Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Bias

The Russian government did not interfere in the 2016 elections to boost the campaign of Donald Trump and harm the campaign of Hillary Clinton. For every source you can find that says it, you can find just as many that says it did not happen, or that they are not sure. This has shown over time to be an obvious partisan issue, with individuals that lean "left" politically seeming to believe it did happen, and individuals that lean "right" politically seem to believe it did not happen. Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be a place for FACTS ONLY which is part of the reason it is so great and such a valuable resource, and this article is absolutely disgusting because it is showing that Wikipedia has a slant in its political leanings. This is unacceptable. People have edited this multiple times to do things like add the word "allegedly" (which honestly would make this article perfect and what it needs to be), but with every edit, it just gets edited back to this factual set in stone "proven" (even though Russian interference absolutely has NOT been proven) narrative. Guys, we are better than this. I'm disgusted at the people in this talk page that seem to be so ideologically driven to the notion that Russian interference DID happen as if saying anything other than this is blasphemy against their personal religious beliefs, and seem to un-do all edits immediately that says anything otherwise. Wikipedia is for facts, Russian interference is not proven and facts about it are muddy and seem to be based on partisan-beliefs, and this Wikipedia article NEEDS to be reflected as such.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40521985/russian-interference-in-us-election-no-one-knows-trump

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russia-trump-and-2016-us-election#chapter-title-0-2

etc etc...

Skcin7 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Skcin7Skcin7 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes, Russia interfered with several U.S. elections on several fronts. That is a core fact, establish long ago by a preponderance of reliable sources. The article is not biased (see previous lengthy discussions and hundreds of reliable sources for why that's the case), although there may be small portions that don't reflect a neutral POV. I'm not sure why you tried to make your case by citing a nearly two year old article. The CFR article actually reflects what's in this article, although it is more than a year outdated as well. Wikipedia is not for FACTS ONLY; it's for knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't prove things. Please learn our policies and guidelines before you spout off.  WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR are particularly helpful.- MrX 🖋 11:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly agree this article is in terrible condition and need to be rewritten. It is just sad that Wikipedia is turning into a propaganda platform. I remember when I first read it, I thought it was vandalized.

I agree with addition of the word "allegedly". Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Might be difficult for you to accept, however, MrX is correct. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Hello. Since we couldn't have consensus on the conspiracy theory discussion, then I suggest not treat this whole issue as bare facts and as if we know it happened. I suggest attribute the whole issue to the US intelligence agencies or government: "according to the US intelligence agencies, the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections happend with the goal of harming the campaign ....." as it enhance Wikipedia credibility and neutrality and shrinks the idea of Wikipedia being a propaganda platform. And we can discuss the best way to attribute the information and which information should be attributed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That issue has already been settled. Please read through the previous discussions.- MrX 🖋 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I question whether "Shorouq" is acting in good faith. R2 (bleep) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo the same goes to you. I've seen multiple discussions for you, you seem to be a Russophobic and conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't matter as long as your edits does not reflect your extremist opinion [against Russia and in the favor of the US], but unfortunately this is not the case here. So you are the last one that has the right to talk about "good faith". Apologies. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be OR to assert that only the US government has these views. I've seen sources from IT experts and investigative journalists that have come to the same conclusions. Geogene (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead

Can we please remove the final paragraph of the lead? William Barr is a bit player in this story, and his role has been inflated beyond reason. By the way, thank yous are in order. The last time I visited an editor had worked overtime to rewrite the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at re-writing that paragraph. I agree that it shouldn't mention Barr. Barr's letters aren't reliable secondary sources with respect to what Mueller concluded and their inclusion was always recentism in my view. R2 (bleep) 16:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Subjects not covered by Mueller Report

There is a lot of off-topic material - unrelated crimes and "process crimes". The Mueller Report doesn't seem to even mention Vekselberg, Butina, Vashukevich, NRA or "Influence on FBI investigation of email server". Is any "RS" still saying these are related to "Russian government interference in the 2016 United States election"? Wikipedia removed "RS" material from the "War on Terror" article when it turned out to be bunk. Is it time to do the same here? Keith McClary (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing Vashukevich completely. I would have to look at those other suggestions in more detail. Geogene (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How does the absence of these items in the Mueller Report mean they're "bunk?" R2 (bleep) 16:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And on a related note, did you notice in the Mueller Report (Appendix D) that Mueller made 14 referrals that are ongoing, of which we had only known of 2 of them? This means that the items you list could be among the other 12. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are "outside the scope of the Special Counsel's jurisdiction", so probably of this article as well. Keith McClary (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Mueller Report

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"this is the end of my presidency"

Re [1]. This WP:SYNTH two clauses by making it seem like when Trump said "I'm fucked" and "this is the end of my Presidency" he was referring to being unable to get anything done. But this is original research and probably false (the "I'm fucked" kind of signifies this). The two statements - "I'm fucked" etc and not being to get anything done where made in two separate statements to Sessions. Putting them together, even with the ellipses in there is classic WP:SYNTH where sourced material is put together to suggest a conclusion not found in the sources. Additionally, the whole second part isn't really being reported on, especially not as much as the "I'm fucked" part. It's also off topic. As a result it means it's WP:UNDUE here and I would appreciate it very much if User:Thucydides411, who's been both warned and topic banned from this article for exactly this kind of behavior, refrained from edit warring and tried to get consensus on the talk page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Thucydides411's conduct here was disruptive, and conduct issues don't belong on this page anyway. Nevertheless I agree with you that the second quote adds little to this article and should be removed. R2 (bleep) 00:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll quote directly from the Reuters article that references this material ([2]):

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked,” Trump said.

Trump then turned his anger toward Sessions.

“You were supposed to protect me,” Sessions recalled Trump telling him.

Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” Trump then said, according to both Hunt and Sessions.

The above Reuters text connects these statements, as you can see. The three above statements occurred one after another, according to the Reuters article (the linking word "then" strongly suggests this). I don't see how it's synth to put these statements together, given that that's exactly what Reuters does. The last statement ("Everyone tells me ...") gives more context to the titillating first statement ("Oh my God ..."), which is probably why Reuters chose to include it in their coverage of the discussion between Trump and Sessions. Truncating what Trump is reported to have said at the first statement could easily give a false impression about what he meant.

Finally, if the first statement is on-topic, I don't see how the last statement is off-topic. They're both purely about Trump's reaction to the appointment of the Special Counsel. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Reuters text connects these statements". No it doesn't. He says the "I'm fucked" pat. He then does something else. He then does something else. He THEN makes the "Everyone tells me" statement. Your version of the article text makes it seem like the two statements are made one right after the other, making it seems like Trump thinks he's "fucked" because "he won't be able to do anything". That is NOT in the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Reuters could more directly connect these statements. Reuters connects them with the word "then," indicating that they were said one after another. Reuters puts the statement that you're saying is unrelated under the sub-heading, "I'm fucked." If your theory is that these are completely disconnected statements, that's simply unsupportable by the text of the Reuters article.

"My" version of the text (it's actually a compromise version between what Lafayette Baguette, I and you added in) gives exactly the same impression that the Reuters article gives, which is that "Oh my God ..." and "Everyone tells me ..." were part of the same string of statements Trump made when he heard about the investigation. I think that including the first statement, but leaving out the last, leaves the reader to guess at what Trump means by the "Oh my God ..." statement, when the last statement ("Everyone tells me ...") gives context to the first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see how Reuters could more directly connect these statements." - well, it couldn't, because they're not that connected. That's sort of the point. The key is that there's a couple of "then"s there. No matter how you look at it, the use of ellipsis to make it seem like these statements were made in reference to one another is your own WP:OR.

Please note also that at least two other editors have agreed that the second part of the quote is unnecessary and should be removed [3]. Consensus is against you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"well, it couldn't, because they're not that connected." Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that Reuters very clearly connects the two statements, by putting them under the same heading, by making it clear that they were said one after another, and by even saying that in the final quote, Trump was returning to the same concern as he had in the first quote ("Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel."). I honestly don't see how we can both read the same text and come to such wildly different conclusions about what it means. To me, it looks like Reuters is saying Trump was talking about the same thing with these quotes.

I agree with Cestlavieleir's statement below that we should either give the full context of what Trump was saying, or not include the quotes at all. Including only part of the quote, and removing the part where Trump specifically says why he's dismayed by the appointment of a special counsel, would be highly misleading. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The generic complaint about Special Counsels paralyzing a presidency gives more context into Trump's thought process than just focusing on the "I'm fucked" utterance. I have restored it. — JFG ^talk 08:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If we don't include the quotes which the report and sources relate I think it's best to remove it. Cestlavieleir (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The exchange is on Vol II page 78.[4] The report weaves together Hunt’s notes with Session’s testimony. Immediately after the exchange, Trump asked for Sessions resignation; although it didn’t happen for a time. O3000 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't emphasize the "Everyone tells me if you get one of these..." quote and neither should we. It is redundant with respect to Trump's more explicit quote. It adds nothing to the readers understanding of the underlying subject.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course it adds to the understanding! When Trump says "This is the end of my presidency", there's a vast difference whether he says it because a) he knows he's guilty of something and is afraid of being found out, or b) such investigations are crippling to any presidency, irrespective of the veracity of the president's alleged misdeeds. The extended quote validates option b (as his state of mind), and that's consistent with most of Trump's public outrage over the "witch hunt". — JFG ^talk 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you provide a couple of sources that support your scenario 'b'? In other words, sources that say that Trump said "I'm fucked" because he believed he is innocent but felt that such investigations would be crippling to his presidency?- MrX 🖋 18:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• The second portion clarifies why he said the first. Leaving only the first implies he is admitting wrongdoing but the second portion clarifies the reason he felt "fucked. They don't have to be statements he made in conjunction.--MONGO (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Can you cite some sources that say second portion clarifies why he said the first? - MrX 🖋 18:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"The second portion clarifies " - No. That's exactly what WP:SYNTH is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is when an editor combines information from different sources to come to a new conclusion that's not being made by the sources themselves. There are lots of sources that directly link the two quotes by Trump we're discussing. The sources indicate that he said them in succession, and Reuters even says that the second quote was about the same subject as the first. There's no synthesis here. It is the sources that are connecting these statements, not editors here. Beyond that, just read the quotes: it's obvious that they go together. Quoting only the first part of the quote ("Oh my God ..."), but not quoting the last part ("Everyone tells me ...") gives a misleading impression of what Trump was saying. The insistence on the part of some that the first part of the quote be included, combined with the insistence that the last part be excluded just doesn't make any rational sense if one's goal is simply to accurately represent what Trump said. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you expecting those sources to say? Are you expecting something along the lines of, "Trump said, X, and then he continued, Y. As you can see, statement Y clarifies statement X." There are tons of sources that give both statements together, and the connection between them is obvious: [5] [6] [7], for example. You're creating an unrealistic threshold for inclusion, where unless the sources explicitly come out and state something along the lines of, "These two statements that we just strung together, as part of the same narrative, discussing the same issue, are connected, and the second statement clarifies the first," then we can't put the statements together. It's obvious that removing the last part of the quote serves to imply option (a) in JFG's explanation above - that Trump was upset because he knew he was guilty - and I'm sure you see that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"What are you expecting those sources to say? Are you expecting something along the lines of, "Trump said, X, and then he continued, Y. As you can see, statement Y clarifies statement X."". Something along the lines of "Trump then clarified..." would work. But you ain't got that. So you're substituting your own WP:OR (it clarifies!) in instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Cited sources [8] strongly emphasize one specific phrase, one that is currently cited on the page. One can add a lot of clarifications here, including phase from these sources I suggested to add (see below). What exactly (if anything) should be added is a matter of debate and needs consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps some clarification from the same source may be needed, but not the one included by T. That one! Why? Because it does clarify what exactly D.Trump expected from his "subordinates" (per source). He expected them to be his personal servants because he placed them to their position (just like Stalin expected this from his subordinates). Fortunately, at least some of his subordinates tried to serve the People and the Law. This is the essence of many controversies related to D. Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Puh-lease! Leave Stalin out of this. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course this could be any dictator who places "his" people to the key positions to protect his interests. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in the USA righ now [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• RfC started below. - MrX 🖋 11:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"with the goal of harming the campaign of hillary clinton"

This sentence needs to be changed to something less biased. OR a citation, with proof of the INTENT of the organization "troll farm". Very easily, posting things on facebook could be done by this organization to effect down ballot cultural issues important to members, leaders, or sponsors of troll farm, namely the russian government or individuals in it. And equally plausible, is an INTENT, to create chaos in the US election system, Donald Trump getting elected could be unforseen, and unexpected by everyone, and given how much energy supposedly was placed into this, it could have been the intent, to sow post-election distrust of President Clinton, the same way Russian government agents were involved in the GPS fusion steele dossier, and one of the russian individuals named by the Mueller report as at some point having been in contact with Don Jr. one time, was in contact with Christopher Steele before, and after the date of contacts with Don Jr. So this is speculation posing as fact, I could easily also speculate, that this individual meeting with Don Jr. may have been an attempt, to get the Trump's to fall into a trap that would then appear in the Steele Dossier and the Trumps didn't fall for it, so that would be interfering in the election for the benefit of hillary Clinton. This is one of the most left leaning articles on Wikipedia and it is morally wrong to call this a fact. I don't believe Posting anti-clinton articles on facebook is "interfering in the election" of a country that supposedly offers free speech to ALL, and I know, for a fact, one of the accounts listed as part of troll farm, flagged for posting Anti-Hillary, or alternative Right viewpoints and articles on twitter, was my former username, and I'm not Russian, I'm from Detroit, I just believe in alot of conspiracy theories namely the Clinton bodycount, so I have a lack of faith in this assessment by a deeply politicized intelligence Community.But you don't see me vandalizing the issue with my viewpoint, because i respect people's opinions and I respect Muellers right to believe facebook clickbait is like super influential. But I guess liberals don't care about inserting biases unless its right wing ones right ? So unless you can produce proof of "troll farm"s intentions as to why, it must be reworded to "for an uncertain" or "yet to be determined" reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40F:4101:110A:C0C8:543F:7690:DBBD (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We merely summarize what reliable sources such as news articles say. If you think we're not accurately summarizing the available sources, then please identify the specific sources we're misrepresenting. R2 (bleep) 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:TPO, trolling posts can be deleted. Trolling is often subjective, but there are several red flags here, one is that the OP is trying to assure people (without any prompting at all) that they aren't a Russian bot, and then states that they have already been banned from Twitter for spreading what they call "alternative Right viewpoints". Geogene (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Take it to user talk or the admin boards if you're going to press that position. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI this is not a joke. There is a chance that the report cannot be hosted on commons due to a handful of images with unknown copyright status present in the report. - Paul^T+/_C 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the following quote be added: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."

Should the highlighted quote (or some form of it) be added to the article?

According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". In a subsequent sentence Trump also said to Sessions "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."

- MrX 🖋 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Yes

• It is included in both sources that support that sentence in the article. It is also a key part that gives the quote context. Yes most headlines lead with the I'm fucked part, but they also add other sentence as well. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Of course. In fact we either include it or we include none of the passage.--MONGO (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Omission takes his statement out of context; therefore, noncompliant with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Ummm, no, actually the opposite. Combining the "I'm fucked" part into one sentence with the "can't do anything part" is pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's not SYNTH when stated that way in the same source. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• If we only focus on the sensationalist "I'm fucked" and "this is the end of my presidency" utterances, we imply by omission that Trump was feeling guilty of something related to Russian interference, while Mueller's investigation established that he was not. The RfC's highlighted sentence clarifies Trump's state of mind, and must be included for neutrality. Alternatively, we could remove the sensationalist quotes entirely. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• If the "I'm fucked" part of the quote is included, the full quote has to be included. This isn't some minor stylistic issue. This is a basic question of whether editors here want to accurately report what Trump supposedly said, or whether they want to remove half the quote in order to give it a completely different meaning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  You keep on pretending that these two clauses where all made in one sentence or single utterance. That of course is false. Trump said one thing. Then he said some other things. Then he got to saying this part. Linking them together is WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  From what I read above, Thucydides has not "pretended that these two clauses where all made in one sentence or single utterance". I could as well say "please stop pretending that these sentences are not connected to one another", and I would be right, because that's exactly what you are doing. There is no synthesis at all because RS clearly connect the snippets. Your position is totally illogical. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes absolutely. Trump knew and maintained all along that he didn't do anything wrong. It is therefore obvious that the "I'm fucked" comment referred to the cloud of an investigation hanging over his administration, NOT the potential of any bad result of the investigation ending his presidency. Having the first part without the later context implies a different meaning, which we should be careful not to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, only keeping the first dramatic outburst while leaving out this explanatory part would be an example of political bias. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak yes. It's actually my opinion that we should string together all of the quotes in the report, something like: According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". The president went on to lambast Sessions repeatedly, saying that Sessions had "let him down" and that "you were supposed to protect me". Trump then said "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." before asking Sessions to resign. I don't think that the "Everyone tells me..." quote negates the "Oh my God..." quote as much as some people in this talk page appear to believe, but I do think we should give as complete a picture of this incident as possible. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per JFG's response to Marek above. I also agree with Loki that including the full exchange/context is worth it. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:07, 03 May 2019 (UTC)

No

• It really all seems a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, so remove it all instead of keeping just the misleading sensationalist part? — JFG ^talk 09:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Different issue, but I see no real value to eitehr quote.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sources don't emphasize the highlighted quote and neither should we. The two quotes in the green box above are not merely subsequent sentences. They are separated by three sentences in the Mueller report.[10] I have only found one source that sort of connects the two quotes[11]. Most sources either include the entire passage from the Mueller report[12] or actually explain that Trump expected AG Sessions to protect him.[13][14][15][16]. The only way both of these quotes should be combined into one paragraph is if we also explain that Trump indicated that "Sessions had let him down" or that Trump expected Sessions to protect him. That would tend to make this material excessive for this article. - MrX 🖋 11:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I've heard the "I'm fucked" statement dozens of times by now but this is the first time I've ever heard the "Everyone tells me..." statement. We should follow our sources and have it stand alone. Gandydancer (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, because cited sources emphasize another phrase. That phrase is just one of many which appears in subsequent discussion in sources. What exactly needs to be included is questionable. I would include another additional phrase because it adds a lot more clarity (see my comments above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I'm not disinclined to include it, but having actually (finally) muddled through the report myself, the statements aren't directly connected. It has more to do with Trump berating Sessions. That's just my reading of it, though it does seem to be reflected in the sources too. Additionally, as the second statement may not even be a contextual colouring of the inital exclamation, though it might be convenient to think so- the report doesn't make such a connection. This would be SYNTH if we included it in this way- we're adding context that isn't necessarily there. Feel free to include it, but the current phrasing is definitely prejudicial. The fact that media sources have also barely mentioned it is also relevant. It may be a result of how dramatic Trump's original statement was, but each of the statements have been framed separately, likely because it isn't contextual to the first. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. I did a quick survey of reliable news sources that include the "I'm fucked" sentence. Maybe half included the sentence in question here as well. However, none of those sources juxtaposed those two sentences without including additional sentences such as, saying to Sessions, "You were supposed to protect me." The language at issue has been expressly cherry-picked in an effort to balance out the "I'm fucked" language. We shouldn't do that. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please reserve extended discussion for the "Threaded discussion" subsection below. R2 (bleep) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be OK if the full excerpts were added, including the "you were supposed to protect me" directed at Sessions? — JFG talk 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Good question, but no. It would resolve that particular neutrality problem, but in my view it would be excessive detail in violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASPS. R2 (bleep) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC) By the way, making an effort to balance out the "I'm fucked" language is exactly what Wikipedians are supposed to do, per WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. Leaving out the clarification makes our text grossly slanted against Trump, and we shouldn't do that either. — JFG talk 17:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC) No, that would be false balance. We do not choose content based on how it reflects on the subject. R2 (bleep) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Removing the last part of the quote substantially changes its apparent meaning. This is a very serious WP:BLP issue, and I'm struck by how cavalier you guys are being here. You either quote the person fully, or you don't quote them at all. You don't erase half a quote in order to make it appear to mean something different than the full quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Well, it really isn't in the same quote. It's in the same paragraph. But, even the paragraph does not include all of the discussion and there are snippets of testimony from both Hunt and Sessions. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC) The three quotes were supposedly said in succession. That's how it is presented in the Mueller Report, and it's how Reuters summarized it. Removing the last part of the quote clearly changes the apparent meaning, but I suspect that's the goal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - off topic, not present in most sources and a bit of an attempt to white wash the other quote. Regardless, that part should most definitely not be synthesized with the "I'm fucked" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Lean no, but... This really does come down to, as others have noted above, whether or not the highlighted section represents a continuation of the same exchange as the forgoing quote. If this represents one contiguous occurrence of conversation between the same parties roughly contemporaneously, then yes, it very much is relevant context to the second quote. If it's not, then each individual statement needs to pass it's own WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT analysis for inclusion irrespective of the inclusion of the other statement, and such analysis must must be predicated upon the weight of coverage and specific analysis/statements found in WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources, not the value we ascribe to that particular piece of information within our own idiosyncratic personal views. To predicate inclusion on the latter would be clear WP:original research in an editorializing form, and counter to WP:NPOV. Now I take it from the forgoing discussion that no one has found indication in any source that these two quotes were linked in one exhange, which means each quote should be given a WP:DUE analysis for inclusion, but even if both are thereafter included, the language linking the two must clearly underscore the fact that there is not reason to believe that these two statements occurred roughly contemporaneously in one exchange. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  (Thread moved below. — JFG ^talk 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

• No - mostly that it's a WP:OR juxtaposition of things, although the first impression is it's a colorful WP:OFFTOPIC digression that's not needed. OFFTOPIC as not about Russians or 2016 election interference. And not needed since there are other articles it could be said in and it's just not helpful here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this paragraph listed as my first choice. Agree with Markbassett, this paragraph seems irrelevant to this article ... unless someone provides a source linking the events. Second priority - follow LokiTheLiar’s suggestion of discussing even more of the conversation as context. starship.paint ~ KO 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Symmachus' take on this. DN (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

So, there are four parts to this exchange:

1. The I’m fucked part
2. Three sentences abusing Sessions
3. ”Independent counsels ruin”
4. Next paragraph, telling Sessions he should resign.

Different possible inclusions:

A. Just part 1. Some think this is misleading without part 3. But, it appears to be the most emphasized in RS by far.

B. Parts 1 and 3. May (or may not) provide a better understanding of part 1. Not common in RS. May mislead by not including three intervening sentences, which may (or may not) suggest part 3 is an afterthought.

C. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Removes the problem above. But, I haven’t seen this in RS.

D. All four parts. Includes the follow on action which looks to be important. But, although part of the same exchange, it is in another paragraph and I haven’t seen it in RS. This appears to be the fullest description of the exchange. However, although the Mueller report is obviously reliable as to the content of the Mueller Report, it is not up to us to determine what parts are more important.

E. Include none of this. Kinda the default if we can’t agree on anything else. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Including part 1 without the context that follows implies that Trump believed the special council investigation would find something incriminating that he had done. Trump maintained since the beginning that he didn't do anything wrong, so this wouldn't make sense. We should not leave out crucial context as to why he made that comment - he said Part 1 because of Part 3. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he publicly maintained X doesn't mean that he wouldn't say something contradictory in an oval office meeting with staff. We don't know why he said what he said. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We do actually know why he said what he said - at least, according to the Mueller Report. It's right there in the statement: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything." The idea that this is statement is really just so difficult to interpret really strains plausibility. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You "know" why he said it. I know what he said. I don't know why. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We're entering into a realm of sophistry that I don't care to indulge in any further. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, actually we do know why he said what he said, because he clarified it directly in the next few sentences, all of which Mueller clearly reported. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(In response to SnowRise's !vote of "Lean No but…" — JFG ^talk 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

"Now I take it from the forgoing discussion that no one has found indication in any source that these two quotes were linked in one exhange". Quite the contrary, Reuters reports are that these sentences were not only said in the same conversation, but sequentially ([17]). This is how Reuters describes the series of statements:

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked,” Trump said.

Trump then turned his anger toward Sessions.

“You were supposed to protect me,” Sessions recalled Trump telling him.

Trump then again bemoaned the potential fallout of a special counsel.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” Trump then said, according to both Hunt and Sessions.

There are a lot of people above trying very hard to argue that somehow, three statements said in a row about the same subject are completely unrelated. It's just not a tenable position. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see that you have quoted the source faithfully and fully there, but it's of great consequence that we are talking about one secondary source summarizing content in the primary source. Others will vary in their interpretation, so the exact elements to be included will come down to WP:WEIGHT with regard to the descriptions in those sources. But not for nothing, how are these details laid out in the report itself? Does someone have a link or page reference handy to direct me to the appropriate excerpts, spare me the trouble of tracking it down myself? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Snow Rise, the relevant passage from Part II, page 78 of the Mueller Report is under the fold. R2 (bleep) 15:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope no one minds. I replaced this with the full text including footnotes as the footnotes show how multiple sources were used to reconstruct this exchange. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC) On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, ITT as Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose from the investigation.501 The President learned of the Special Counsel's appointment from Sessions, who was with the President, Hunt, and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI Director.502 Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the news.503 According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I' m fucked."504 The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, "How could you let this happen, Jeff?"505 The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had "let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy.506 Sessions recalled that the President said to him, "you were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect.507 The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."508 The President then told Sessions he should resign as Attorney General.509 Sessions agreed to submit his resignation and left the Oval Office.510 Hicks saw the President shortly after Sessions departed and described the President as being extremely upset by the Special Counsel's appointment.51 1 Hicks said that she had only seen the President like that one other time, when the Access Hollywood tape came out during the campaign.512 501 Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters (May 17, 2017). 502 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13; Hunt_2/l/18 302, at 18; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 4; Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 503 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13; Hunt 2/1/18 302, at 18; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 4; Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 504 Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes). 505 Hunt-000039 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 13-14. 506 Hunt-000040; see Sessions 1/17/ 18 302, at 14. 507 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 508 Hunt-000040 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); see Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. Early the next morning, the President tweeted, "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!" @realDonaldTrump 5/18/17 (7:52 a.m. ET) Tweet. 509 Hunt-000041 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 510 Hunt-000041 (Hunt 5/17/17 Notes); Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 14. 511 Hicks 12/8/17 302, at 21. 512 Hicks 12/8/17 302, at 21. The Access Hollywood tape was released on October 7, 2016, as discussed in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra. 513 McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 9; SCR015_000175-82 (Undated Draft Memoranda to White House Staff). 514 McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 9; SCRO 15_0001 75-82 (Undated Draft Memoranda to White House Staff). The White House Counsel's Office had previously issued a document hold on February 27, 2017. SCRO 15_000171 (2/17 /17 Memorandum from McGahn to Executive Office of the President Staff). 515 Hunt-000047 (Hunt 5/18/17 Notes); 5/18/17 Letter, Sessions to President Trump (resigning as Attorney General).

The report, like Reuters, presents this as one conversation. It says that when Trump said, "Everyone tells me ...", he was returning to the original topic - the topic that provoked him to say, "Oh my God ..." I just don't see how anyone can interpret these statements as being about different subjects. They were said in the same conversation, about the same subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s speeches and discussion often tend to bounce around. And, he often makes a statement, and then pulls back or changes the coloring in a subsequent statement, possibly when it occurs that the original statement might cause difficulty. (“They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. -- And some, I assume, are good people.") Frankly, I don’t think we can interpret the true meaning of these statements at all. I don’t know if the second statement was a continuation of the same thought (after the intervening bashing of Sessions), or an afterthought, or covering for the first. I fear no matter how this is presented, we are leaving the reader with an impression that may be false. Luckily, WP guidelines allow us to lean on RS. We can use the preponderance of RS to decide what to include. O3000 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean the report itself says The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said so yeah it is pretty clear that the report is saying he returned to the first point with the "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." part. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Agreed. The report itself says he's talking about the same subject. The Reuters description says he's talking about the same subject. Just looking at the statements, it's clear that they're about the same subject. "Trump's speeches and discussion often tend to bounce around" isn't an excuse to ignore the obvious connection between these statements, pointed out by both the report and by Reuters. Extracting only the "Oh my God ..." part clearly gives a misleading impression of what he's saying, and anyone here who's interested in accurately reflecting Trump's statements, as opposed to trying to imply that he was admitting guilt, will either vote to include the entire statement, or to not include it at all. It's really that simple. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to imply a damn thing. I'm trying to avoid mind reading. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no mind-reading involved. Trump said it out loud. I assume good faith until presented with evidence to the contrary. The idea that everyone is having such a hard time seeing the connection between two statements made by the same person, in the same sitting, about the same subject is beginning to strain credibility, however. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I haven't even !voted on this as I haven't made up my mind. But, your lack of good faith is become tiresome. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good faith is stretched thin when editors seem unwilling to accept that the "I'm fucked" comment, taken in the context of the directly following sentences, clearly refers to the impression Trump had that the special counsel investigation would hamper his ability to govern. Since you haven't made your mind up yet, what are you trying to determine? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good faith is stretched when editors don’t agree with other editors. The second statement is not directly following the first. There are intervening statements. Spontaneous statements made in the excitement of the moment are often considered an exception to hearsay as they tend to convey a more honest response than a later statement made with the advantage of the time to consider the impact of words. The first statement was made immediately after receipt of bad news; and we know that Trump doesn’t filter his first responses well. I’m not saying that’s what happened here. I’m saying I don’t know. Even if I had been present, I still wouldn’t know. I refuse to assume any interpretation and will not be convinced by suggestions that I’m trying to imply something when I’m the only one that isn’t. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

Well, putting aside the question of good faith and fair play (and as far as I've seen here, everyone is comporting with both), I have to say, now that I see the excerpt in whole, it looks very much to me, in my personal interpretation, as if this was one exchange in which all of these comments took place. There's just no indication to the contrary, and in a meticulously crafted document composed by a team of legal professionals headed by a lawyer and analyst of Mueller's caliber, I trust there would have been a notation to suggest if there were a change of venue/circumstance for the conversation at this point--that's simply an expectation of this sort of report, if nothing else.

However, at the end of the day, neither my personal interpretation, nor any other editor's, should be the determinative factor here; even if we all were in agreement that these comments were all of a single stream of conversation, and even if every single editor here agreed that this is valuable context for Trump's earlier comment, that's not our call to make and we'd still have to omit it if it failed to establish appropriate weight and indicia of relevance in our secondary reliable sources. That's why, even though I feel significantly more ambivalent about it now, given my personal interpretation, I feel I must stand by my original !vote: this is still a WP:DUE matter and even if I feel the comment was almost certainly a part of one contiguous conversation and probably adds worthwhile context, I can't supplant that personal analysis in the place of the necessary emphasis of this statement that has to arise out of our reliable sources themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems fairly simple IMO. Either include everything, or exclude it all. If anyone has a better compromise to reach consensus, please feel free to share. DN (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is kind of where I am at as well. I would be fine with dumping the whole thing. PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng, Darknipples, and Objective3000: - you guys haven't voted yet right? starship.paint ~ KO 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Added, thx for the notice.DN (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am just not a big fan of either, the more I think about it I would go with remove the whole thing. PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX - can the RfC list an option to remove this entire paragraph? starship.paint ~ KO 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: No, RfCs shouldn't be changed after people have commented. You can start another RfC for removing the rest of the material.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah I won't be. Too busy. Giving this up to anyone who wants. starship.paint ~ KO 00:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar summarises the whole convo in their vote: According to the report issued by Robert Mueller, Trump was informed on May 17, 2017 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the appointment of a special counsel, and responded by saying, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked". The president went on to lambast Sessions repeatedly, saying that Sessions had "let him down" and that "you were supposed to protect me". Trump then said "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." before asking Sessions to resign. this is the one I’d support if this content has to be included. starship.paint ~ KO 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Calls by Trump for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails"

There have obviously been many biased and false accusations in the media of Trump colluding with Russia, and I think it's important to try to avoid such false accusations in this article. For example Trump never called "for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails", that's nonsensical, as she had already DELETED and bitbleached those emails, so they were no longer on her server. What Trump was saying was that if Russia ALREADY had the emails, since they might have hacked Hillary's unsecure server, that if they could "find" those 30.000 emails that Hillary deleted, it would surely be appreciated if they delivered them... besides the fact that I think it's pretty obvious that he said that as a joke. He certainly did NOT ask Russia to hack her email, since those emails were already deleted and gone. So I have changed the headline "Calls by Trump for Russians to hack Clinton's deleted emails" to "Calls by Trump for Russians to find Clinton's deleted emails". TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted. Nobody cares that you think the media is biased. We follow the reliable, mainstream sources here, including the cited NY Times source: "If Mr. Trump is serious in his call for Russian hacking..." and "Mr. Trump later tried to modify his remarks about hacking Mrs. Clinton’s emails..." Neutrality^talk 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m OK with either word, although the NYT has also used the word hacked in this context and I think your narrative is off as the Russians did attempt to hack her office server immediately after Trump's statement.[18] I also think we should not assume anything Trump says that’s embarrassing is a “joke”. If he doesn’t laugh immediately after making a comment, we need to take the words of the President of the US at face value. OTOH, your comment that Clinton's server was not secure would also appear to be a repeat of possible false accusation. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe then attribute it to the source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Many of the sources use the AP wire service which quotes Trump as saying, "I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — messages Clinton was reported to have deleted from her private email server. Then we have the March 2019 update by The Atlantic which includes Trump's full quote: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said, referring to the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s deleted messages. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Their summary of it states: More broadly, rewatching the press conference shows how Trump’s shtick, once so astonishing, has become familiar and numbing. Shtick - comic routine. We do need to update this article and present what actually happened and what was said with strict adherence to NPOV and fix the RECENTISM issue which is what's reflected in the current material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's called WP:SYNTH DN (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What part is SYNTH, DN? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The part where you take the editor's use of the word shtick literally. If Trump was a comedian on a sitcom pretending to run for president, it might make a little more sense, but that's not the case here. Aside from that, the consensus by RS indicates Russian officials began to target email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal and campaign offices “on or around” the same day Donald Trump called on Russia to find emails that were missing from her personal server, according to an indictment from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. DN (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• TheOriginalVegan, what's obvious to one person is not obvious to another. That's a symptom of the counry's political polarization that everyone ought to be aware of. Can you please try to focus on what's verifiable rather than what's obvious? R2 (bleep) 19:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, we follow what RS say, and they also quote Trump precisely, which does not include the word "hack", so let's get this right. If some RS interpreted that comment to mean hacking is another matter, and it's their opinion, which should be attributed. That Russia, immediately after Trump's request, did oblige him by hacking the DNC (not Clinton, whose server was very secure) is a different, but related, matter. My point is that we must get this right.

We shouldn't place an opinion that is contrary to his actual statement in a heading. That's just wrong. A parallel situation is when some RS write that the Trump-Russia dossier claims that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russians. No, the dossier never uses the word "collude" in any form, only the word "conspiracy". In many cases in that article we simply use the wording of the RS, even if inaccurate, but in this case, I revised it for accuracy. This is a parallel situation, so let's do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two approaches in conflict here: first, we rely on the anaylsis of secondary sources rather than our own and second, we do not report facts in secondary sources when they inaccurately report what is in secondary sources. The most egregious example of inaccuracy is that Trump addressed "Russia," not "Russians." (Sarah Palin for example would not have said she could see Russians from her bedroom unless she was having a new porch put in.) I think therefore a reasonable approach would be to report exactly what Trump said, followed by criticism and his defense. TFD (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Something like

"Trump called on Russia to find her e-mails, which was seen by some media outlets as a call for them to engage in hacking".Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. We get his actual statement right, and also document how it was interpreted by some outlets. Immediately after that would be the logical place to write: "Five hours later[19] the Russians attempted to hack Clinton's server[20] for the first time." (or something to that effect). One could also add that they were ultimately unsuccessful[21] because her server was very secure, but they did succeed in getting into the DNC's servers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trump Ordered Aides to Search for Clinton Emails, While the Russians Already Were Looking.

Events that have/still are unfolding after the Mueller indictments were issued have been updated by CNBC and a several other media sources. The earlier articles now paying the price for RECENTISM. There are reliable updates in AP wires that corroborate factual information minus any headline sensationalism or clickbait spin, and a good source for that purpose. Time recently published a recap noting that it wasn't just the DNC that was hacked; the RNC and DHS were also targeted in the Gucifer2.0 hack - important information that needs proper inclusion in the lead in order to satisfy NPOV and a move away from the Trump collusion illusion. The earlier reports were based primarily on speculation/opinion instead of facts, much of which has been disproven and needs updating to reflect those facts. There's also the following NYTimes article, and the following lawsuit by a Russian tycoon who claims to have been a victim caught up in the Russian probe and alleging that the grounds for the sanctions were based on rumor and innuendo. The sanctions were removed but now he's suing for the money he lost when they were in place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That the RNC was also targeted by Russian hackers is not new news. They just never released anything. I disagree with all of your editorializing and suggest you avoid such. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You might want to reread what you just said about this information not being "new news". WP is not about "new news", and therein lies the problem with so many of these political articles. The fact that it is not new news is why it belongs in the article as it is no longer a violation of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NEWSORG. It is notable information, published widely by RS, has lasting value and it should be included. On January 10, 2017 it was the headline for CNN: FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia and the article included the following quote: Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases." There are numerous published updates that corroborate what I've presented, further proving its lasting value. As for your aspersion and unwarrented "warning" that I am editorializing, I suggest you avoid repeating such behavior. I was making an observation, citing sources and stating published FACTS that have been ommitted from this article, which appears to be focused on the old Russian collusion conspiracy theory that has since been debunked by the Mueller report. The article needs to be updated to be compliant with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We do cover the hacking of Republicans in this article. Look at the section: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Hacking_of_Congressional_candidates -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, BR. I was referring to the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The Russians spy on everyone (as does the US). But, the Mueller Report goes into great detail about how the Russians interfered with the US election to favor Trump. That has not been debunked. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"I was making an observation, citing sources and stating published FACTS that have been ommitted from this article, which appears to be focused on the old Russian collusion conspiracy theory that has since been debunked by the Mueller report." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be referring to the Barr summary. The Mueller report confirms Russian interference and multiple connections between Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government. DN (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is confusing and all over the place. I thought we were talking about Trump's "Russia, if you're listening" request? Now we're talking about the RNC and the Deripaska lawsuit? Atsme, may I suggest you start new threads on those topics? Make a case for inclusion of each item instead of complaining about NPV in general. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I was following the discussion after my initial comment, which included what Trump actually said in context according to the RS, and then SYNTH came up in response...then other comments followed, so yes - we need to stay focused. I've said my piece. G'night! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge sections on the Internet Research Agency?

It seems that Social media and Internet trolls and Targeting of important voting blocs and institutions can be merged. Both concern the efforts of the Internet Research Agency. But perhaps not merge the subsection of Influence on FBI investigation of email server. starship.paint ~ KO 03:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)