Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

RfC to add the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ to the bottom navbox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing b/c of clear consensus in support of the proposal. Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the bottom navbox* include the category ‘Foreign electoral intervention’?

(* ‘bottom navbox’ refers to the box shown at bottom of page on desktop EN that currently includes “Categories: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016”)

Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• No Fussy vague and pointless. No value for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

See Foreign electoral intervention. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Humanengr: I don't think I understand this proposal. You seem to be asking if a link to Category:Foreign electoral intervention should be added to the template:United States presidential election, 2016. Is that actually your intention?- MrX 12:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s the box below that; clarification added. Humanengr (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you just want to categorize the article under Category:Foreign electoral intervention ? Is that actually controversial? I wouldn't oppose it if you just WP:BOLDLY added it.- MrX 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• comment Once again I find myself asking? Why is this a problem? The initial opposition to it has vanished, thanks to the thoughtful consideration of Geogene. I don't see any need for an RfC, just add the cat. Opposing !votes with rationales like "Fussy vague and pointless. No value for our readers." are 100% bullshit and should carry no weight in discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The category is stupid, because "foreign" is a relative term, so it would be better worded "external" or something, but there's no need for an RfC. Nobody cares about this and as I said above, it's pointless and uninformative. Pointless RfC's are a huge time sump. Nobody's going to object if OP just adds this cat to the bag. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, folks; closing b/c of consensus. Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

McCabe???

How does this page not mention Andrew McCabe's vital role in the Russia investigation? --FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@FlantasyFlan: This is still "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit". If you have quality sources discussing McCabe's role in the Russian interference or the investigation thereof, you can boldly add some material to the article. — JFG ^talk 00:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

John McAfee's assessment of DNC hack

Points in John McAfee's analysis deserve mention

Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC - John McAfee Lays It Out Phmoreno (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight. Very few people doubt that Russia was behind the hack, it's not surprising that McAfee would be one of them. RT of course, being a propaganda network, probably has interviewed every one of the denialists by now. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between undue weight and expression of doubt. What matters is if the points McAfee makes are valid or not. And did the DNC ever allow the FBI access to the server? If hey still haven't what is their reason? And where is the mention that this could have been an inside job?Phmoreno (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:FRINGE. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

McAfee is a very fringe figure and his eccentric views don't belong in this article. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

McAfee's character is not the issue, but rather the points he made.Phmoreno (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality means the article should not be one sided. There is a difference between "a high degree of confidence" and certainty. The other possibilities need to be addressed.Phmoreno (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published fringe POV. It has nothing to do with who said it or why. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary reference added. How many secondary and tertiary references do you need?Phmoreno (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump aide Papadopolous knew Russia had a tranche of stolen Clinton emails two months before they were leaked.

Seems important and should be included. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

Fake news already debunked.Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Zero Hedge is not a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fox News also covered this.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just the fact you're trying to use a fake news website (zero hedge) AND calling a report from NY Times sorta disqualifies your statements, WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek 01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And by the way that's not a "debunking", that's just "some guy on twitter said" garbage.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, you have made 10,970 edits since you registered your account on March 3, 2007. You are no newbie, and yet you have not benefited from being here. One of the most important skills possessed by editors is how to vet sources, and knowing the difference between reliable and unreliable ones. That you, in your private life, entertain any unreliable sources like Fox News, Zero Hedge (and likely Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, etc.), is unfortunate, because GIGO, and we pay the price.

Your personal choices are affecting your editing here. You should never suggest we even consider the use of such unreliable sources. You seriously lack competence and should stick to fixing grammar, spelling, and style issues. Stay away from anything related to determination of facts, except on engineering subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... you know Fox news is actually a reliable source right? Though I do not see a Fox source listed. Also tone down the personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe two years ago. Not anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, actually every time they are brought up at RSN it is confirmed they are a RS. A bias source, but still a RS. Kind of like Mother Jones or Vox. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course following the revelation of Hillary's private email server every internet sleuth on the planet was looking for her emails and very likely there were lots of shadowy figures on the web claiming to have them. Because the FBI had the bar room tip months ago, if Papadopoulos actually knew how to get those or any other campaign related emails the FBI would have gotten it out of him and this case would be over. Fast forward. Now that the FIB is under investigation by congress for political bias based on Inspector General Horowitz's revelations, NY Times publishes the story about Papadopoulos. Coincidentally, this week when Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein have to answer questions about the dossier or be held in contempt of congress NY Times publishes the article. (For how diversion and disinformation works read the Wikileaks emails about providing cover when bad news breaks.) If Papadopoulos' bar room conversation really did start the investigation then why didn't Wray and Rosenstein answer the questions a long time ago? We should know the truth soon.Phmoreno (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This seems to be rapidly headed into NOTFORUM territory. General Ization ^Talk 22:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Enough said.Phmoreno (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Fox News piece cited is clearly labeled as opinion, and so is not a reliable source for assertions of fact. The Federalist isn't reliable either. This tends to reinforce what BullRangifer said above. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and "not reliable sources" presented here are to encourage analytical thinking, but I guess that was expecting too much.Phmoreno (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You made exactly the same claim at Talk:Donald Trump-Russia dossier - that you can post various stuff here that would never be allowed into the article, for the sake of "analytical thinking". So I'll make the same reply I did there: The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Since this kind of "information" cannot be included in the article because it lacks Reliable Sourcing, mentioning it here can only serve two possible purposes: WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:FORUM. Neither is a permissible use of the Talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pagesPhmoreno (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: But repeatedly using it to support your speculations is disruptive. Stop doing it. Now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose adding Congressional subpoena to FBI, Inspector General's investigation of improper conduct in DOJ, FBI

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

---

Propose adding the following facts:

From testimony I watched on live television over the last month, the collusion was between Justice Dept./FBI officials and Clinton/DNC contractor Fusion GPS against Trump. If congress doesn't get the answers from the FBI in response to the months old subpoena, they will proceed with contempt of congress charges. (Christopher Wray said he knew the answers but refused to give them to congress.) Also, Inspector General's investigation of the Justice Dept. and FBI that hasn't been mentioned here.Phmoreno (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections? - MrX 03:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Belongs in Developments sectionPhmoreno (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask where it belongs; I asked what it has to do with Russian Interference in the 2016 elections?- MrX 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

[1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! Phmoreno, you should read that source [2]. The GOP has been leading you astray, and their propaganda wing, FoxNews, has been repeating their lies, conspiracy theories, and distractions from the real Trump-Russia conspiracy to steal the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Bannon's comments

• " Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”"
• "(Bannon) warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”"
• Regarding the Trump Tower meeting: "“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”"
• "“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”"
• "“The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero”"

That's from [3]. There's more in there but it's not directly related to this topic. Also [4]. Since this is all relevant to Russian interference, this needs to be included (along with WH's response).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We should also include Bannon's comments about Hillary on her BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon didn't work for Hillary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Does he claim inside info, or is this just his opinion? Parts certainly sound like speculation. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Who, Bannon or Wolff? Note also that the WH is taking the statements at face value and Bannon hasn't bothered to deny it (which he always does when he's accused of something).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Give it a few days to see if any of it sticks. Nothing needs to be included just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "any of it sticks". This isn't a "developing event". It's a report on What Bannon had already said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What I mean by if any of it sticks, is that it is a developing event. Since it is a comment from a unreleased book. Not much time for annalists or context yet. So until there is more information and if it develops legs then we can take a look. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Bannon's an expert on treason, or that his use of the term "treason" is anything more than political rhetoric. You can't commit treason unless you are aiding an entity with which the U.S. is at war, which is why no Americans were prosecuted for doing business with Nazi Germany prior to 1941. Last I checked, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be. And it doesn't have to be. It is still significant that he would use that word (obviously in a colloquial sense, the way people normally use it, not in a lawyer-ly way) to describe the meeting and Don Jr.'s actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Noop. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/treason SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that much, if any, space should be given to Bannon's spurious opinions in this article. If he was legitimately concerned about treason, he could have said something much earlier. As usual, the media is sensationalizing this nothingburger.- MrX 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the White House's response, I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's about time that the white house caught up with the rest of the world. This is little more than diversion from a long list of greater issues, like a tax law that favors corporations, money laundering, congressional committee members trying to subvert a criminal investigation, tiny fingers on a large button, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The American public is being played.- MrX 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The comments might deserve to be mentioned in the Trump campaign–Russian meetings article as a "Reaction". ^Falling_Gravity 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If Bannon knew it was treasonous for Trump Jr. to fail to report this to the FBI, then wouldn’t he be treasonous for not reporting treason while working in the WH? This is just Bannon being Bannon. We can’t fall into the trap of repeating such. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Put it in the Bannon article. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

None of this overhyped, over-the-top bluster should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon's comments aren't relevant to this page, as they're his mere opinion. They belong at Fire and Fury (book), and maybe not even on his own biographical page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian which says it saw the book quoting him, says the statement about Trump Jr's meeting with Russian officials is quoted from him. [5]. Even Trump is taking legal action against him. [6] It is likely genuine but the book hasn't been released yet. But the fact pointed out by the sources here is that potentially damaging material against Hillary was offered to Trump campaign in a June 2016 meeting. This is what is reffered to as "unpatriotic" and "treasonous". We should hold off on Bannon's statements until the release of the book. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of someone in the campaign team, it will be considered important. Had it been someone not in Trump's campaign, I doubt it will be. Since we have a commentary and reactions section, I think it should be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There are articles where this comment of Bannon's might be added. However, I don't think this article - which is about Russian interference in the election - is the place. Probably Fire and Fury (book) since it is being cited in virtually every article or comment about the book. Possibly the Bannon article. Possibly the Trump campaign-Russian meetings article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The meeting was real, so was the offer. I don't see any harm in a few comments. What's the point in having commentary and reactions if you don't include comments and reactions? As far as notabilty is concerned, it certainly is notable, even to the point of legal action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be added. for its shows the whole right-wing propaganda of Russian collusion or Trump campaign collusion being a "lie" itself is a lie. It's known Trump Jr tried to access sensitive information from Russia to undermine Hillary. This is "collusion". Why is this story not on the top instead of conclusion of intelligence agencies? Trump Jr's confession and expose of Russia-Trump campaign collusion must be at the top. Even if he didn't receive anything "substantial", he tried to conspire with an enemy government. 103.40.197.145 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason why the Trump Tower meeting is not "at the top" is because this is an article about the interference rather than an article about the collusion per se.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs additional content

Article talk pages are not for idle speculation or your personal theories. We start with sources, then we develop the encyclopedia content from the sources. STOP USING THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE AS A FORUM.

The article should include content with appropriate references that offer other points of view or analysis. One would be John McAffe's comments, whatever your opinion of him, he is a subject matter expert on cybersecurity. (See above section on McAfee) Here are issues that should be addressed: It may be possible that both an inside leak download and a hack occurred and that one or both got copies of the data. We don't know how much additional data was gotten. There is no conclusive proof that state government actors conducted the hack. Evidence is that they used an old generation of hack-ware tools and methods, which may have been state developed. What we don't know is what other hacks occurred at that time around the globe using the particular version of hack-ware. (records exist) If the Russian state really did favor Trump and conducted the hack, then no action was necessary on the Trump campaign's part, nor would they want the Trump campaign or anyone else to know. If non state actors (mercenaries), some perhaps former state actors, conducted the hack they would likely have offered the files for sale. The sale would have been in Bitcoin or other completely untraceable cryptocurrency. Anyone who knew who held the files could have redeemed them, not necessarily someone on the Trump team. Subpoenaing bank records is of course useless. Surely there is commentary on this subject suitable for reference. Bottom line- it will never be proven that anyone on Trump's campaign was connected to the hack or to obtaining the file, most probably because they were innocent, but if not, the hackers would not have made their identity known or payments to them traceable. Phmoreno (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Reliable sources or stop using the talk page as a FORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop immediately archiving discussions

I am interested in seeing what others are saying and do not want these discussions immediately archived.Phmoreno (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that these aren't "discussions" but you just posting your own original research in violation of WP:TALK, archiving is the nice way of doing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not referring to my posts but a couple of other editors expressed their opinions, which were immediately removed. I didn't even get a chance to read all of the comments, but there were some valid points. You are engaging in censorship.Phmoreno (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be because they were not anything more then "Wikipedia is biased because it represented a viewpoint I do not agree with". It is not censorship, it is asking people to not make accusations of political bias or try to foist their POV on a page. We go with what RS say, not editors speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ph, why don't you take this to your talk page and then if you come up with any proposed content that's within site policy you can bring the muffins back to the barn. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, for days now you have filled up this talk page with speculation and argumentation and Original Research. The closed discussion above is a perfect example: nothing but "might have", "could have", "if", "maybe". One or two such posts could be forgiven, but your persistence is getting disruptive. Hatting or immediately archiving this kind of stuff has become necessary to keep this talk page focused on what it is supposed to be focused on: improvements to the article based on Reliable Sources. Be glad that people are resolving this disruption of yours by simply moving it out of the way.^{(see Note)} And if you want to read people's responses, you still can. Anything which has been archived can be found under the archive link at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Judging from the warnings on your talk page, this tolerance may not last much longer. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The tolerance is gone.- MrX 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

“There's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything“

Philip Bump at WaPo:

Some quotes:

• [W]hat we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts.
• Of the 30 ads shared by the Democrats, six, viewed 1.2 million times in total, ran in 2015. Only seven ran in the last month of the campaign, totaling about 340,000 views. The ads targeted none of the four closest states in the election — New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — specifically; most were national ad buys. States that were targeted specifically included Texas and New York, neither of which was considered a swing state.
• Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election. Among the points he made:
  • Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
  • Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
  • More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
  • A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
  • The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
  • More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
• [Per] Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election.
• [T]weets from the Russian accounts … constituted 0.02 percent of the election-related tweets. … If all of the Russian-linked tweets had been dropped on Election Day — closer to the point at which they would have directly helped suppress or boost turnout — they would still only have constituted 0.27 percent of the tweets that day. But they weren’t.
• Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.
• [T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.

Humanengr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In your view, does any/all of the above qualify as RS? Humanengr (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Err, sorry to wikilaywer but as you have not suggested any edit I can neither confirm or deny that the article is an RS for what you want to write. But I can say you have only included one RS in the above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A, please format replies correctly so it does not look like I have replied to it already. B. It does not matter if there are any recent RS that counter the claims, they are still only claims. Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet. Infact these are just counter claims, so the claims are already our there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Re B: Which statement are you referring to with “Even your source admits there maybe evidence of which we are not aware yet.”? Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m ok with including that ‘might’ statement along with its continuation: “Perhaps, one might argue, there is classified information about Russia’s meddling that suggests a more dramatic problem. Perhaps. On Thursday morning, though, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.” or some shortened paraphrase. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The source claims Himes' said that, other sources [7] have slightly different wording, and the implication not that he has not seen any evidence, just that we have already been made aware of any crimes Trump may have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Per that cite: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,” citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.’ I’m ok with that fuller statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not as they are different.Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you see a substantive difference between the two blockquotea below? AFAICS, the second adds a ref to Mueller, guilty pleas, and indictments. Is that the issue or is it something else? Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WaPo: “… Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee told CNN he hadn’t seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of.”

The Hill: “Asked if he’s seen evidence of a crime from the Trump campaign, Himes said Thursday that it’s Mueller’s role to investigate crimes, but added he hasn’t ‘seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of,’ citing the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.”

Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Subtly yes. One is worded in a way that can be read as saying that he has not seen much evidence, the other says he has not seen much more (or in other words he has seen more), also he says "I am not sure...". Why (indeed) would we not quote his own words? Also it is clear he is only talking about what the HIC has seen, not Muller (and he makes that very clear). So yes I would argue there is a slight alteration of tone that makes it seem more certain then it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

His own words: Jim Himes interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota:

Camerota: Have you seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign?

Himes: Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. And of course remember, the Congress is not about investigating crimes. The FBI and Robert Mueller are about that, and of course Robert Mueller has secured two guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and from George Papadopoulos, and of course, has indicted two other individuals, and it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet. So of course like a lot of Americans, I am waiting to see whatever else ….

How about if we use that, perhaps with some condensation? Would the condensation below address your concerns?

On December 28, 2017, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) of the House intelligence committee, when asked whether he had “seen any evidence of a crime on the part of Donald Trump’s campaign”, said “Well you know I’m not sure I have seen a lot that the American people aren’t already aware of. … [O]f course, remember, … it doesn’t seem like Robert Mueller is done yet.”

Humanengr (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM]] --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Humanengr, Himes seems to believe we already have heard of most of the possible crimes, and what "the American people" are "already aware of" is a huge pile of indicators, testimony, suppositions, intelligence, and confirmed and unconfirmed matters. I could write a long list of them, but suspect that obstruction of justice is the one that may get Trump, as it did Nixon. Many RS assert that he has already committed that crime. What one considers a possible Trump/crime largely depends on whether ones POV is informed by RS or by unreliable ones like Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, RT, Sputnik, Infowars, etc. RS have examined myriad potential crimes (we are "aware" of them), while unreliable sources have done all they can to either not report them at all, or to downplay and deny them, as well as use deflection by attacking others. Now Trump's defenders are turning attention away from the alleged criminals in the Trump administration and campaigns, and attacking the FBI, CIA, and whistleblowers like Steele, all of whom are in good faith trying to get to the bottom of what is possibly the greatest and most dangerous political conspiracy America has ever experienced. If Trump is innocent, he should be helping them, not criticizing them. He does not act like an innocent man. Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa has explained it this way (paraphrased): The use of obstruction of justice tactics to attack witnesses and law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, because whenever someone sees something suspicious that can affect national security, we want them to notify the FBI. That's what Steele did. He, and foreign intelligence allies, were extremely alarmed by what they all found. If witnesses are scared of doing so because the perpetrators are in high places and can misuse the power of the FBI to instead attack them, rather than take them seriously, we're in a bad spot. Terrorists and foreign (cyber)criminals won't get reported. Trump is misusing his power by appointing people beholden to him, not the Constitution, and then using the FBI as his personal tool. That is very wrong. Dictators do that. Some non-Americans may not understand this, but the majority of Americans are very alarmed by this situation, and they do not trust Trump. No president has had such low popularity numbers at this stage in their presidency. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yo, Humane, Per Facebook: Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election. So you now concede that Clinton would have won by 7.4 million popular votes if those pre-election eyeballs hadn't seen the Russian facebook Interference? SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, how can (someone that claims to be) an academic expert on economics fail to understand advertising on such a basic level?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, you're one that clicked a Russian cat video or a poison link. 🙀 🏴‍☠️ 🇷🇺 SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use this as a soapbox or as a forum to discus what other users think, discus the article and how to improve it please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that they were just sharing a useful source, and highlighting some key pieces of information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

[In response to Slatersteven]: How about if we start the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section with

As of December 28, 2017, per Philip Bump at the Washington Post, “[T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” [cite] Earlier assertions included:

Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What earlier assertions? Also why have this at the start?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

By ’earlier assertions’, I was referring to the remainder of the section; at the start as it is a summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is not it is one opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Again: Are there more recent RS that counter the above points? Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not need any, this is not a case of "ha! here is all the proof you need". This does not disprove the allegations, as it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WaPo classifies this article not as ‘opinion’ but as ‘Politics:Analysis”. If there are no more recent RS that counter the points of the article, then this is the most up-to-date. Prior, less-informed material is outdated. Humanengr (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about what the Russians did to interfere with the election. The social media onslaught was one of their initiatives. Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated and so it is not within the scope of this article. For that matter, we also don't know if their other efforts (such as releasing the DNC and Clinton emails, or hacking into state election databases) were or were not determinative in the outcome of the election, and will probably never know. The social media stuff was part of their campaign and belongs in this article; User:Humanengr, if you meant to suggest it be removed, that idea is a non-starter. Thank you for now coming up with an actual proposed edit to the article - that's what we are supposed to be doing here - but I oppose this suggestion. It's one person's opinion; are there any other sources saying the same thing? (We do have a requirement for multiple reliable sources, especially for anything controversial.) In any case, a disclaimer or dismissive comment should certainly not be put at the BEGINNING of the section, as if to negate everything that follows. Can you come up with an "on the other hand Philip Bump says" type sentence to put at the end of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the ‘Social media and internet trolls’ section be removed. Are there any more recent sources that counter the points in Bump’s article? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:Whether it WORKED or not, or how well, has not been evaluated... In fact, it has been, just never (to my knowledge) by anyone qualified to come to a trustworthy conclusion. I've yet to hear a real political science expert discuss whether or not it had any effect. The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, but I personally (along with many, many others) find that excruciatingly hard to believe, as it contradicts hundreds of years of political science research (and seems a little self-serving; accusing the Russians of not accomplishing anything). That being said, one hting we can know for sure is that we can never truly know exactly what effect it had, because we'd need to compare it to the same exact election, only without the interference in order to draw any such conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus among reporters, PR reps for the gubmint and talking heads has generally been that it had absolutely no effect on the election whatsoever, That has not been my reading. Not at all. The consensus IMO is that it may or may not have had an effect but it is impossible to know, since people vote in secret and we don't know why they vote the way they do. I think Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight published an analysis saying that the Comey comments about Clinton were responsible for the outcome, but not many other commentators accepted it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I should possibly have said "the message I hear the most from..." rather than "the consensus of..." I haven't heard as much doubt as you have, but what you're saying isn't all that far from what I meant (even if I didn't quite say it right). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. Of course the degree to which Russia interfered in the election is relevant to an article called "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Furthermore whether or not any of their actions could have been reasonably expected to interfere with the elections is relevant to whether or not there was any intention to interfere. When you introduce this type of objection it delays discussion about the sources, their reliability and the weight of their opinions and prevents improvement of the article. TFD (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump's view: Undue. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr, will you please stop claiming that this one analysis supersedes all previous analysis - unless we can come up with "more recent" (i.e., within the last two weeks) sources reiterating what they have been saying all along? Are they supposed to provide weekly updates? We do not have a rule here that the most recent report overrules all previous reports - particularly not when it contradicts all the previous material. As I asked above, you might want to suggest a sentence to add at the end of the section, summarizing Bump's analysis. If you can propose something like that, we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please drop it because this is getting you (and us) nowhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, the issue is whether there is -any- RS that counters Himes point that, as of December 28, 2017, the House intelligence committee has not “seen much evidence of any criminal collusion the American people weren’t already aware of”, i.e., other than the two guilty pleas and two indictments. Can you identify such? tia, Humanengr (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article's not really about the extent to which the ads achieved success or not. The inclusion of ads depends on whether Russia tried to interfere through them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The nature and effectiveness of social media targeting and its possible effect on electoral outcomes is full of complex technical factors that will need to be studied and assessed by competent experts. Bump is not a competent expert. And in this column, his discourse doesn't rise above the level of glib chatter at the New Year's eve puncbowl. Sorry, not only is there nothing definitive here. It's worse -- just meaningless.-- In WP terms it's WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Recapitulating: The discussion above brings out two points for inclusion — that, as of December 28, 2017:

1. “[T]he public evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Russians executed a savvy electoral strategy on social media to ensure Trump’s victory. In fact, it seems less the case that they did so now than seemed might be possible back in July.” [WaPo]
2. The House intelligence committee “has not seen much evidence of any criminal collusion” [WaPo] beyond “the two guilty pleas and two indictments Mueller has obtained thus far.” [The Hill]

No one has offered RS to counter the above. Humanengr (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? The social media strategy's effectiveness (or not), which is the apparent subject of this discussion section, or the evidence (or not) of criminal collusion, which seems completely unrelated to the listed topic, but which in any case means nothing because the evidence is being collected in secret? You do seem to have boiled down the social media issue to a single sentence, which is helpful. Can you clarify what you think should be put in the article? Are you proposing this direct quote from WaPo, or a paraphrase? --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You’re right that the discussion content doesn’t match the title. The latter, which is the title of Bump’s article, also doesn’t fully cover its content. Apologies for the misdirection.

While the title of Bump’s article focuses on effectiveness of the social media campaign, the content seems to speak more to how “minute” and “unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election”. And then the article also brings in that quote from Himes re collusion.

Thx for your patience and prompts. Hopefully the above helps, and I’ll give further thought on how to proceed. Humanengr (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Electoral interference

Concerning all the talk around Trump Tower meeting with the Russian lawyer and officials. The article states that US intelligence concluded that Russia electorally interfered ie attempting to influence the elections.

But it is known about Trump Jr that he received an email from Rob Goldstone, who set up the meeting, about it being a part of Russian government wanting to help Trump in elections.

Wouldn't this in itself be seen as interference and trying to influence the elections? Of course this is a statement by someone else, not direct admission, even if he might have organised the meeting. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

High bias level

This article has a high bias level, starting with not mentioning that Clapper backpedaled strongly from his "17 agencies" claim.

It nowhere cites that the amount spent on things like Facebook ads was tiny, that Russian-ran Facebook groups and pages targeted both Trump and Clinton and more.

It also nowhere sites places like Consortium News, which has tested download speeds and shown that Russians couldn't have done an online international hack of the DNC emails, leaving the logical conclusion that they were internally stolen. Consortium News was found by former AP investigative journalist Robert Parry and is advised on issues like this by VIPS, a group of retired intelligence community professionals. Its source value level is quite high.

47.182.36.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A source for the claim Clapper said 17 agencies and then backpedaled please? Also, a download speed proves the Russians could not have done it, seriously someone has claimed that, we need a source for this too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The download speeds is referring to the discredited VIPS report covered by The Nation, which has been discussed exhaustively on various talk pages. Consortium News itself is not a reliable source. Ready for archive.Geogene (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Facebook ads are being discussed above. How is Clapper's claim relevant (even if it's true that Clapper "backpedaled")? We don't seem to mention "17 intelligence agencies" in the article. I don't whether The Nation article has been discredited – what happened to the internal review? However, if VIPS report is not covered in DNC leak subarticle, that's an indicator that it should not be covered here. Politrukki (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - Per my comments below, I am restoring this section after it was removed by SPECIFICO and Geogene (with an objection by A Quest for Knowledge). MelanieN I will defer to your judgement if you disagree but I don't believe it's appropriate to simply remove this post, since it does make a few specific points, even if it is unlikely anything will come of it. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we're hatting now. So are we going to hat this or are we going to bicker about it for another three months? I would hat it myself, but last time I hatted something, that hatting was quickly reverted by an admin. Then it went off to Jimbo Talk to fester for days. I forget how that turned out. Geogene (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene: I would recommend that you not hat or archive this post. I am not demanding the IPs specific requests be implemented, but I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If the OP doesn't respond within a reasonable about of time (~a day) I would support simply archiving the section. No sense wasting precious talk page space if the OP won't even answer clarifying questions or substantiate their assertions.- MrX 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A two or three day wait could be better. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Nobody's internet connection is that slow.- MrX 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that some of their concerns are valid. Simply removing talk page posts that one is unhappy about is inappropriate. First off, after all the clear delineation by half a dozen editors as to the nature of the disruption/trolling, it is not civil to suggest that the consensus of your fellow editors is to remove posts based on a shared personal preference. Now, if you want to change the current consensus to hat this disruption (whether immediately or in a day or two) then the only effective course would be for you to make a constructive editing suggestion instead of to instigate another pointless meta-discussion about disruption. We're all earseyeballs. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I asked for evidence that the IP was a troll / SPA / meatpuppet, and didn't receive any. Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil? We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.) I'm making the same point exactly. I would appreciate if you would WP:AGF for my comments here: at least some small amount of that is required to maintain a collegial environment on this talk page. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, the IPs/SPAs should at least read the archive before they pointlessly revisit things that have been argued for months. Surely you will admit that? You, and others, but especially you, are casting WP:ASPERSIONS when you say that this old garbage gets deleted because I disagree with them (and yes I am being named above). I don't appreciate that, but I'll just return the favor by saying it's not unlikely that you are taking a "free speech" position to the talk page because that transparently benefits what appears to be your own, not exactly mainstream, POV. Geogene (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity and for my understanding, by ‘mainstream’, were you indicating ‘Mainstream media’? Humanengr (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, Do you think that my comment above is uncivil, but that MelanieN's comment below, addressing you, is civil?. Yessir, ma'am. If you want more detail, I'd be pleased to reply elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If nobody is looking for a dramafest it's time to move on. -Darouet (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you want to move on. Weird, because you've been throwing my username around a lot over the last several hours, and I've mostly been ignoring it. Darouet, why don't you think new users should be expected to search the talk page archives? And, are you sure you don't have an agenda here of your own? Geogene (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect an IP, unless they're a prolific IP, or a new user to understand the talk page archives. -Darouet (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean that the rest of us will waste an unlimited number of volunteer hours endlessly rehashing the same issues that we already know will not improve the article? And that good faith IPs will also waste many hours discussing something with the false hope that it might ever be added to the article? Not only does that strike me as profoundly inefficient, it also strikes me as fundamentally unfair to everyone involved, particularly established users but also whatever IP/SPAs are here with the right motivation. Except the trolls that come to talk pages to prove a point, of course. That will give them what they want. I'm still trying to understand what the benefit of not immediately closing known dead ends is, other than for the trolls. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Most talk page entries on most articles are inactive, and on big articles, they're eventually archived. Here, 90% of editor bytes (and time) have come from the effort to (inappropriately) remove this talk page entry. Removing it without just cause sets a bad precedent. I do understand your frustration (I mean this sincerely), but just let it go, for all of our sakes. -Darouet (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo, Darouet? Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Deal with VIPS in the article so this doesn't come up repeatedly

Regarding the recent reverted VIPS post.

I made s similar post about the VIPS report recently because I was new to this article and hadn't seen it mentioned. Rather than dismissing the VIPS report, it should be addressed in the article, and if it has been debunked then say why. That will deal with two of the three likely scenarios: Russian Intelligence (SVR), inside job, mercenary hacker(s).Phmoreno (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Every conspiracy theory doesn't merit debunking in article space. That's Whataboutism. And just because various IPs show up on talk pages doesn't mean that every argument we've ever had previously needs to be re-opened. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "VIPS Report" is fake news garbage and doesn't belong on either the article or the talk page on Wikipedia. You can look up the extensive discussions of it, but don't put this stuff back on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

VIPS has come up here at this talk page a number of times as far as I can tell:

• [8]
• [9]
• "Committee_to_Investigate_Russia"

and in a related post at RSN:

• "A_Leak_or_a_Hack?_A_Forum_on_the_VIPS_Memo"_Fake_News?_Is_The_Nation_a_Fake_News_Source?

Binney has come up numerous times at this talk page: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

There was a time when VIPS/Binney was included in this article; I'm not sure when those references were removed. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Phmoreno, SPECIFICO, Geogene, and A Quest For Knowledge: the archive-revert-delete sequence has removed the IP's statement both from the talk page here, and from the archive. I don't think things should be archived so quickly, but deleting good faith comments from talk+archive both is even worse. Pinged editors and @MelanieN: I don't know if there's a way of fixing the delete? -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up with a little jab here. I don't see what you're talking about. Get your facts documented, then return with info so it can be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'jab?" In this edit sequence, you 1-click archived a new talk page discussion, AQFK reverted you, and Geogene deleted the discussion. As a result the discussion is no longer here at talk, nor is it archived. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It means, if you see an obviously inadvertent editing artifact, just fix it. Don't pop in to complain and recite long lists of whatnot when we're trying to keep the article talk page on focus in the presence of an obstinate SPA. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "long lists of whatnot [sic]" is a list of discussions that you and Geogene are supposedly referencing. Because you didn't link them, quote from them, or note specific outcomes, I've listed them above. Don't be so pointlessly rude.

I'll restore the discussion section that you and Geogene deleted. If someone wants to re-archive it, they may do that. -Darouet (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

About deleting or archiving other people's posts

OK, hold it. Let’s agree on some rules here. For starters, we do NOT delete other people’s comments at a talk page unless they are 1) information/commentary about a living subject which violates BLP (and that doesn’t just mean saying something unkind or critical; it means actual accusations, vicious namecalling, that kind of thing) or 2) blatant personal attacks or 3) copyright infringement. Other cases can include things like obvious nonsense, fly-by commentary about the subject, or posts by proven sockpuppets.

We DON’T delete other people’s comments because we disagree with them, or because the same points have been made before, or because they are not supported by Reliable Sources, or because they are Opinion or Original Research. User:Politrukki, I’m talking to you. IMO those are not valid reasons for instant-archiving, either - especially if a discussion is ongoing with more than one person participating. User:SPECIFICO, User:Geogene, I’m talking to you. (We did make a bit of an exception recently, instant-archiving a whole series of repetitive posts from Phmoreno that were getting disruptive.)

So what should we do with comments or discussions that are veering way off into Original Research, or opinion (per WP:FORUM), or mild personal attacks, or going over and over material that has been discussed before? The best thing to do is hat them, with an appropriate comment as to why. If there is active discussion we should wait until it dies down before hatting or archiving.

Discussing what to include in the article is what talk pages are for. That doesn’t mean hammering on the same points over and over or refusing to accept consensus, which in individual cases can become disruptive, but please let that kind of label be applied by someone who is not involved in the disagreement; avoid name-calling and accusing as part of an argument.

Please don’t respond to this comment of mine with a whole bunch of arguments about or excuses for past behavior. Let’s just agree to follow these guidelines in the future. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these written or unwritten policies? Geogene (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer, please. They are advice, offered because of recent problems at this article. Do you think you can abide by these guidelines? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice, that's different. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate this. We need less ownership on this talk page and in the article. Instant-archiving discussions just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive. Opening simultaneous discussions for same topic is considered disruptive and it's okay to close a redundant discussion while pointing editors to existing discussion. This talk page rarely reaches any consensus (and sometimes when someone says there was consensus for X, that's not true at all) and we currently have seventeen archived talk pages so it's natural that some conversations are rehashed from time to time. And everybody please remember that consensus can change.

However, I'm flabbergasted that you chose to restore one purely disruptive talk page post which had nothing to do with article improvement, and which literally said that a living person, who has not been convicted, committed a crime. You reinstated an obvious BLP violation only to hat that post. That's mighty bureaucratic. Yet you chose not to restore a discussion (now restored by Darouet), which was about article improvement? Politrukki (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we have 17 talk page archives proves that this talk page is a huge time sink that is not being handled appropriately. Letting it be a perpetual open mic night by allowing any and all single-use IPs to publish screeds here--whether those screeds are on a white background, a grey background, or collapsed but still easily located--is not going to improve this. Whereas, deleting/archiving creates a disincentive. It doesn't affect the article because if Breitbart isn't a reliable source today, it's not going to become a reliable source because a bunch of right-wing SPAs spent 18 months talking everyone into a stupor here. Although that might actually get it into the article, once everybody's fed up with dealing with them and there is no way to put a brake on the discussion. There is no logical basis for not deleting or archiving repetitive, time-wasting posts. It's just overhead that nobody should have to put up with. Geogene (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was going to agree with Mel, until this. There is an issue here with (what are in effect) meatpuppets coming here and starting up the same damn conversation we have had 15 times before. But at the same time it is against the rules to delete another users posts without good reason.

I suggest therefore that this is taken to a more appropriate noticeboard as this affects not just this page but many, and may need a rules change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Serious registered users get a lot of slack here. I don't see any problem hatting or archiving obvious SPA or sock disruption. I did not think it constructive for Darouet to parachute in when he appeared to deny that key distinction. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, Geogene, and SPECIFICO. Rambling forum talk by editors posting in good faith should preferably be hatted if the comments are not leading to specific article improvements. Unambiguous trolling, gibberish, and rants should simply be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY. This includes deleting the more subtle trolling from users who have been repeatedly warned not to use the talk page for idle speculation.- MrX 13:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

MrX the IP's post was short, and did raise a number of specific concerns, some of which I and plenty of editors here have agreed with. I didn't find their post disruptive, and unless there's evidence they are a sock or a "meatpuppet," as Slatersteven suggests, their post shouldn't simply be removed. -Darouet (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Also MrX I agree that there are posts that can be deleted per WP:TPG and WP:DENY, and have supported that on other pages to protect them from known trolls or socks. But deleting reasonable comments that you disagree with is a step too far. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

My comments were general. IPs are people too. I also agree with Slatersteven, whose comment I did not previously see.. - MrX 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

None of what Darouet said "sounds reasonable" however. Darouet has not been working on the "issues" (if any) that the SPA's keep bringing up here. Then he accuses others of bad faith archiving and hatting, calling the trolls' comments "reasonable" after allowing as how, well, he agrees with them despite never trying to get them into well-sourced condition that would support article content. And now -- now we have another stupid drawn out sump of a thread on this already messed-up creature we call a talk page. Nothing reasonable to see here. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask that comments or sections — made by anyone who isn't known to be a troll or SPA — be preserved. The IP made a few specific critiques that relate to article content, which certainly can be acted upon to improve the article, even if that's unlikely to happen. What evidence do you have that the IP is a troll or an SPA? -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. SPECIFICO are you sure I accused you of "bad faith archiving and hatting?" And is it really so hard to use the personal pronoun "they" or "he/she," as I've requested of you several times in the past? -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, folks, I didn’t make this stuff up. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. You can delete “prohibited material such as comments by banned users, libel, legal threats, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.” You can delete “harmful posts including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism”. You can delete “gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), and test edits.” It does NOT say you can delete off-topic posts; it says you should deal with off-topic posts by hatting them. Likewise, the mere fact that a comment comes from an IP does not mean it should be deleted, particularly not if other users have responded and a discussion has developed.

And yes, Politrukki, it is OK to hat redundant discussions while directing people to the primary discussion. Slatersteven, feel free to raise this discussion at a more general location, but they will most likely just point you to the guidelines I linked above. SPECIFICO, your repeated personal criticism of Darouet is inappropriate. Such talk only leads to counter-accusations and degrades the tone of the page. Please discuss issues and not the behavior of other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've contributed as much substantive improvement to this article as anyone in the Project. I don't have a problem calling out sockpuppetry, trolling, and vandalism. Nobody deleted nothing for its being IP or being "wrong" or being disagreeable. Are we talking about whether, after a thread has been appropriately hatted, per your advice, it was then a violation to archive it? Seems a minimal distinction to me. Melanie, I note that nobody challenges your advice, but I think it's fair to say that the opinions of less active, less experienced, less productive editors than yourself is counterproductive here. Your participation has been key to whatever orderly progress we've made on this article, but I think we'd all be better off without carping or paratrooper appearances without any avenue to article improvement. I took some care not to make any personal reference to Darouet, but to address he/she's substantive points. To the extent I failed, you are quite right it doesn't belong here and I am pleased to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)