be weightier evidence that's classified. Almost all the available evidence comes from private security firms, at this point.
We don't really know what the intelligence agencies have concluded - we'd have to have telepathic powers or some inside information to know that. We know what they publicly state, and past experience shows that there's often a wide gulf between what intelligence agencies state publicly and internally assess (that's in the very nature of their being secretive organizations). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Intelligence agencies concluded" is a statement of fact. One can dislike the fact, one can disagree with the conclusion, but that it is a fact is not something that can be negotiated. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources that state that the United States government's intelligence agencies did NOT conclude the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections? If not, I don't understand your point. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claims can be made without evidence but conclusions presume evidence. In this case, intelligence weighed evidence, so conclusion is a better description. Since conclusions are not necessarily correct or even reasonable, I don't think the term is inaccurate. If evidence shows they are wrong, we would change it to "wrongly concluded." TFD (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of issues with the lead that doesn't seem neutral. The word interfere seems to mean too many things also and needs more information. The intelligence reports more likely showed they were trying to influence the election. So using influenced is more likely what he intelligence documents were saying. The media outlets and others are sensationalizing the story and making it into a bigger story than the intelligence reports actually found. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually exactly why "interfered" is better than "influenced". The latter implies that it had an actual effect. The former only that there was an attempt - whether successful or not - at influence. So I think you got it backwards. Also "media outlets", at least those which meet our criteria, is exactly what we use as reliable sources. So you're not going to get far by asking Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources because you happen personally to believe they are "sensationalizing" something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I should say trying to influence. That implies that they tried to but doesn't mean they actually did. Interfere sounds more substantial to me than influence the election. I guess we are now talking semantics on this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
semantics is essential. Without meaning we can say nothing. Influenced is a causal term that implies an effect. Interfered means actions were taken to influence the election outcome, but it does not imply that these actions actually influenced the outcome. I think what you may be getting at is that "interfered" carries with it intent whereas "influenced" does not imply intent. However, sources clearly establish intent on the part of the Russian government. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I guess I should become a lawyer because it looks like an be an argument of meaning and definitions of words here. The word influenced might carry with it intent because they intended to do effect the election which is the same as interfere which also carries intent of changing something in the election. Influence simply means they were trying to influence the voter and participants of the election. They weren't actually trying to interfere with the actual election itself though. Interference seems to be more of a forceful action of doing something. In any case there can be intent with either one. You can intend to influence an election and also intend to interfere in an election. Its not about intent but more about the actions which were specifically took and the evidence that supports it with the sources. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be worth asking yourself; can you imagine a situation in which one party was "trying to influence" something without "interfering" in it? From where I sit, the only way to attempt to influence something without interfering would be prayer. And if you believe in God, then whether or not you've interfered by praying becomes an arguable point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a lawyer. You should become a Philosopher or a priest. But we're not lawyers or philosophers here. Just lowly editors -- most of us with no particular opinion as to the underlying facts and events. Just scouring reliable sources for the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICOtalk19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is differences in the words obviously and how they are being used. It seems that interference has more of an action with it and different intention with it. The definition of interfere is more about trying to stop a process or something from occurring with it. It has more of an effect on the thing happening and what is occurring. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the with the intelligence community conclusions, the problem is the completely synthesized relationship to the Trump campaign and the investigations around Russian influence. There simply is no current link and to synthesize one is beyond what a neutral encyclopedia should be. --DHeyward (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem seems to be that some news media sources dont even use those intelligence conclusions. They make up their own conclusions. Then this being wikipedia they are allowed to have them as sources and be used on here with little thought. Simply because they have been granted almighty status because they are media companies. Fox news can also say what they want and many on the other side would scream bloody murder if they were used. So I guess it can go both ways with this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any actual evidence (not just media reports) that U.S. intelligence agencies either concluded or claimed that Russia interfered in U.S. elections? If not, why do so many editors insist on attributing that assertion (instead of the one actually made in the cited intelligence report) to U.S. intelligence agencies instead of media reports? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the evidence of this includes the released IC assessment. Media reports from reliable outlets are adequate, too. GABgab21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're referring to the same IC assessment cited by those media reports, it does not in fact say that, as I assume you know. If you're referring to a different IC assessment, please provide a link. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to why reliable sources all saying "they concluded X" isn't enough evidence that they concluded X. If there is that broad of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, then any attempt to get around it on a public part of the internet is doomed to failure, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have access to the very same primary sources cited by and used by those supposedly reliable sources. They're not suppressing the truth, they're just relying on the fact that they can cite a primary source, even provide a link to it, and still get by with claiming it says something it doesn't because their intended audience won't bother to check because they like getting spoonfed. Wikipedia can bother to check. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources should at least be examined more. Do you trust Fox news as a reliable source? Some people do and others don't. So the definition of a reliable sources doesn't mean much unless you are able to look at them more. Also the intelligence reports say influence from what I have seen in them. They don't mention anything more or the impact of what occurred. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For simple statements of fact, I do trust Fox News. Do you know why? Because Fox News has a habit of getting simple statements of fact right. It's when you get into their opinions and their overall portrayal of politicized news events that they become questionable sources. But NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (etc, etc...)? They have a habit of getting the overall portrayal of politicized news events right, and giving well-informed opinions. I understand skepticism; I'm a skeptic. But the current fad among the extremes of the political spectrum to distrust the "mainstream media" isn't skepticism, it's a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its because nobody trusts the supposedly reliable sources. This is not an appropriate argument or believable. If you have a problem with what is considered a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Such discussions cannot be played out on every talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of the previous points on corrections to the opening sentence:
1. "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded.." - not all of them. In fact, not even MOST of them. This should be changed to "Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded...". To use the current sentence is to state that all sixteen coordinated, which isn't true.
2. "...the Russian government interfered..." - this is not fact, it's speculation. The declassified information from the three intelligence agencies concludes that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." (from page 7 of the official document). Whether their efforts were actually effective in altering the election is speculation. There are many who believe that the Russian campaign had no impact on the election results and therefore did not interfere. The official document only uses the word "interfere" twice, neither of which are used to describe Russia's actions. "Interfere" is the wrong word.
Both of the above changes are factual. Consequently, the entire sentence should be changed to...
"Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government, led by Vladimir Putin, ordered a campaign with the intent of influencing the 2016 United States Presidential Election."
droxford —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that if you call other editors ignorant, they will ignore you, at best. "I’m right and you’re ignorant" is not a very good argument. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My retort was appropriate for his in-depth and thorough "you are wrong" response. If he wants to respond childishly, perhaps I should have responded with "you're wrong infinity". However I believe it's better for all to keep this discussion at a higher level.
Regarding the article, I stand by my statements. The change should be made to ensure that the article presents factual information, not personal agenda. Droxford (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, personal attacks are very likely to get you blocked from editing, and absolutely no-one here has the slightest bit of respect for an editor who has to rely on them to make their case. The are only "appropriate" to an editor who's trying to get blocked.
Second, your argument above is pure original research, and completely unusable. The reliable sources all agree that all 17 agencies lent their weight. You aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're telling every reputable journalist who has covered this report that they're wrong, not to mention the hordes of intelligence agents who haven't been blowing the same trumpet you're tooting here.
When all 17 intelligence agencies agree on a conclusion, but only three send representatives, that does not, in any way indicate that only those three agree on the conclusion. How the ever loving hell you need this explained to you is completely beyond me. But apparently you're in luck, because politifact took a turn at the claim in the lead when Clinton said it. Spoiler alert: You're wrong.
@MjolnirPants: Seems to me that Droxford has a point: when pressed on this question of "17 agencies" in various interviews and Senate testimonies, Brennan, Clapper and Comey all said that only 3 agencies contributed to the reports on Russian interference: FBI, CIA and NSA (which makes sense, as they all have relevant competence). Separately, the ODNI does supervise all intelligence agencies, and those facts were conflated as a campaign talking point to say "all 17 agencies agree that Russia did it" whereas the facts of the matter are that the ODNI made that assessment and you can't find anywhere in their report that 17 agencies somehow contributed, expressed an opinion or even were consulted. The Politifact evaluation you cite doesn't say anything different (emphasis mine): We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. — JFGtalk03:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate stating a fact doesn't make it a campaign talking point. Let's not tell the intelligence agencies how to do their work. Let's just report what they say, as scrutinized and verified by RS. This point has been hashed and rehashed here so many times it would help not to bring it up any further here. WP editors' theories about how the US intelligence services "should" conduct themselves is of no interest to our users. SPECIFICOtalk12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? "Let's just report what they say"? That's exactly my point! The head of the intel agencies said under oath that the report was compiled by FBI, CIA and NSA, nobody else. There is no "WP editors' theories" behind this at all... — JFGtalk13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG I refer you to my comment here. Even ignoring that completely insurmountable objection to this edit, it's still not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The simple fact is; when the spokesman for an agency speaks for that agency, they are speaking for that agency. That you've "uncovered" the fact that only three of the agencies worked on the report only shows that three of the agencies worked on the report. It doesn't indicate, in any way -as such an edit would- that the other agencies disagreed with them or even held no opinion on the matter. Indeed, we have a statement prepared on behalf of the entire US intelligence community which states quite clearly the lack of any disagreement, whatsoever. Neither of you have, nor can prove that no-one in any other agency did not review the report and endorse it, for example. I know you both see this as "there's no evidence that any of the other agencies had anything to do with this," but that's simply not an accurate view of this report. The authors were explicitly speaking for the entire community, as evinced not only in the report but in the reliable third-party coverage of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not me saying it, it's the DNI director in charge. Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, his opening statement:
As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term. The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.
Right: the reports were a product of the FBI, CIA and NSA research, and the conclusive assessment was a statement by the DNI. I fail to see why people are so hung up on this "17 agencies" myth. — JFGtalk13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's stated by multiple reliable sources, and never contested. Reminder: Nothing in that quote you provided contradicts any of the possibilities I mentioned above. This is analogous to a situation in which a company (let's say Google) takes a contract to provide some service to another company (let's say Amazon). Six months later, the CEO of Google could say "only these three out of our 17 departments have directly provided services to Amazon," but that in no way implies that other departments within Google aren't going to provide services, aren't required to provide services, or that the heads of those departments would argue that the contract doesn't include their departments. You've provided evidence that 14 agencies weren't involved in working on the report, but you're using that to claim that 14 agencies have nothing to do with the report. That's OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you're grasping at straws... There are plenty of reliable sources who say the world is real and atoms are a thing, but nothing in the scientific body of knowledge contradicts the hypothesis that we all live in a simulation. By Occam's Razor, we do live in reality and the 14 intelligence agencies that are never mentioned played absolutely no role in building or endorsing the reports. Note that this fact doesn't remove an ounce of credibility to the IC assessment; if anything, it would reinforce it, because the FBI, CIA and NSA are certainly more qualified than the Marine Corps Intelligence to opine on Russia's nefarious cyber-schemes. — JFGtalk16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forget Occam's Razor. This is Jack the Ripper. RS reflect how the intelligence community works and collaborates and if there were a dissenting view among them, this would be reported and could perhaps be relevant to the article. Or perhaps not, because it didn't happen so we have no way of knowing about something that didn't happen and wasn't reported by RS. SPECIFICOtalk
Agree with SPECIFICO. This is a waste of time and parsing hairs. The 17 agencies are 17 agencies and this is what reliable sources say. To debate otherwise without suggesting any sources to back up claims to the contrary is a waste of time without reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: You can think whatever you want, it won't make you right. Your analogy is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not sure if you noticed that or not, but the unsupported hypothesis that there's no evidence against is yours, not mine. The report explicitly speaks for the entire intelligence community, something which I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. I'll be the first to admit that it's not overwhelming or even particularly compelling evidence that, for example, INSCOM agrees with the report, but it is evidence. On the other hand, you keep offering evidence that might mean I'm wrong about an implication I've made, if you interpret my remarks in a certain way and interpret that evidence in another, certain way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another dispute I don't understand. It's perfectly clear to everyone here that three agencies (not seventeen) were involved in producing the report. That's what Clapper said rather explicitly in his testimony (and I see no reason why he would have lied about such a trivial detail), and it's also pretty obvious that the Coast Guard Intelligence wasn't involved. We're just repeating a campaign line that we know is factually wrong. Why? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not publish the beliefs of its editors or what they can and can't understand. Let's stick to the mainstream of RS reporting. This is the US National Intelligence Assessment and it presents the conclusion of 17 agencies based on whatever however manyofthem shared with the other howevermanyofthem. That's what RS say. SPECIFICOtalk18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "belief of editors" involved. Quoting the ODNI's own report and Clapper's sworn statements is not "original research". Again, look at the ODNI report of January 2017, section "Scope":
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. […] When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
That same report doesn't say anything about "17 intelligence agencies", it doesn't even contain the number 17 or the word "seventeen". When it talks about intelligence agencies, it says: "All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." Again, not a word on other agencies.
Add Clapper's sworn testimony of May 7: As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office.
Since January, there has been no further report or statement contradicting this fact. It's high time Wikipedia reflects reality (which again, is perhaps even more convincing than the "17 agencies" myth, but that's a matter for individual judgment). — JFGtalk09:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder
Editors may want to place their final comments on the above thread #BLP/N outcome regarding the wording of the Erik Prince section, so we can get closure on this issue. Thanks, — JFGtalk07:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revelation of classified information to Russia
This section should be returned. [85] . I think multiple sources (I don't have time to find sources right now) will discuss Trump's revelation of classified information in the context of Russian supporting Trump in the election. Given he did this the day after he fired Comey, I think the section is highly relevant to the article and should be returned.Casprings (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if this article was called "Trumps links with Russia" I would agree, at best this warrants a see also and a link to just such an article. This article is about the election, and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this event should be in the article, to the extent that it's supported by the RS that make the connection with the Russian interference in US governance. I'm also very disappointed that this content it would be removed with an edit summary that falsely refers to this as a "diplomatic" incident (like whether Melania failed to wear above-the-elbow gloves with a sleeveless gown to dinner at the Court of St. James.) None of the RS reports on this matter have mischaracterized the national security issues as a "diplomatic" breach. SPECIFICOtalk12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this is relevant to the elections. It also has its own article now so I'm not sure there's much else we need to do here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that it doesn't belong in this article. It's part of Trump's far too cozy relationship with Russia, but not part of the election. Let's stay on topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What does this have to do with "[Alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? This article isn't supposed to be "Trump, Russia, you connect the dots." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if they say that Donnie's choice to do this is related to the Russian hacking during the election, fine. But not if they just say "another example of Donnie's ties to Russia". As this is about the election, not Donnie's ties to Russia. But they must make an explicit link, not implied or hinted at, explicit. They must say the two are linked not just mention both incidents in the same article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have consensus to keep this out for now, consistent with my initial edit summary "Removed off-topic section; sources do not connect this diplomatic incident to Russian election interference". Isn't it refreshing that most editors can agree on something? Sorry for SPECIFICO that this affair doesn't rise to a full-blown diplomatic incident yet. — JFGtalk19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The events described in the removed text are no more of a diplomatic incident than this discussion is. That's not just OR, that's really bad OR. So please don't snipe at SPECIFICO because they happen to agree with you. It's incentivizing them not to do so in the future, and it reflects poorly on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The elections are over. Unless we are talking about Obama's decision to share highly classified information with Russia in 2016 during the election, and the subsequent Russian attacks on our Free Syrian allies utilizing Obama's briefing, this meeting with Trump had nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting my edit
Apparently, on the basis of "consensus"! So, the utterances of the US "intelligence community" (without evidence) are to be taken as fact on Wikipedia? The folk who brought us WMD in Iraq and helped overthrow Democratically elected Governments across the globe? And this propagandist bull is by the collective that decided the English Daily Mail is an "unreliable source"??? Lmfao Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It seems that you disregarded or were not aware of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:WEASEL, and evidently did not read many, or possibly any, sources. Sorry, but your edit was bad.- MrX20:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX:WP:ALLEGED (related to WP:WEASEL) says that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined".
@Slatersteven: I agree that we can (and should) relay the accusations made by US intelligence officials and agencies. The issue is when these claims are presented as facts, and when any and all dissenting/critical views are removed from the article. A number of editors have been pushing the view that using "alleged," or any such hedging language, is inherently a violation of WP:WEASEL or WP:ALLEGED, and that we must therefore present accusations as fact. This is clearly a misreading of policy, which would have absurd consequences if followed throughout Wikipedia.
@Sarah777: There definitely is a systemic problem throughout this article, in that it represents the views of US intelligence, and generally excludes critical views. You can review the talk page archives to see how this has played out across many subtopics within the article. Generally, anything that criticizes or casts doubt on US intelligence claims has been removed from the article, while every claim of a Russian connection gets exhaustive treatment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except we do not say it is a fact the Russians interfered, we say that US intelligence has said it is a fact. That is acceptable, what we should do is also say that people dispute this.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I agree with you, both in that we should say US intelligence has made the claim and that various people dispute the claims or express doubt. The problem is that:
1. The article presents US intelligence claims in a way that makes them sound like they're coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice (see, for example, how the body of the article begins with a long quote from US intelligence, without any context or introduction - that's highly unusual, and there are editors who have reverted any attempt to introduce the quote with some explanatory text).
2. Critical / doubting views have been systematically removed from the article (see, for example, the removal of Goodin's analysis, or of William Binney's skeptical comments).
Also, note that in the comment directly below, MrX makes the extraordinary claim that Russian interference is a proven fact, something that is not supportable by the bulk of RS reporting. The fact that a number editors believe strongly that "Russian interference" is proven, and have been pushing hard for the article to reflect that belief, is the underlying cause for the two problems I list above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: You're just dead wrong about that. I frankly can't believe you're claiming that the wrongdoing is "determined." We've been through the reliable sources above (BBC, Reuters, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Associated Press), most of which treat this as an open question (and in fact, all the RSes I listed in parentheses do so). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that as many times as you'd like, but every time we've had this conversation, the sources have overwhelmingly shown that reliable sources do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact. But every time we have the same source discussion, the editors who apparently believe otherwise get frustrated and declare we've already settled the issue - despite the overwhelming RS evidence from BBC, Reuters, AP, etc. that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation of unknown truth. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In one aspect I agree, wew need to reword that opening paragraph (of the body, we already do this in the lead) to make it clear that this is the US intelligence communities, and not Wikipedias, opinion.
Well, one thing we can take as fact on reading this article is that it isn't the Russian Intelligence Community who control the narrative but it certainly appears to be controlled by an Intelligence Community. Seems that whenever the authoritative voice of Wikipedia is speaking about issues pertaining to US military and geopolitical establishments ("communities") - the voice becomes becomes that of a puppet. Which makes some of decisions Wiki takes in relation to other media outlets looking a bit hypocritical. Sarah777 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as regards the ludicrous assertion that Russian interference has been "determined" - an impeccably mainstream outlet, RTE, the national broadcaster in Ireland, always use the term "alleged Russian interference". And RTE is no fan of either Trump or Russia - to put it mildly Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this articles continues to become more and more about the investigations that are following the Russian interference, should we think about changing the name of the article. If so, what to?Casprings (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it brings the article more in tune with the nature of investigative methodology, i.e. LAW; in this case, including Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938.
I think it should be called, Russian influence rather than interference. Almost all media in Western countries was against Trump and was also influencing the US elections to be against Trump, particularly European and Australian Media, but this is not considered to be "interference" but influencing. 202.142.36.223 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? we have many articles that cover the results and events that came after something and do not call them "the Kennedy assassination investigation", what we do is create a new article if the material is overburdening this one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see any need for an article name change. The current title is clear, descriptive, and accurate.- MrX11:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the page, which one would assume defines the topic, reads:
"The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"
Hence, the page title should, manifestly, be changed to "What the US intelligence agencies think about the possibility of Russian interference". Failing that, as requested by several people on this page, can we have a proper introductory sentence, which explains the full scope of the topic, and points out that investigations are ongoing, and then addresses, without prioritising any above all others, what various bodies, including but not limited to intelligence agencies, have said about alleged interference? The Kennedy assassination page, for example, does not start by simply declaring what the Warren Commission concluded – and that was a completed investigation. It's hard to see what is motivating the endless obstructionism on this point beyond politics and personal beliefs about what has happened tbh. This should be pretty basic stuff. N-HHtalk/edits15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should not obfuscate the title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA will explain why. I'm very open to exploring a better lead sentence that better describes the scope of the article.- MrX17:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why the removal of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll"?
On what basis is User:Volunteer Marek's addition of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll" removed? Whether it really is a joke is questionable, because Ryan treated it as serious. It really makes no difference, even if it were a joke, because it's reliably sourced, extremely notable, widely covered, and should be restored. (It's a bombshell revelation which appears to show Ryan engaging in both obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That's pretty serious.)
As the source said, Putin is known to financially support the campaigns and personal pockets of right wing populists like Trump. (Trump is not known to ever refuse money, especially laundered money from Russian mobsters, as well as money from Russian business interests and Russian banks. There was a long period where he was essentially bankrupt and no American banks would loan him money, and most of his funds came from the named Russian sources.)
I agree with BullRangifer that it is notable and should be included. I also don't quite understand why it was removed on the basis that it was a joke. Have reliable sources concluded that it was indeed a joke? Otherwise, what is the basis for that conclusion? And even if we somehow know whether it was really a joke or not, a joke that has stirred up news-worthy controversy and has been reported on by reliable sources is still worthy of inclusion. However, we should certainly include that spokespeople have defended the comments, saying it was just a joke (which the previous version did). Bennv3771 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is actually pretty minor, and whilst we are not sure if it waqs a joke, we also cannot be sure it was not (after all do we know the context for the comment).
This might give a clue its a joke
“There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.”
The previous content can be cut down. As for whether it's a joke or not, right now, the only reliable source who have access to the audio recording is the Washington Post, and their stance is: "It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally." As for the laughter...according to Washington Post, McCarthy wasn't the one laughing, "Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”" Bennv3771 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And none of your have ever done something similar, when being sarcastic? This really is a nothing blown up out of all proportions. Lets keep this article above the level of the "shouty sheets" shall we, we are not a red top lets not become one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "most charitable interpretation" is that they are making jokes about what they think is a silly accusation, and the reason it should not be included is that we are not a news paper or scandal site, we are an encyclopedia. This adds absolutely zero to our understanding of what (or if) happened. It is just a distraction that will make this article (and this Wikipedia) look like just a bunch of partisan hacks out for any bit of salacious tattletale.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so would you like to provide the quotes that dispute that either this was not clealry meant as a joke or that it should be here on Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be included, but it needs to be rewritten. The composition in the version that was removed was rhetorical. It was trying to convince that reader that the conversation was real and serious. That is not how encyclopedic content should be written. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation was real. I don't know about "serious" but it wasn't the purpose of the text to convey that. Just to reflect the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:This revert does not reflect consensus. Editors are just starting to debate here, a) whether this should be included, and b) how it should be written. Please self-undo until more people chime in. — JFGtalk15:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And when I restored it pretty much everyone here said "why is this being removed, it could use some tweaking". So yeah, that's consensus especially for such a spurious removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like others, struggling to see how this fits into a serious encyclopedic entry on the topic. Simply citing "RS" isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page, even if some editors tell the rest of us how much they like it and how important and relevant it is. N-HHtalk/edits15:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The policy governing this matter is WP:TRIVIA. It's an editorial call based on how RS treat a matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS (as in this case), or is covered by multiple RS (also this case), then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinion doesn't matter. We must mention it. The current content may need some revision, but it should be included. Its significance is shown in the WaPo article:
"The conversation provides a glimpse at the internal views of GOP leaders who now find themselves under mounting pressure over the conduct of President Trump. The exchange shows that the Republican leadership in the House privately discussed Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and Trump’s relationship to Putin, but wanted to keep their concerns secret. It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally.
"The House leadership has so far stood by the White House as it has lurched from one crisis to another, much of the turmoil fueled by contacts between Trump or his associates with Russia."
BullRangifer wrote: We must mention it. No, there is no policy that says Wikipedia must mention everything that makes the front page of the Washington Post. We are building an encyclopedia, not a political gazette. Look up the ten-year test. — JFGtalk16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not sure it is quite that clear cut. So lets make it easy. We can discus the details once we are sure we should even include it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And WP:TRIVIA is part of the MoS guideline about trivia sections. It is not a policy and has no relevance here at all. As I said, "Simply citing 'RS' isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page". All BullRangifer and VM have done in response to that entirely legitimate point is to say we have to do exactly that, while mis-citing another wiki-acronym on top. There are judgments to make about weight, relevance and significance etc (where there are actual relevant policies). As noted, there is no "must". N-HHtalk/edits16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which acronym have I mis-cited? And as to your point, it may have had a chance of being valid if this was a source or too, but this is very widely covered stuff. Indeed, it's very widely covered stuff in midst of a news cycle that is swamped with breaking stories. Hence very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include this material (in some form)
Support
Support, as noteworthy and widely reported discussion of legislative branch oversight and evaluation of potential outside interference in the operation of democratic processes. Encyclopedic, quite notable in its own right, and discussed in-depth among multiple reliable sources from varying viewpoints. Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. Until I started reading some sources (beyond the initial Washington Post report), I was leaning slight toward opposing including this content. However, sources like this[87][88][89][90] make the connection. Specifically, Paul Ryan's spokesman saw fit to mention it. As an aside, I think it's unlikely that the the conversation was a joke, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of legislators joking about it.- MrX17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion in some form; as above, document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. This has received extensive coverage in high-quality sources, ties directly to the article topic, and the weight is appropriate. The users opposing inclusion give a number of labels ("silly"; "trash reporting"; "unencyclopedic") but basically never explain how or why this is so. As for the argument that "it may have been a joke" — well, sure, we should explain that in text (and in fact do), but that's no reason to exclude. Neutralitytalk18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not a joke, but extremely important information, and it has been treated as such in RS. Why this is so important? Because the discussion among very top Republicans (no matter if they "joked" or not) shows they knew about the conflict of interest for a long time, but wanted to hide it. That is how this matter was interpreted in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for monkey's sake, it's a significant part of the story reported widely in top quality sources. I realize that a few even more shocking stories have come out recently which overshadow that one but notability and relevance is not relative. This is notable, it's well sourced, it's relevant - the only reason, regardless of the actual pretext the 'opposes' invent, I can see for removing it is the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Support Directly relates to the subject. Of course you can include his arguments for why it isn't a big deal as long as you include the other side. That said, it is directly tied to the election interference by Russia as they were coming out of a briefing on a related subject.Casprings (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because, as RS have noted, it gives important insights into the conspiratorial thinking of the GOP at the time. Leadership put party over country and was willing to accept and support a potentially compromised candidate. That situation is part of what makes it relevant for this article. Rather than acting on the suspicion, they doubled down on their support, and as more information, even classified information, became known to them (before the public), they still supported him, and thus they are also compromised by Putin. The "gang of eight" got top level information, yet McConnell ordered silence, rather than action, so the conspiracy of silence continued.
Oppose Largely speculative as to it's seriousness, and most likely as lam joke among "friends". Sure RS are reporting it, but how many as a genuine issue rather then as a silly season story that will have no legs?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Govindaharihari, what's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this comment is off topic, but I thought it would be fun to do a parody of this article over on en.uncyclopedia.co, if anyone is interested and wants to help. I started one. Michael9422 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Comey opinion poll
Today Benwittadded a new poll and Geogenereverted it, saying "(thought we weren't going to expand the opinion polling section?" While I agree that excessive polls are not necessary, I believe that the dismissal of James Comey is a sufficiently significant event to have an impact on public opinion on this affair. Therefore a poll taken after the dismissal is warranted and informative to readers. — JFGtalk19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will quickly spread to all relevant RS; but it’s based on only one source and the original source was oral, which is bothersome. I think an official response is needed. [91]Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. These are according to official White House records, corroborated by two inside sources. Several news sources are reporting it.- MrX19:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems there is a higher-than-normal ratio of Russian, Slavic, or Yiddish speaking member of AIPAC than other Lobby groups focused on in the current investigation. Are they not one and the same, and doesn`t this need to be thouroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If not, why not?
I'm happy to talk about this further, but this seems baldly POV to me; it suggests (in Wikipedia's voice) that this topic is related to those topics, and that's a very contentious (and indeed rather fringe) point of view. Neutralitytalk20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The recent investigation material has moved around in the article because of several edits attempting to reorganize the content. I question whether the recent report that a Trump advisor is being investigated belongs under "Investigation by Special Counsel". None of the source articles that I've read specify that. Are we assuming that any ongoing FBI investigation of this falls under the Special Counsel investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Special Counsel is essentially picking up the investigation where the FBI left off and possibly amplifying it, so yes it makes sense. — JFGtalk21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, 'Investigation by Special Counsel' is a third level section under '2017 Developments'. In my opinion, there should be a level two 'Investigations' section broken down further, either chronologically, or (my preference) by 'Criminal investigation' and 'Counterintelligence investigation'. The investigations are a very significant aspect of this subject, and most of the future coverage will likely fall under that category. This is a complex subject. Coming up with a consistent structure is going to be important to making sure the article is informative to our readers.- MrX17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of this article
I'm beginning to think we should expand the logical scope of this article to something like this:
Russian meddling in the 2016 United States elections and its aftermath
We can't document collusion yet, but there is abundant evidence in RS of a very close relationship between the Trump administration, including Trump, and Russian officials of various types, including the meeting in the Oval Office, a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes. We need to be able to include material related to the aftermath. What think ye? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't fit. Keep the title and scope as they are, please. Title now suits the WP:COMMONNAME of a well-known topic scope. Using a different title would noserve. And adding random bits just because they have 'Russian' in it also doesn't fit the much more common scope. Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: "a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes", really? That's quite an extraordinary assertion. Is Trump not friendly to basically everyone he meets, be they American, British, Saudi, Russian and even yeah Mexican?
On your scope question, I agree that this article has kept ballooning out of scope. The fix is not to rename it but rather to move all the Trump–Russia collusion stuff into another article, leaving this one to deal with the Russian hacking, propaganda, counter-propaganda and consequences; basically stopping at the December expelling of Russian diplomats. — JFGtalk07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath is within the scope of the article, but the title doesn't need to reference it. At some point, there will probably be indictments, prosecutions, impeachment proceedings, and resignations that require us to WP:SPINOFF one or more articles.- MrX12:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the section below, I think at some point we'll get an article on the investigation itself and that will effectively accomplish what you propose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense. The aftermath is automatically covered within the existing scope, and if there is enough content, we spin it off into its own article. Natural developments will determine what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought before trying, but taking our current contents paragraph by paragraph, I noticed that the collusion issues were clearly separated from the interference issues. Please take a second look. Obviously, each article should prominently point to the other; in my draft the first lead sentence points directly back here; if we endorse the split, then the lead of this article should naturally point to the collusion article. — JFGtalk11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voter registration hacking
The article appears to completely overlook the occurrences of voter registration hacking, as covered by a number of sources[92][93][94][95] and more. While the message from on high has been something to the effect of "only registration was hacked, not the actual vote" I believe this to be a fallacy and its potential impact on the election to be severely understated. The way voter eligibility works in most places across the country, if your registration is not valid well ahead of the election date, you will not be able to vote in that election. Merely by tampering with voter registration at a convenient time (for example, changing an absentee voter's registered address right before ballots are mailed) it is possible to prevent people from voting, and as these databases contain information such as ethnicity and party affiliation, it is possible to target specific demographics and effect a campaign of voter suppression. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We must take care to ensure that RS citations concern Russian involvement in this. --SPECIFICO (talk) 12:09, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
Draft
Here's my draft copy - likely can be cleaned up:
As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about "bad actors" probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities.[1] In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was "looking 'very, very hard' at Russian hackers who may try to disrupt the U.S. election" and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases,[2] which independent assessments determined were "extremely vulnerable to hacking."[3] Comey stated: "There have been a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well as some attempted intrusions at voter database registrations beyond those we knew about in July and August."[1] He told Congress that the Bureau was looking into "just what mischief is Russia up to in connection with our election."[4] This statement echoed a comment by a U.S. intelligence official the previous month, who told NBC News that "there is serious concern" about Russian government-directed interference in the U.S. presidential election.[3] Earlier, Director of National IntelligenceJames Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin, stating that he was "'paranoid' about the potential for revolutions in Russia,'and of course they see a U.S. conspiracy behind every bush, and ascribe far more impact than we're actually guilty of.'"[4]
In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months.[2] Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers,[1] and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies.[3] Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases.[4] Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data,[2][1] Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen.[3] The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result.[1][2] In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide "flash alert" warning state election officials about hacking attempts.[3] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS.[1] The department also offered "more comprehensive, on-site risk and vulnerability" assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching.[2] The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority LeaderHarry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI: "The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War."[4]
Agree. But first there should be something in this article before spinning it out. The amount of coverage here should be limited to its overall significance and additional details put into the other article. TFD (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title and entire focus of that draft fails WP:NPOV, as it focuses only on "collusion" and avoids criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Except for the title and lead section (which can be debated), I strictly copied all contents from the present article. If you feel that "criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc." are missing, then feel free to add them to this article (there is a section about investigations into financial flows, which is not much, but that's what the source said). From a neutrality standpoint, it's strange to consider the current article balanced and a copy of half of it elsewhere unbalanced. — JFGtalk19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
"...authorized to probe whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up..."
"Even as members of Congress were mulling the possible expansion of the case into a cover-up probe, and its reclassification from counterintelligence to criminal, the scandal appeared to grow."
"Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described the possibility of a cover-up as the third branch of an investigation that began as a look at Russian meddling in the election and broadened into whether members of the Trump campaign had cooperated in that effort."[1]
"After his interview with “This Week,” Cummings released a draft subpoena that he urged Chaffetz to sign and send to the White House.
“The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago,” Cummings said in a statement. “I have prepared a subpoena that the chairman could sign today. If he does not want to do that, we ask that he allow the committee members to vote on it.”[2]
"This brings us back to Trump. A key lesson of the Nixon scandal was "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up." It was Nixon on tape saying that the FBI should be forced to back off that put the final nail in his presidential coffin. That many of Trump's associates, especially his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had Russian connections is politically damaging, but it's not necessarily Trump's fault. Firing FBI Director Jim Comey in the middle of an investigation, however, is clearly Trump's fault. This is Trump's own "Tuesday Night Massacre." It looks like obstruction of justice. The latest revelation – that Trump, in a February Oval Office meeting, asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn's connections to the Russian government ("I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go") – is reminiscent of Nixon's "smoking gun" tape, and again looks like obstruction of justice. Just as it was with Nixon, it could be the cover-up that will bring Trump down."[5]
Yeah, The few people in government Trump DIDN'T call to pressure on the FBI investigation must be feeling awfully left out.Casprings (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key quote is the report is: --> "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements abt an ongoing investigation." and the fact that "Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA officials.Casprings (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I do not think we should add every bit of tittle tattle I think this is very relevant, even if it is just an example of the total lack of trust Donny now suffers from.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with his comments here, Casprings added several sentences to the article lede. I reverted them, stating that some of the wording was problematic and the information did not belong in the lede. Casprings and I then discussed it at my talk page, here, and reached consensus that a modified version could go in the article text. We did not discuss where in the article the material should go. Obviously it should be somewhere in the "2017 developments" section. I would suggest the "Comey memos" subsection be renamed with a more general title, such as "White House attempts to influence the investigation" (too suggestive) or "White House contacts with law enforcement agencies". I think the existing material in the article about Comey's memos could be condensed into a single, better organized paragraph, and then the following material added:
In February 2017 it was reported that White House officials had asked the FBI to issue a statement that there had been no contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence sources during the 2016 campaign. The FBI did not make the requested statement, and observers noted that the request violated established procedures about contact between the White House and the FBI regarding pending investigations.[1]
After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National IntelligenceDaniel Coats and Director of National Security ADM Michael S. Rogers to state publicly that the FBI's investigation had turned up no evidence of any collusion. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate and did not make the requested statement.[2] Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.[3] In addition, senior White House officials reportedly asked intelligence officials if they could intervene to stop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn.[4]
Looks good to me. However, the title is a little too WP:Weasel. Many sources suggest more then contact. Fine without your original title, but we should title it something that tells the reader more what is being reported by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text looks good, but it doesn't belong under 'Comey memos'. It should go under its own section, probably called 'FBI Collusion probe'.- MrX02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not combine all this stuff (Comey, this, etc) into one section called "Trump Administration's Investagation Interference". Such a title is justified per WP:Censor. It would create a logical subsection and you could always create additional headings under this subheading if something(e.g. The Comey Memos) need to be broken out.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with combining it into a single subsection (Comey and the others), about the various attempts by Trump himself and White House officials to get the FBI to close down the investigation or publicly contradict some of the reporting. But I don't think the phrase "investigation interference" has been used by any Reliable Source; let's not get ahead of the reporting. In any case "interference" is not accurate since none of the reported attempts to influence law enforcement agencies actually succeeded - so the investigation has not been interfered with. I still prefer a neutral term like "White House contacts with law enforcement" but am open to other suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the RS in the previous section right above, we can use Investigation of suspected cover-up. This is the third phase of the existing investigations and is covered by much of Comey's, FBI's and CIA's current activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since an investigation necessarily comes after-the-fact, would Suspected cover-up be better? That would be all-inclusive, past, present, and future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In preparation for restoring the content, and Casprings, you write well, so you're welcome to perform the honors , please keep in mind that content in the body has primacy over content in the lead. Add to the body, and then add a short summary to the lead. There shouldn't be any content or references in the lead which are not first used in the body (except certain types of minor facts). You can read more on the subject here: WP:CREATELEAD.
I strongly disagree with "coverup". That term is not being used in connection with these White House actions; it sounds more like WP:SYNTH. Again, let's not get ahead of the reporting. Earlier I objected to "White House attempts to influence the investigation" but maybe that would be the best title for what we have right now. --MelanieN (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MelanieN, that's a very good start, but I have some questions or suggestions.
Buried deep into WaPo piece is this paragraph: "In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange. [emphasis added]"
Then there's the quote from "a former senior intelligence official": "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation. [emphasis added]"
"A former senior intelligence official" cited in the NBC News piece contradicts this: "The former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request, they believed, according to the official. 'I don't think [Trump] ever asked somebody to say something that they didn't believe was true', the former official said. [emphasis added]"
So did Trump make a different request to Rogers to Coats or were they both truthful and do we need to note this discrepancy?
According to NBC News, one of them wrote a memo because the request was "extraordinary", and they exchanged notes, but neither of them was not "sufficiently concerned that they reported it". We should add something about this.
I take issue with the last sentence ("In addition ...) – Flynn investigation is not related to the FBI's probe of alleged Russian election interference. If the sentence is to be included, it should mention the Flynn investigation, and the content should be moved somewhere else, separate from content that is directly related to Russia investigation.
Section title that includes "cover-up" would totally improper because it's not based on sources. Politrukki (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with not using cover up. But if this a main heading for Comey, this, and others the section title needs to say something more then contacts. I would suggest, since this is going into the body, use the quote from NBC and WP to show the WP:RSes are somewhat conflicted. One source might say and view something one way and another source might view it another way.Casprings (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, User:Politrukki. My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. The sources (except for the "former senior official") don't say that either. In fact we (and probably the "former senior official", and probably Trump himself) have no idea whether such a statement would have been truthful or false, because we (and they) do not have access to everything the FBI investigation has turned up or is looking at. What we do know, per Comey, is that the FBI is looking into whether there was collusion. Whether the proposed statement would have been false, or simply inappropriate at this stage of the game, is not known, and there is no point in our trying to parse which it is. From a legal standpoint it may not even be important whether the statement they were being urged to make was true or false - simply that they were being (improperly?) urged to make it. What we do know: Trump and/or White House officials asked them to make a particular public statement; they decided not to make it; Rogers at least felt moved to document the phone call, possibly because he found it improper, or possibly because he always makes a note of such conversations. We can't go beyond what we know.
To your second point, that the Flynn investigation is "not related to the FBI's probe of Russian election interference", I disagree. We don't know what all they are investigating Flynn for, but there is at least a strong possibility that if there was improper contact he could have been one of the people involved. In addition, Flynn's hints that he has "a story to tell," and his obvious hope that he can obtain immunity or at least leniency by telling it, suggest that he has knowledge about the overall Russia situation involving other people besides himself. He could turn out to be this investigations's John Dean, an insider-turned-star-witness in the Russia investigation. Flynn material definitely belongs in this article and this section, and approaches by the White House regarding the Flynn investigation are no different from approaches by the White House regarding the overall investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To clarify my proposed wording I have added "the investigation into Michael Flynn" to the "in addition" sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. I saw that, and I thank you for being careful. "False" was used in the edit you reverted and in the discussion on your talk page (also, as you may have noticed, someone added "false statements" to Trump's bio and I deleted "false"). But I also wanted to highlight that I think the WaPo piece is very difficult to parse. Again, WaPo says: "Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion [emphasis added]". That's the biggest "if" I've seen in a long time. That's WaPo saying in its editorial voice that Rogers was asked to tell the truth (no, that would not make the request any less idiotic, in my opinion). We don't know what kind of request Trump supposedly made to Coats because WaPo doesn't say it – either because they don't know or because they refuse to tell – but they do call the appeals "similar". Here's what I propose:
After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. He also made a similar request to Director of National IntelligenceDaniel Coats.[1] Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.[2][3]
Re: Flynn. It is true that Flynn could be under investigation for a number of things. Yes, NYT says
"The documentation of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. ... Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.
but also says
In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.
My interpretation of all this is that Flynn could be investigated for things that are related to Russia but unrelated to collusion. The cited WaPo piece does not even hint what Flynn is being investigated for. The immunity offer is a moot point because the request was rejected both in House and Senate Intelligence committees and not all experts even agree that Flynn's request was serious: "Some experts cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Mr. Flynn's request for immunity." That being said, you don't have refute me on this because I approve your edit. I'm just going to make one or three bold edits that add content. And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial! Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Politrukki. Just one comment, about Flynn: It's true he is under investigation for other things unrelated to the collusion issue. But he is also smack in the middle of the collusion investigation. According to this new report, Flynn and Manafort were the main "Trump associates" the Russians were hoping to use to influence Trump. I saw that you removed the Comey memo from the lede because it is about the Flynn investigation. I am OK with removing it from the lede as long as it stays in the article text. And I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text. In fact let's say so in a more prominent place - rather than the middle of another discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, it concerns me that you would make an accusation of SYNTH, when I have repeatedly pointed to the section above, where there are several RS which use the term "cover-up". Use of that word is indeed based on RS. It is the third phase of the ongoing investigation. The suggestion is also worded neutrally (Suspected cover-up). That is the most accurate and short description, and it's used by RS, including Elijah Cummings:
"The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago."[97]
Sorry if you took that as an accusation, BullRangifer. I merely meant that we do not have the sources to say it. And having now read through the section above (I have been gone for a week) I still don't feel there is any basis for us to say "coverup" in Wikipedia's voice. Elijah Cummings is not an Independent Reliable Source in this matter; he is a partisan making a partisan accusation, not a neutral commenter saying something about which he has personal knowledge. This case may eventually turn out to prove the old saying "it's not the crime that lands you in jail, it's the coverup", but we have no basis for saying anything like that now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We could possibly add a final sentence to my proposed material, saying that reported contacts such as these have caused investigators to expand their investigation into the possibility of a coverup. That much does appear to be documented. But it would be too much of a stretch to make that the title of the subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that right now I don't know time to go through your sources and they seem to predate Coats/Rogers reports. Can you provide a quote from a source that labels requests to Coats & Rogers as a cover-up? If you do, could also estimate if your sample is representative? As I said, Coats & Rogers believed that, according to a former senior intelligence official, Trump made a public relations request. Politrukki (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think there's been enough time to get significant coverage and that it's fine to include this now. I think combining it with the Comey Memo subsection is the best way, along with renaming that section to "White house interactions with the investigation" or something similar. I'm okay with the wording as proposed by MelanieN, but I haven't read much past it in this thread, so not sure if any concerns have been raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have merged this wording with the Comey memo material, and have put it in the article in place of the Comey memo subsection, in a section titled "White House attempts to influence the investigation." We had not really reached a consensus on the section title but I felt there was sufficient consensus to add the material, leaving room for more discussion on the title. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two additions should be added to the Julian Assange Section. Neutral information.
First, is to add to his claim about how a 14 ye3ar old could hack podesta's email. It should be noted that podesta's password for one of his computer was "username: jpodesta; password: p@assword" and Assange claims his password was literally "password". I've also heard it was "12345password".
Second, is to add his claim that Seth Rich was one of his sources. The information related to his unsolved murder, the active investigation by the local police, and the non-investigation on the federal level, are all relevant. It should be written in a way that doesn't have a bias towards any conspiracy theory, but is very relevant information given Julian Assange's claim & the significant impact of that claim. Anyone could have murdered Seth Rich. It could have been a random robbery (although nothing was stolen - which should be mentioned), it could have been a US group, or it could have been the Russias. All relevant, but speculation should NOT be mentioned. Just the information about the murder & current investigation & statements by Julian Assange.
Third, It should also be noted that Julian Assange has a track record of substantiated evidence (unless you can prove otherwise; using evidence to disprove WikiLeaks claims). Meanwhile, websites like the Washington Post have significantly worse track records when it comes to the evidence validating/invalidating their claims. This is very important. It means nothing, but is relevant to the truth because it is evidence-based reliability. Using the Scientific Method, you can quantify both sources. If evidence has ever concluded to prove or disprove a claim, that actually matters. All of it should be written in an unbiased way though - the evidence is what matters NOT opinion. Unsubstantiated claims by Assange should be written as a "claim", not a "conclusion". Although the FBI "concluded" rather than "Claimed", despite the lack of public evidence. So this article already has a bias in favor of the US government, which IMO should be corrected as not all of us are Americans.
edit: Actually, I think it would be better to simply mention Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source, he was murdered, and then simply link to the relevant Wikipedia article. No reason to add anything to that section outside that brief sentence & single link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:f040:34:7db9:20b3:a5ff:becd (talk • contribs)
Assange's comments about Podesta's password are already in this article (albeit indirectly). I don't think we need to get down to the gnat's proverbial ass on this.
Could you please cite a couple of reliable sources for "Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source"?- MrX23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assange never said Rich was his source as he does not reveal sources and if he received the emails through third parties may not know who the original source was. TFD (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede
I'd like to call attention to a couple of comments which are buried in the middle of a discussion above:
From Politrukki: And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial!
From me: I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text.
Bottom line: when you have new, sourced material that is relevant to this article, please put it in the appropriate section of article text, with references. Only after it is determined to be an essential part of the overall story should it be added to the lede as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the lead paragraph is messed up, IMHO. It starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that connclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence, and adding more overview to the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: there's an open RfC to re-shape the lead section. It's still time to participate before it gets closed. — JFGtalk16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lordy this is so freaking annoying. Why do people add shit straight into the intro that is not first in the body ? So stupid. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with MelanieN, with allowable exceptions for exceptional developments like the resignation of the President, revelation of "smoking gun" evidence, or grand jury indictments.- MrX11:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a CNN interview three weeks ago, Diane Feinstein's responded "Not at this time" when asked
"Here's the question. And you don't have to provide us with any classified information, Senator. But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?"
This information is out of date (see, for example, this), and it's not particularly significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Based on what is known today, it represents a minority viewpoint that has largely been promulgated by questionable sources like Breitbart and The Washington Times. I think this material should remain out of the article.- MrX11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4-word snippets off the tube present rather a target-rich environment to cherrypick UNDUE content, but one mustn't muscle it back into the text after it's been removed. The noteworthy content will have been repeated in dozens of other sources. The remainder is chaff. SPECIFICOtalk12:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: In your edit comment, you state: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia." Feinstein's comment is not a "viewpoint", it's her current assessment of the state of the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry as regards to suspected collusion between Trump and Russia. As one of the leaders of this committee, her statement is eminently WP:DUE. It was sufficiently interesting to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he repeated the question two weeks later and she gave an even more precise response, saying she has seen nothing tangible apart from rumors and press reports. That doesn't mean there is nothing, but that's a noteworthy statement coming from one of the bodies investigating the matter (and Feinstein can't exactly be called a Trump apologist, right?) No objection to adding her other statement of May 21 that you cite. — JFGtalk12:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BS. Cable news needs to fill endless hours of airtime. Cherrypicked chaff. Please do not reinsert content that's been challenged with reversion. Use talk. SPECIFICOtalk12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the key people in the government investigating the subject of this article makes a statement saying they have no evidence for the claim, which is then picked up and covered by numerous RS is not due? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is insane. It's not a "minority" viewpoint (what people seem to really mean is "it doesn't tally with what I and some others believe"), it's the view of a well-known US Senator who had been presented with the available evidence and said, on a major TV show, in comments that were widely reported elsewhere, that she could see no evidence of collusion. AFAICT she has not retracted that, even if she has gone on to say other things about the investigation. Yes, she said, "not yet" but so what? That goes without saying, unless she can see into the future. It doesn't mean it *is* going to turn up. Editors here argue for filling this page with speculation and opinion from all sorts of people who say one thing, and all nod together about the "great sources" they are using, and then push the most bizarre pretexts for shutting out anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative. This page is nothing but agenda-driven politics. Is it not possible to look across the views and sources out there and create a measured, balanced overview? N-HHtalk/edits13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – as Rumsfeld once said about WMD I believe – and sometimes absence of evidence is indeed that, absence of evidence. What you or anyone else here thinks "likely" or "unlikely" is neither here nor there. You've kind of proved some of the points I was making about confirmation bias and following preferred narratives to be honest. N-HHtalk/edits14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they did. But the most active editors are all clearly leaning in that direction. I mean just above you've got a pseudonymous WP editor simply asserting it's "extremely unlikely" there is no evidence of collusion, in a debate about the comments of someone who has actually seen much of the information and has said exactly the opposite. N-HHtalk/edits14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question appears to have been designed to elicit a response that can be used as a headline that investigation has concluded that there was no collusion. Congressmen in hearings and lawyers in trials commonly use this technique. We are in the very early days of investigation and should not suggest a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of silly. There are far, far more sources that point to inappropriate contact between Russians and the Trump crew, than that are sources that claim there is no evidence of such contact. That observation doesn't prove confirmation bias. At most, it shows that I don't get my information from Breitbart and Sean Hannity.- MrX14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion, which is a much stronger thing. Also there's a lot of debate about what is or is not inappropriate contact (campaigns speak to reps from other nations all the time). I for one have literally never read Breitbart or watched Sean Hannity in my life, nor have I tapped into much of the politically driven Democrat-led hysteria about this, or even looked that much at the mainstream US media (which of course is pretty uniformly hostile to Trump, albeit not without reason). I get most of my information on it from the UK media. The point with the allegations and speculation about Russian interference and Trump's possible collusion with it is that there is no clear answer as to what happened. That's why it's being investigated. Until there is a conclusion to those investigations, this page needs to reflect the diversity of views, not tie itself down to either narrative (and no, this is not "false equivalence" if you want to try that one next). N-HHtalk/edits14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) JFG, the simple fact that Feinstein confirmed on May 18 that she has not seen evidence of collusion still doesn't convince me that this should be mentioned in the article. Others may disagree.- MrX14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the enormous amount of coverage this topic has recieved and the huge amount of material (including interviews) that's out there, I agree that a remark in an interview (even by the ranking member if a committee) isn't inherently noteworthy here. We should only include such remarks if they get significant coverage in other, major newspapers or similarly weight-y sources. I have no idea if that's the case here or not, but if so it wasn't clear from the sources used. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are issues about not including everything given the volume of statements and opinions on this, and it is fair to say it was mostly picked up by conservative media, but that's not surprising really. But then you risk running into asking for meta-sourcing for everything rather than relying on what is already a good secondary source, ie CNN. N-HHtalk/edits14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]