Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Baltimore Sun article, written by Binney and McGovern, is used as the most current source in that paragraph [1]. And the statement above seems to have been derived from this source - a source which is a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it is filled with supposition. Also, Binney and McGovern are using this article as platform to smear Clapper, for stuff that happened years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a matter of record that Clapper gave testimony to congress that was incorrect: [2][3]. His lawyer has stated that his testimony - that the NSA (which he oversaw) was not collecting data on millions of American citizens - was "not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake." Clapper himself described his testimony as "clearly erroneous."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to close this

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

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

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

Updated wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include

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

Exclude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clapper sentence

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

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

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

Rephrasing Binney/McGovern paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an amended version taking Steve Quinn's remarks into account, shortening the phrase while keeping the substance of their criticism, minus the Clapper bit:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, and Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA analyst, wrote that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of proving the allegations of Russian involvement, and opined that the DNC emails were instead leaked by an insider.^[206]

There was no consensus to blank the whole section, and I am proposing to restore relevant parts. — JFG ^talk 04:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This bit is more UNDUE every day. The "experts" are not acknowledged experts, per consensus, and the whole denial of Russian involvement is no longer treated seriously by any RS as the current assessment. So to reinsert the opinions of two folks with very dubious connections or expertise after such opinions have been rejected by every mainstream account -- that would be UNDUE bordering on fringe. Let this stuff have its decent burial and move on to recent revelations and reports. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I second that. This reminds me of global warming denialism. As with global warming, it's fine if a couple of wonks somewhere disagree, but they generally don't get their say around here. No reliable sources credibly doubt that Russia is behind the hacking, or that Russia routinely meddles in Western elections (France and the Netherlands could soon have their own versions of this article). I'm not sure this content is bordering fringe, by now it is fringe. Keep it out of the article. Geogene (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is marginal stuff. And with Binney/McGovern it is a case of seeing what they want to see, as well as using this as a platform for castigating their old boss (which is not in this newest version). There is no support in reliable sources for the theory that someone was physically "leaking" emails. Even Binney/McGovern offer no support for this statement; they essentially just make the statement.

Even JFG has not offered any RS that says physically leaking is being considered as a viable alternative. What they think of the JAR is not relevant, because that is just one piece of a very large map that has been presented to the public via mainstream media, reputable cybersecurity firms, and agreement across the aisle in Congress that Russian hacking to influence U.S. elections really happened.

Republican and Democratic Congress-persons and Senators are going to lie to the American public en masse [4] ? This is highly doubtful. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody asserts that Congresspersons are lying en masse; they are simply repeating the IC assessment en masse. As numerous reputable experts are questioning said assessment or the political use thereof, their views should be represented to describe a complete picture of the affair. We can't just dismiss everything non-official as fringe; readers should be exposed to various alternatives and left free to make up their minds. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion polling

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a diff that points to the content in question [5]. Most sources in question are primary. The Wall Street Journal is primary, not secondary, in this context because they commissioned the poll and are merely reporting their own numbers. Since it's primary, it doesn't establish weight convincingly by itself, because it seems likely (to me at least) that the WSJ would have published those results whether the results were surprising or not; after all, they paid for them. I agree with SPECIFICO above about encyclopedic content: the Weight and Neutrality policies are written with the understanding that there are some fundamental differences in newspaper vs. encyclopedic content, we don't usually publish weather forecasts for example, although there is no rule against that either and plenty of usable sources. The reason: it's just data out of context with minimal useful shelf life. That's exactly the way I see these polls. But if I'm wrong on this, that content should include sourced analysis so readers can see why these numbers from that point in time are permanently useful. That way we aren't just flinging old data at them. Geogene (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your request is moot as I haven't re-instated the contents after my revert of your deletion was counter-reverted by Geogene (in violation of DS but I let that slip in the interest of peaceful resolution of content disputes). — JFG ^talk 00:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

On attempts to influence public opinion and providing measurements thereof

A lot of the political maneuvers on both sides of this issue are intended to influence public opinion: Russia apparently tried to influence US public opinion of Trump and Clinton, and US intelligence agencies apparently tried to influence US public opinion by stoking hostility towards Russia. Clinton has blamed Russia for Trump's election and Trump has blamed Clinton for scapegoating Russia. Democrats have accused WikiLeaks of being a tool of Putin, whereas Wikileaks has accused Democrats of trying to deflect people's minds from their own blemishes. Opinion polls provide an informative measurement of the persuasion of all these contradictory messages vying for influence in public opinion. Such numbers are WP:DUE, and can be sourced to polling institutes, with no need for editorial comment about them. Nowhere else in Wikipedia have I seen a request to provide secondary sources that show the poll's impact as an argument to exclude a relevant poll of public opinion about the article subject. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I'm impressed! That is pure poetry, and devoid of any fact, logic, policy, connection or purpose that might contribute to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Double standards for polls?

Curious about this edit by SPECIFICO: why are you adamant that the section dedicated to opinion polling must be deleted, and you now boldly insert an opinion poll in the lead? The correct action would be to restore the prior section, add your new poll there, and perhaps then provide a summary of the polls in the lead. — JFG ^talk 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. You will see the explanation in my second comment above in this section of the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean your comment that starts with "I am thinking of becoming a Russian hacker"? Well, I wouldn't hire you as a hacker but you sure have a bright future as a politician… Back to the content issue at hand: your comment above says that for a poll to be included, the source should "provide [a] narrative about these polls in relation to the topic of the article". Both the polls you removed and the poll you added pass this test, so I fail to see why they should be treated differently. — JFG ^talk 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recommend that you self-revert here [6]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [7]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the editing restriction was revoked, I removed this section again given the support by several contributors above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not going to fight globally for the "media commentary" section, as the opinions quoted there should be evaluated one by one on their merits, and I have no time to build a rationale for each of them right now. However, I think that Assange's response should remain in the lead: it is brief and to the point, right after we echo intelligence agencies' determination that WikiLeaks was used as a tool of the Russian government's machinations, it is fair to quote Assange's statement that the source of the DNC leaks was not connected to Russia. — JFG ^talk 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering how relevant is Assange's comment? This is probably not credible. Although he did say it, he is not a cybersecurity or related industry expert. Is he more than just a guy on the corner saying the same thing, with no facts to back him up, just because when Assange speaks the press writes what he says? Also, about having no facts to back him up, what I mean is, Assange has not presented any evidence, but made the comment anyway. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose after all that, what I mean is, why should we include Assange's comment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Very simply: because he is the head of WikiLeaks, denying that their source was Russian, countering the US intelligence claim towards him that we report in detail; he is not "just a guy on the corner". To be fair, the correct placement of his statement should be right after this part: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Right now, I don't have a problem with keeping Assange's comment in because multiple reliable sources have covered that he did say this. In fact, some rendition of this comment is in headlines as well. But, maybe some other editors can offer a good reason for keeping it out. I'm stuck in RS mode :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Although he did say it, he is not a cybersecurity or related industry expert. Is he more than just a guy on the corner saying the same thing, with no facts to back him up, just because when Assange speaks the press writes what he says?" Just to clear something up: Assange is most definitely an expert in cybersecurity. His background is as a hacker and programmer. Just take a look at his Wikipedia page (Julian Assange#Hacking, Julian Assange#Programming) if you want a brief idea of what sorts of hacking and cybersecurity exploits he got up to when he was younger, or read about the deniable encryption archive he helped write (Rubberhose (file system)). He also founded Wikileaks, which gives him as good a claim as anybody to be an expert on cybersecurity. And of course, it was Wikileaks that actually published the DNC and Podesta emails. Given his expertise, his direct involvement in the affair, and, of course, the extensive RS coverage, Assange's statements on the origin of the leaks should be included in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We have opinions by Assange mentioned several times in the body of he page. This is fine. But I do not think this deserved to be mentioned in lede, especially right after the phrase about the denial by Russian government. If that were a summary of opinions by many/all experts, then yes, maybe it had to be included in lede. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement shouldn't be after the Russian government denial; it should be after the intelligence agencies' statement concerning WikiLeaks. And yes, that should be in the lead because the corresponding accusation is in the lead. If the only thing you object to is the placement of the sentence, that's easily resolved. This can also be seen as a BLP concern, where it is customary to include, in their own voice, a person's denial of a serious accusation against them. — JFG ^talk 04:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So we're mentioning a sarcastic comment by Trump in the lede, but not a statement about the core subject of this article (the DNC and Podesta email leaks) by the head of the organization that released the emails? I don't the logic behind that decision. This is one small example of the overarching balance issue in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

#1 -- Trump's comment is not reported to be "sarcastic" in the voice of the bulk of mainstream accounts. Trump has several times used the "only joking" thing when he's been taken to task for his remarks. Obviously, we know that Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and other leading Republicans didn't believe Trump was joking. Some sources report that he claimed he was joking. If they found that credible they would have said in their own voice that he was, in fact joking. But that's not how very many sources covered it. Please review WP:WEIGHT. Please explain why you are calling Wikileaks an "organization." That's dubious at this point. Even the WP article on Wikileaks has no recent RS verification that it's anything more than Julian Assange with a laptop immobilized by various extradition warrants. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In this section, please stick to discussing MVBW's suggestions, namely the bulk removal of the "Media commentary" section and of Assange's denial that the DNC source was Russian or connected to the Russian government. We can open another section if you wish to discuss Trump's "sarcasm" or reactions towards his "joke". — JFG ^talk 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following phrase from lede: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Russia was not involved in the leaks.[10][11][12]. First of all, this is not supported by quoted sources, such as this. Assange only tells he thinks that was not proven. Should this be in lede to counter claims by "17 intelligence agencies" and heads of states? I do not think so. Should we include this in tn the body of the page? Yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede Sentence - Conclusion versus accused

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

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

Versus

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

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

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

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

I agree with MrX for the same reasons stated. Neutrality^talk 07:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, i would be fine re-focusing the article on the analyses, reports and conclusions of the intelligence agencies, and removing all the political consequences and commentaries, but somehow I think it wouldn't do justice to the full breadth of this affair. Also, I remember once suggesting a title that would focus on the intelligence reports, and that was rejected precisely because a consensus of editors thought there was more to cover. Which is why today I would favor version A, unless the article scope is drastically narrowed. I would also be happy to craft a wider-scope lead sentence that reflects the full story. Looking forward to reading the views of other regulars at this page. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

During the Iraq War, The Lancet medical journal published a first survey of Iraqi casualties, estimating that in the first year of conflict, 98,000 Iraqis has died as a result of the war. A few days later Prime Minister Tony Blair stated,

"we do not accept the figures released by The Lancet… at all,"

and UK FCO secretary Jack Straw said,

"our people are still looking into it [the Lancet study], the epidemiologists and statisticians".

However as the Chilcot report would show 15 years later, the UK government had already evaluated the Lancet study, secretly, and advised UK officials it was credible. The UK Ministry of Defense (MOD) Chief Scientific Advisor Professor Sir Roy Anderson had written to MOD officials and the UK Secretary for Defense Geoff Hoons,

"CSA has concluded that the design of the study is robust … He therefore believes that the paper is a sensible one … and that the results are probably as robust as one could have achieved in the very difficult circumstances."

Anderson cautioned against criticizing the report, but noted that sample size, and cause of death reporting could have been sources of weaknesses. Anderson also stated some dead may have been militants.

Two weeks following the FCO's chief economist advised regarding the Lancet report,

"The statistical methodology appears sound... In commenting on the study we should certainly continue to emphasise the considerable uncertainty around the central estimate [of 98,000 excess deaths] (reflecting the small sample size), as well as the lack of corroborating evidence – particularly evidence of injured in the numbers one might expect. We could also highlight some of the factors which might bias the study towards an over‑estimate of deaths. However, there are as many reasons why the study might be biased in the other direction (so probably safer not to go down this road)." (emphasis in the original)

When the second Lancet study on Iraqi casualties, published in 2006, found 600,000+ casualties in the first four years of war, MOD again internally reviewed the study:

"the study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq … The methods are an improvement on those used in the 2004 Lancet article by the same author …"

This evaluation was not released to the public. When asked in public about the Government's position on the study however, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram responded in Parliament,

"The Lancet report is one of a number of recent studies … none of which can be regarded as definitive. The figures in the Lancet report are significantly higher than other casualty estimates."

In other words, senior UK advisors repeatedly concluded the Lancet studies were robust, but publicly stated they were not.

We are not obliged to and should not claim that political actors - including the espionage or intelligence services of any country - have "concluded" something, unless we are writing about incidents that occurred decades in the past, and internal communications, top secret documents, and so forth have been declassified. All political agencies, including the Russian, US, UK and German governments, the CIA, SVR, MI6 or BND, have agendas and may come to conclusions which are never stated. Neither you nor any of us know what various government agencies (who may disagree) have concluded, you know what they have stated.

Governments, intelligence services, etc. are reliable sources for their own statements, but not their "conclusions," and it is a stretch to write that they have "concluded" xyz. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• First off, the bulk of this discourse on The Lancet and the Brits is not useful to us here. We're not talking about that. Second, arguments by analogy of any sort are weak and rarely dispositive. There are too many degrees of freedom and unidentified assumptions overwhelm the mind. Third, Intelligence Assessment concluded with high confidence and said so. So the Primary Source says that's its conclusion. And secondary sources repeat that as having been the intelligence assessment, conclusion. So what's this about years in the future? This is not a complicated issue. Your essay about otherstuff has nothing to do with this. It's very simple. They stated their "conclusion" secondary RS affirm that it is the intelligence guys' "conclusion" and so WP, citing those RS, must also say it is their conclusion. This with any luck will conclude this conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on Wikipedia we follow the preponderance of RS, not argument by analogy. Wikipedia editors are not the arbitrators of truth (see here: [8], [9], [10]) , even though what the "intelligence community concluded" seems to be the truth (to me). Also Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting the great wrongs that we find in the world. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for your detailed post. I think it illustrates very well why we should be cautious about presuming to know what spy agencies internally assess. Several editors actually made this argument in a somewhat different manner: they said that we shouldn't include criticism of declassified American intelligence dossiers, because we don't know what evidence the spy agencies internally possess, or might have included in the classified versions of the dossiers. Obviously, I think that if there's notable criticism of declassified dossiers, we shouldn't censor it from the article. But we also shouldn't authoritatively state that the intelligence agencies internally assess X, when we don't know whether they actually internally assess Y. There's a long history of governments, spy agencies, and every other type of political actor having very different internal and public positions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not bring your POV about "long history" here. The issue is what RS report. If the majority of RS state that any "long history" is related to the current National Intelligence Assessment, then you may propose text to reflect that. Otherwise it clutters the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Darouet's comment was relevant to this general subject, and I think that editors who have pushed to present the public position of American intelligence agencies as the one and only truth should keep it in mind. I would remind you as well, SPECIFICO, that Wikipedia articles do not solely present the majority view, but also significant minority views. To some extent, the article did used to reflect some of these significant minority views, but you and a few other editors have largely removed them from the article over the past week ([11] [12] [13] [14]). I noticed that the only editor who did oppose any of these removals, JFG, was quickly the target of another AE case. I think my view is clear - that the article tilts heavily towards the view of American intelligence agencies, and leaves out significant dissenting views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think Thucydides411 is clear. How about sticking to discussing content instead of trying to imply or say A led to B, when there is nothing to back that up. However, if smoke and then fire is seen, then I recommend taking it to an appropriate venue - and don't delay. Regarding significant minority views, I haven't seen any in this article. If these "significant" views refer to content referenced by primary sources without any independent secondary reliable sources, then these are not significant minority views. I refer editors to WP:NPOV if content policy is needed, and WP:V. - WP:BURDEN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are many respectable people who question the official version of events, be it among cybersecurity experts, among intelligence specialists, among propaganda investigators or among politicians. Should the dissenting views be excluded from Wikipedia because they are mere opinions and innuendo? Isn't the official story composed of a lot of opinions and innuendo as well? Genuinely curious. — JFG ^talk 23:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there were many experts and cyberintelligence specialists who doubted the US Intelligence Assessment, you would have been able to find mainstream RS citations to support that. You didn't. You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief. Your view is WP:FRINGE and must be treated as such. God bless you and others who hold your fringe view that the US Gov't is lying to the world, but we can't give it any more weight than a flea on the ass of an elephant or a fly on the elephant of an ass. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article used to cite a number of experts in cybersecurity and intelligence, as well as notable commentators in these fields, who doubted the official position of US intelligence agencies: Jeffrey Carr, an anonymous Bundesnachrichtendienst agent, William Binney, Ray McGovern, Pierre Sprey, Julian Assange, Sean Gallagher, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. Much of this material has been removed, though JFG added some of it back in. In particular, the views of former intelligence analysts critical of US government claims - Binney, McGovern and Sprey - are no longer in the article.

"You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief." The way you're defining "fringe" and "marginal" encompasses literally every single person outside of the US government. That's a clever trick: define "fringe" and "marginal" so that only the official view of the US government can be included. This is exactly why Darouet's post above is so important for you to read and take to heart. You can't tell us that politically motivated organizations like intelligence agencies are reliable sources, and that any opinion that conflicts with what they publicly state is "fringe" or "marginal." There are significant dissenting views, and you've been trying to systematically exclude them from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the names you mention are not "experts". True, they are "commentators" but so what? And we've been over this already. Also, I have no idea what the Lancet study has to do with any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure "concluded" was the original consensus wording until it got edit-warred out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 wrote: The way you're defining "fringe" and "marginal" encompasses literally every single person outside of the US government No. Fringe and marginal have specific meanings on Wikipedia, this has nothing to do with trying define literally every single person outside the US government. Fringe and marginal are based on the lack of independent reliable secondary sourcing. RS are needed to back up the comments only sourced by opinions of the authors themselves, who wrote the opinion pieces that source the comments. If you are getting dizzy that is because this is really circular.

No one is using a clever trick. This is editing according to Wikipedia content policies. If you want to change how Wikipedia operates, then start some RFCs (or something) at policy and guideline talk pages. All this has come together by consensus by the way. Also, this is not the official view of the US government. That seems to be an inaccurate assessment. What is in this article and what is not is based on what reliable sources say. Some of the marginal and fringe remains, but that probably should be dealt with.

The dissenting views are not significant, or else they would be covered by the mainstream media. It is not anyone's fault or agenda as you may be implying. These people matter to you and some others. But, apparently, these people and their views are not picking up alot of traction in the press. This is not Wikipedia's fault, nor the editors who happen to edit in accordance with its consensus established standards. And again, editing is not accomplished according to analogy. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

They were covered in the mainstream media. Harper's Weekly, Ars Technica, Baltimore Sun, Süddeutsche Zeitung and The Intercept are mainstream. But most of the "dissenting" views published in those outlets have been removed from the article over the past week or so.

"this has nothing to do with trying define literally every single person outside the US government." That's exactly what it is. Here's what SPECIFICO wrote above: "You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief." Nobody outside the US government is "privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence" or "briefed on the full details." The argument here is whether sources that disagree with claims made by US intelligence agencies are non-fringe or non-marginal.

I think it's obvious that journalists and experts who disagree with government statements are not automatically marginal or fringe. But apparently, being published in a major newspaper or journal doesn't make one non-fringe (see, Pierre Sprey and William Binney in Harper's, or Binney and McGovern in the Baltimore Sun). Being an acknowledged expert doesn't make one non-fringe either, apparently (see Sprey, Binney and McGovern, again). The opinion has even been voiced that Assange's views are irrelevant - Assange, the hacker/programmer who founded and runs Wikileaks, the organization that published most of the documents this article deals with. There's a major systemic problem with the types of views that are included in the article, and they swing very heavily towards the positions of US intelligence agencies. That's not because of a lack of sourcing for alternate views, but rather because of systematic removal of well-sourced material that suggests an alternate view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a useful clear statement that we can now use to narrow the discussion here. In particular, your statement that those outlets are "mainstream media" is false. If the views you are claiming to be majority views, or significant minority views, do in fact meet WP's test, then you should be able to find many, many RS citations from sources such as NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, LA Times, et al. Ars Technica and Greenwald's Intercept may be the kind of sources you enjoy reading, but they are not a sample from which WP can infer the majority or any significant minority view, and of course opinion pieces in those outlets is even more problematic. Assange's views? Well first of all, do you have RS saying that he runs an "organization" as opposed to a laptop? And not every hacker's opinions are noteworthy, especially when their motivations and truthfulness about their motivations is suspect per RS. The archives of many talk pages detail the problems with Assange as a source for much of anything except what Assange said and for that only when it's noteworthy and germane. WP does not take the view that there is a "major systematic problem" with the world or with RS, where they fulfil WP editorial standards. Maybe there really is a problem with the world, Thucydidies, but this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by ignoring WP standards. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if you're being serious. Assange runs Wikileaks, the organization that published the DNC and Podesta emails. He's not just one of many hackers. He runs the organization that's central to the topic of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The American public has no relationship to the material that was removed from this article (characterized as "fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation). SPECIFICO specifically refers to former insiders who are now outsiders. They did not refer to the whole American public. He is saying the specific group of former insiders would like to be privvy blah, blah, blah. To connect to the entire American public based on the word "privvy" seems like an over-generalization.

Journalists and experts who disagree with government statements are not automatically marginal or fringe. Those journalists and experts, whose opinions are not covered in fact based, independent secondary sources are considered to be fringe and/or marginal on Wikipedia. There is no automatic or inherent marginal or fringe experts or journalists. These have been shown to be marginal or fringe when content policies are the bar that should be achieved.

The measure is not the publications that carried their opinion. The measure is this group of articles opinions were each carrying their subject's comments based on only self-authored opinion pieces. It has been established that op-ed pieces are not independent fact based pieces. So it becomes a question of WEIGHT and UNDUE, which WP:NPOV specifically covers. Also, it has been noted on this talk page by MVBW that their expertise is no longer relevant and is dated.

This is because the tools and knowledge to which they had access is 15 to 20 years out of date (or more). Unfortunately, the materials that suggest alternate views are not well sourced at all, with each of these comments having only a self-authored opinion piece as a reference. I have looked for reliable sources that cover some of these opinions. I haven't had any luck. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "self-authored opinion pieces"? Most commentary is "self-authored" (which is very different from "self-published"). What's the alternative to "self-authored": "published under someone's name but authored by someone else"? But if commentary is published in a major newspaper or journal, that gives the commentary more weight. But beyond that, Binney and Sprey were cited by Alexander Cockburn in Harper's, so I don't see what possible definition would make their opinions, published by someone else in a prestigious magazine, "self-authored." The same also goes for the opinions cited in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Ars Technica articles, which were news articles.

As I wrote earlier, in a long talk-page section ([15]), I don't see any consistent logic in what views are deemed "marginal," "fringe" or "undue," other than that the sources that have been removed from this article are largely ones that express some form of skepticism about the claims of US spy agencies. I don't see a consistent difference in the quality of the publications or the expertise of the commentators. What I see is a rather clear trend, where one view (the one expressed by US intelligence) is included, but skeptical views are excluded. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clear from your recent statements that you are not arguing from a policy-based position here. It's not Quinn's job to explain site policy and guidelines to anybody, so I respectuflly ask you to disengage here. WP policy and talk page consensus are clearly against you, and you can review the various help pages as well as the archives of this talk page to sort things out. Let's move on. There are recent developments wrt the investigations, bipartisan concerns, and various denials and attacks on "leakers" and the press. We can add those to the article with good valid sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm arguing from a policy perspective. I also don't see any consensus here for "concluded" versus "stated" or "accused." "WP policy and talk page consensus are clearly against you." Stating something over and over again doesn't make it true, especially when you put in zero effort into supporting your claims. I've been asking you to justify why you've deemed certain commentators and sources "marginal," "fringe" and "undue," and as I've said, you haven't been able to articulate any consistent reasoning for your determinations. The only consistency I see is that you remove any commentary that suggests skepticism about the claims of US spy agencies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How about "determined" ? BTW, Carr is never called an "expert" by any individual other than himself, afaik. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are 5 sources that describe him as an expert explicitly or imply it (e.g. "The vast majority of expert commentary seems to agree the Russian government hacked the DNC. But Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global, remains skeptical"): [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] James J. Lambden (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead third paragraph

So far no one has mentioned the third paragraph in the lead, which was removed (here) with this rationale "Last paragraph wholly out of place, and discussion is ongoing re: POV "concluded" in first sentence). How is this out of place? This is within the scope of this topic. This is a well known incident with wide spread coverage in reliable sources: Politico, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, New Republic, Wall Street Journal, CNN and many more... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The better sources (NYT and WSJ) don't support the reverted text's claim that he invited Russia to "to hack and/or publicly release" the emails. They even include his actual words: "I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” which are relatively unremarkable without the tabloid embellishment. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose better language that reflects the WEIGHT of RS, but it is not Okey Dokey to blank well-sourced widely reported and relevant content. Please make a proposal to improve the wording, otherwise I think this needs to go back in the article as it was written, pending some other editor's improvement per RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The main issue with the (former) third paragraph in the lede was that it was entirely undue. The lede should be a concise recap of the article contents. Why should the lede have a paragraph about a joke that Trump made about Russia finding Clinton's missing emails? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is RS that says this he was joking, please present it. The fact remains, he said what he said and it is significantly and widely covered in multiple RS. I have presented plenty of RS to keep this in the article and in the lede. Dispute "better sources" or whatever, there are still plenty of other more than acceptapble RS to keep this. There is no salient argument for keeping this out, according to Wikipedia standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The NYT reference is directly on point - in the first paragraph it says " Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state." Steve Quinn (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That quote and the context in which it was made (i.e. "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections") has received very very widespread coverage and a ton of sources which discuss the topic of this article also bring up this quote. There's no good reason for removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it was widely covered, but Trump's sarcasm was in reaction to the first accusations of Russia by candidate Clinton and the DNC. We can't quote one without quoting the other. Besides, this has no place in the lead, totally out of chronology; I moved it to the Background section, with some context. — JFG ^talk 11:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which says it was "sarcasm". Find a reliable source which says it was "in reaction" to something Clinton and DNC said. And there's nothing chronologically deficient about this being in the lede.

Also, this is pretty blatant piece of WP:SYNTH and original research. This isn't an article about the email leaks, although of course the subject is relevant. In particular, this is so POV and OR that it's obnoxious:

"A few days later, Trump sarcastically invited Russia to hack and release" <-- NOWHERE in the source does it say the comment was "sarcastic". You made that up. Oh wait! If I do a search for the word "sarcastic" there does appear to be one instance of it... by somebody in the comments! Sorry, not good enough. Can you please undo yourself and cut this kind of behavior out? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to oblige: [21] — JFG ^talk 12:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that only sources something like "after facing severe criticism for his remarks in which he called for a foreign power to aid his campaign by hacking his opponent, Trump claimed on Fox News that he was being sarcastic". Not what you put in.

I picked one of dozens of sources reporting on Trump calling his remark sarcastic. Feel free to pick a different one if the BBC is not reliable enough. — JFG ^talk 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And on that note, your "rewording" in this edit then constitutes a revert, which means you just violated 1RR. Again. Just after narrowly escaping a sanction. Really, you need to cut this out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a revert, it's collaborative editing towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And come on! You know there is no consensus to include this stuff and that it had been challenged repeatedly and discussed to death already. So admins remove the "cannot restore challenged content" discretionary sanction from the page and you instantly start reinserting stuff that has been removed and sparking another edit war? That's classic WP:GAME. Even if that particular sanction was lifted, that is still extremely disruptive behavior. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Petition for SCOTUS to nullify the elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're back to our graces. That's all that matters. Happy editing to you, too! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, but this one has to do with "protecting the very fabric of democracy" which is utterly noble and not at all silly. Joking. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe it is, we do not known the motives behind it. This (at its heart) is the issue, at this time this is "just another silly fishing expedition". We do not know if this will end up being a real issue or just some dumb publicity stunt.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Snopes is debunking this one [23], saying this probably has no likelihood of being heard by the Supreme Court. An automatic process, where all petitions are distributed for review, is being misinterpreted as "advancement" of the petition. I am guessing a separate article could be created that covers misinformation about correcting purported election-related errors, depending on the RS available. This is based on the underlined links at the bottom of this Snopes article: "election", "audits", "electors", and "legal longshots". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

However, the petition itself might be worth covering, with a sentence, if enough RS is generated. This Snopes article could be one reference, the secondary source provided by Callmemirela could be another reference [24], here is one from the Daily Kos [25] and here is one from "Occupy Democrats" [26]. The primary source provided by Callmemirela could also be used. It is mentioned on SCOUTUS blog (scroll down) [27]. Here is the PDF of the Writ of Mandamus - a primary source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub your sarcasm is not appreciated or even funny. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Humor is subjective. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why it doesn't belong here. One man's "humor" is another woman's crap-on-a-stick. Go to a chat room if you're feeling funny. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope of the article?

What should be the appropriate scope of this article? Is it about the intelligence agencies' conclusion, about the US government's accusations, or about the Russians' supposed activities and denials thereof? Is it about political infighting? Is it about cyberwarfare? Is it about espionage? All of the above? All of the above but only from official sources? All of the above and the kitchen sink? Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 23:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Is it about the intelligence agencies' conclusion, about the US government's accusations" - it's about that. "about the Russians' supposed activities and denials thereof?" - and about that too. Obviously the two are related so I don't know why you're sticking that completely inappropriate "or" in there. "Is it about political infighting?" - not in general, but maybe if it relates to the topic, hard to tell without you being specific. "Is it about cyberwarfare? " - not in general, no, but to the extent that was part of ... Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, yes. "Is it about espionage?" - ditto. "All of the above?" - more or less as long as it pertains to the main topic. "All of the above but only from official sources?" - all of the above but only from reliable sources. As always. "All of the above and the kitchen sink? " - no, not sure why you got to drag a perfectly innocent kitchen sink into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

VM, I fully agree with you about the scope. Then two questions:

• Why should the lead sentence be reduced to speaking only of the US intelligence agencies' reports, instead of covering the broader scope of the affair?
• Why are all sources which do not conform 100% to the official view deemed "unreliable" or "fringe", and sometimes aggressively so, complete with naming and shaming good-faith editors who try to make sense of the whole palette of reactions for the benefit of readers? (Note this is not a personal accusation against you, just a general remark on the toxic environment we have all witnessed here.) — JFG ^talk 08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

These are loaded questions. The first questions assumes that the lead does not "cover the broader scope of the affair", whatever that is suppose to mean. The second question assumes that "sources which do not conform 100% to the official view", whatever that means, are "deemed 'unreliable' or 'fringe'". Since you've sneaked in the conclusions you want into the questions you're posing, I don't really see a point in addressing them. Maybe if you ask good faithed questions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice deflection and WP:ABFing, thanks. Those are honest and straightforward questions, pertinent to improving article quality. You assume non-existent assumptions… — JFG ^talk 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, they're loaded like a baked potatoes at Thanksgiving. You've literally written the answers you want into the questions themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment states well-evidenced facts about this article and the discussion thereof, considering the article scope that we agree upon, and the questions ask why this is so, not what is happening. I take note that you do not wish to answer. That's unfortunate; perhaps some other editors have a clue. And please discuss contents, not editors or their assumed motives. — JFG ^talk 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not "well-evidence facts". These are your opinions which you inserted into your loaded questions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the scope of this article is supposed to be. Is it about the 2016 US election? If so, it might be better to reduce it to a subsection of United States presidential election, 2016. Is it about the hack of the DNC emails, or of Podesta's emails? If so, we should merge the content here with 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Podesta emails. As it is, the scope of this article is ill defined, and I'm not sure why this article exists as an independent article. It seems to be tying together several related subjects, plus whatever Russia/Trump-related stories appear as time goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this article is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States election".

"Is it about the 2016 US election? " - Yes. "If so, it might be better to reduce it to a subsection of United States presidential election, 2016." - no, it would not be "better" and this has been discussed to death. The proposal itself is ridiculous. "Is it about the hack of the DNC emails, or of Podesta's emails?" - yes, that's part of... "Russian interference in the 2016 United States election". "If so, we should merge the content here with 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Podesta emails." - no, no we shouldn't, there is no reason to do so... well, no GOOD reason to do so, and this also has been discussed to death.

The scope of this article is perfectly fine. This is just trying to come up with an excuse to gut it/merge it/delete it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to get Mr Ernie banned from AE because of supposed aspersions, but just look at the tone you've brought to this talk page. This is how you choose to interact with other editors? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not "casting aspersions". Both of you have said and tried to take action to have this article deleted and/or merged. Indeed, you are proposing the very thing right here in this section. I am simply re-stating what you yourself proposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No aspersions on editors' motives please. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your motives are, but that the purpose here appears to be merge/gut/delete is readily apparent from *actions* and *statements* that have been made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. My motive is to expand the article so that it provides a balanced and NPOV view of the story and its many ramifications, instead of sounding like a propaganda piece. — JFG ^talk 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nope" what? I just said "I don't know what your motives are" (nor do I care) so why are you nopin' me and telling me your motives? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "the purpose here appears to be merge/gut/delete"; I just denied this, plain and simple, and explained my goal. What is your goal? — JFG ^talk 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States Election and anything that is related (e.g. Commentary, historical context, etc). The first sentence does not have to contain the whole article. However, the first sentence sentence is a good way to start the article because it gives the most historically important fact, namely that the United States concluded that the Russian government did interfere in the election. Casprings (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't know what the US government concluded. In a few decades, once everything is declassified, I assume we'll have a much better idea. We do know, however, what the US government has stated and alleged. Those two things are not always, or even usually, the same. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The US government's intelligence community released public conclusions. You can get to that document by clicking on the ONDI statement at the the top right of the article. Casprings (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In other words, we know what they've stated. But do you know that their classified findings match their declassified publications? It's not at all unusual for there to be a very wide gap between what is publicly released and what the intelligence agencies internally conclude. See, for example, Darouet's long post on this above: [28]. We can say with certainty what US intelligence has publicly claimed - that's in the ODNI statement. But we can't state with certainty what they've internally concluded - that's classified, and we probably won't know about it for many years. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources say "concluded". We follow sources. Not make up original research stuff that suits our fancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the point of this section. The article scope is very clear from the title of the article. I think what is happening here is that the OP is asking "If the scope of the article is not narrowly limited to accusations or conclusions only, then why can't we add primary sourced commentary from the tiny minority of individuals who disagree with 18 U.S. government agencies, senators, security analysts, a presidential administration, intelligence experts, and journalists?".- MrX 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OP speaking. The question was meant to determine consensus among interested editors about the scope of the article. This will be helpful to assess whether anything is due or undue worth mentioning or not, without moving the goalposts at every new development of the affair or editor discussion, so that we can debate sanely. I think VM's description of the appropriate scope is on point; would you agree? I would also like to read various editors' opinions on the two followup questions that I asked above. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: -- You say UNDUE is determined by the topic. That is false. Please read the WP documentation on WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in general. Unless the scope of the article is "random opinions of people who do not have access to the facts, and are not currently recognized as experts concerning, publicly released non-classified documents relating to..." You could start such an article. It wouldn't pass AfD I don't think. And why is that, one might ask?? ANS: B'cuz you prolly can't find those blokes discussed enough in RS to cite them as qualified, non-expert, uninformed. opinion sharing, report-commenters. What we have here is an NPOV malady verging on WP:FRINGE fever. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The scope is anything directly related to the subject as determined by reliable sources. SPECIFICO is correct that the article scope is unrelated to WP:UNDUE, which part of our neutral point of view policy. - MrX 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean DUE or UNDUE in a policy sense, l mean "worth mentioning or not" with regard to scope. Amending my remark above to avoid confusion. What is your view of the scope I agreed with VM, and do you have a hint about my followup questions? — JFG ^talk 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, we require editing "in a policy sense" so I take it that you concede my point? If not please explain and provide policy-based rationale for this undue/fringe stuff against consensus. It's WP:UNDUE and we do not include what's UNDUE in any sense, "policy" or "not worth mentioning" so Testa o croce (just kidding, I know you're a good sport.) What say you? SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the cinematic reference; we probably share some cultural background. I am discussing the SCOPE of the article, i.e. which subjects are worthy of mention. THEN we can discuss which sources are acceptable and which viewpoints are DUE according to WP:BALASP and other relevant policies. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Two examples of legitimate scope questions:

1. Is the Steele dossier of opposition research against Trump relevant to the Russian government's purported intervention in his favor?
2. Is Jeff Sessions' discussion with the Russian ambassador more relevant than his discussions with dozens of other ambassadors in his official capacity?

To me, #1 is part of the "perfectly innocent kitchen sink" category and should only be mentioned in passing, if at all. #2 is sensationalist WP:RECENTIST fluff (resulting in articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens) which we should refrain from copying into every Trump-related article just because it's the hot topic of today's news cycle. And don't get me started on BLP aspects. — JFG ^talk 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Cybersecurity revert

@SPECIFICO:, following your revert citing "contrary to consensus on talk", could you kindly point me to the relevant Talk page discussion showing consensus for your version of the prose? — JFG ^talk 12:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The "prose" is mine. The consensus is on talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, where please is this consensus? — JFG ^talk 13:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As it's reasonable to assume you already know, it is on this very talk page. Please read it. You could mount an RfC to overturn... End. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. You can't point me to a discussion showing consensus for your version. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Relevancy of email leaks

@Volunteer Marek: I am puzzled by two of your recent edits in the "Background / Email leaks" section:

1. removing the sentence about the leak of Podesta emails as "not about the email leaks themselves so by itself this is undue";
2. removing the link to Hillary Clinton email controversy as "not really related".

Regarding the Podesta emails, do you mean that they are not part of the Russian influence on the US presidential election? WikiLeaks would have been fed the DNC emails by Russian intelligence, but gotten the Podesta emails elsewhere? Didn't the Podesta emails play a central role in the attempts to denigrate the Clinton candidacy a few weeks before the election? This was a blatant attempt at influencing the election, which Assange himself admitted. Was he no longer a tool of Russia in October, but just a rogue actor?

Regarding the Clinton Secretary of State emails, those are exactly the emails that Trump wished Russia to find and publish, so the article link is legitimate to provide background information for readers. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whaa? Clinton's emails were "found" by the public after the State Dept. released them. There is no doubt the grilling by Comey (a Republican) was very bad publicity as election day neared — as damaging as wikileaks. But since Comey is not Russian, this is not generally considered "election interference". Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The FBI scrutinized part of the State Department emails (the ones "voluntarily returned" by Clinton's team); another part was bleached and never seen by the FBI. By the time Trump called for Russia to hack those emails, the server they were hosted on had long been dismantled, which makes the political accusations of treason all the more implausible… — JFG ^talk 18:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see I see what you meant. Yes, it is clearly relevant in that sense. My bad Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Material restored and expanded with a Podesta citation claiming Russia hacked into his emails and leaks thereof distorted election results. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Article incomplete

This article does not explain why the leaked emails were harmful to the Clinton campaign or what misinformation the Russians supposedly planted. My understanding is the emails showed that the DNC showed favoritism to the Clinton candidacy against the Sanders campaign and Donna Brazile provided answers to Clinton for a CNN debate. Part of the fallout was that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz resigned as head of the DNC and Brazile was fired by CNN. None of this is mentioned in the article. Also, it would be helpful to know which fakenews stories the Russians wrote as opposed to the sort of fakenews written by Americans. Since the Russians apparently influenced the election, there should be lots of sources on this. TFD (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be WP:COATRACKING because this article is about Russia, Russia, Trump, associates, links, ties, Russia, Putin and finally, Russia. Russia! Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say, I seem to recall a discussion about the scope of this article above. The conclusion reached was something a long the lines of anything. So probably good to go. PackMecEng (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look back far enough in the article history, Debbie and Donna were mentioned; there was even a picture of DWS. All of this has long been removed; no objection against re-instating relevant parts.

About TFD's request, yes I'd love to read what the Russian government actually did besides funding RT News, which nobody disputes is a propaganda channel but nevertheless gets a substantial audience so can be construed as influencing the election… just like any news outlet, really: free press, first amendment and all that jazz. — JFG ^talk 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Besides funding RT News" - have you read this article? Or even this section, where TFD references the hacked emails? There's also the investigation into the flow of financial resources between Kremlin and Trump (though that section should be expanded).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! It seems that the whole affair rests on the assertion that Putin and his minions hacked into the DNC and passed the details to Assange. That's bad if it happened, but it's not Earth-shattering, is it? The rest of the ODNI report is mostly complaining about RT, as I'm sure you have read it. Investigations into financial flows were launched and have led nowhere yet (and yes I've read it, I even wrote parts of that section). — JFG ^talk 18:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see some information about what RT did to influence the election. TFD (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They aired interviews of Trump by Larry King and Assange by John Pilger. Oh the humanity! Surely Trump and Assange are tools of Putin thanks to King and Pilger. It's called journalism. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not well-sourced explanations

• This [29] WP:UNDUE marginal and fringe commentary only sourced with self-authored opinion piece. But is seems that it was added back in [30]. Also, notice the wording change at the top of the second paragraph. There is no good reason for this and this is also against consensus [31]. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I have trouble making sense of your comment. You consider the text about technical means of hacking "marginal and fringe", although the incriminated tools have been described as freely available, outdated and not particularly sophisticated by several computing and hacking specialists. In fact, this is close to the majority view in those circles; nobody was impressed by the technical prowess of the attacks, and most serious commentators noted that links to Russian government were mere hints with no solid proof. There are literally dozens of sources making this case, Ars Technica being a pretty solid one. Carr is cited by Ars, other experts are cited by ZDNet, I don't see how you can call this material "only sourced with self-authored opinion piece". — JFG ^talk 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To your "against consensus" remark, I repeatedly asked SPECIFICO to point me to a discussion showing consensus for her version of the cybersecurity analysis, and I got no answer, so her revert citing consensus was invalid, and anyway the paragraph has evolved since then. — JFG ^talk 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Earlier, people were complaining that we were not citing "experts" (as if Greenwald, Gessen, Kovalev etc were not "experts" on international and cyber politics). Well, Carr is a cyber-security expert par excellence. Independent cyber-security experts are on a spectrum regarding how strong they think the publicly available evidence is. The only reason, Carr appears utterly fringe is because editors have spent the last several months doing nothing but purging any and all reliably sourced opinions that deviate in any way from the "official" truth (as reported in the sophomoric JSA and ICA brochures). This was possible due to a set of rules that made it possible to delete any and all material you did not WP:LIKE without consensus and contrary to BRD. Since this rule of "challenging material" by deletion has been lifted, consensus is now a two way street. Carr may be at the extreme end of that spectrum—which you appear totally oblivious to—but he is not the only one pointing out just how difficult attribution really is. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Expert dissent

Ladies and Gentlemen. That long thread clearly shows consensus against the Carr, Binney and other deprecated commentators. Moreover, at this point the articles/web pages in which they were published are out of date. So, #1: That reinsertion of Carr, calling him an "expert" when nobody has called him an "expert" except himself, in his promo's should be un-done. #2: The simple success strategy for editors who may wish to document dissent from the mainstream description of the Russian hacking is simple: Find recent RS citations from acknowledged experts who dissent from the mainstream view and demonstrate that such dissent is shared by enough commentators that it constitutes a significant minority view. This is WP-editing-101, so nowza time to drop the stick on Carr and Binney and find some unimpeachable sources that show everyone that you're on firm ground wrt WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, you are not the sole arbiter of who can be legitimately called an expert. When RS such as Ars Technica or Süddeutsch Zeitung quote experts who happen to doubt the mainstream account of events, you cannot dismiss their views simply on the basis that other RS echo another viewpoint which happens to be the official story. Shall we say NPOV 101? — JFG ^talk 18:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't get my drift. Who (aside from Jeffrey Carr) has called Jeffrey Carr an "expert", i.e. what WP:RS? Ars Technica calls him a "consultant" -- which is pretty far down the totem pole from "expert". What credible independent source has called him an expert in the past 24 months, say. You're an experienced editor. You understand the difference between who is a noted expert and who some editor thinks is an expert. "Sole arbiter" is nowhere in my words. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

From the main thread, here are five sources for "expert": [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] A search for synonyms would likely yield more. I've reviewed the main thread and don't see the consensus (much less "clear" consensus) you describe. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

*** Twilight Zone!!! Those sources do not use the word "expert" Gazooks. I mean except for the ones that are non-notable blogs. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of the five articles only the zdnet is a blog. The others are RS (ie not blogs) and clearly state he is considered an expert. I am not sure what articles you were looking at? PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Each of the five sources uses the word "expert" (directly or indirectly) to describe Carr. Either you commented without reading the sources or you read then misrepresented them – concerning behavior either way. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The "challenged material" (namely: Carr, Errata and Wordfence) has nothing to do with Binney, Binney has nothingto do with Carr, and the rationale for deleting Jeffrey Carr has nothing to do with deleting Wordfence and Errata Security. As for Carr, he works in cyber-security and has authored several books in this field, published by premier IT publishing houses. That means he's qualified to talk about hacking. Your "consensus against ... deprecated commentators" is just handwaving. No, you don't to get to delete—or even challenge—anything without presenting a coherent and concrete rationale grounded in specific sources. Before, editors could get away with using the act of deletion to justify deletion. This was due to the "do not restore challenged material" rule. That's now over, so change gears. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are trade publications -- But even among trade and vocational publications, some are important. Can you cite a couple of book reviews from RS references. That might help your case. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts, please! First we must demonstrate why Carr's opinion is DUE because his opinion does not match the official story. Then we must find better sources because you don't like the provided RS. Then we must justify Carr's own notability, because you dispute that he is an expert at whatever job he's been doing for decades. Then we must prove notability of his book because you don't think it's a valid book to be cited (note that we don't cite the book here; various RS refer to his book as an element of his credibility on the subject). It never ends; you are abusing policy. — JFG ^talk 21:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @S. Agree, he is not a notable expert. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I know you "agree". The question is WHY. Read your sources and argue your case.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you my friend. We'd all like to be proven wrong so this nonsense will end. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Why? I replied specifically to your OP. You now complain that my response was not good enough. OK, why? What is this "burden" that I'm supposed to meet? Your present reasoning can be used to justify any edit to any article. It's pure nihilism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"What BURDEN?" ? Why, the WP:BURDEN in that link I gave you just upstairs. If you can convince the talk page on that basis, you will be "In like Flynn!" (oops, sorry.) SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So it fails to meet WP:BURDEN because you've wiki-linked WP:BURDEN? Try harder. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice job bulldozing Carr's article there, Specifico. You might as well have sent it directly to AfD… — JFG ^talk 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well no, we don't just go immediately to AfD -- we tag the article to attract editors who might find some RS that are not currently in the article so that it can be kept. I have combed the article and looked around the searchable internet for any RS indications of notability for Mr. Carr. I found only the Ars Technica citation I added to the article. Not everyone in the world, and not every thoughtful professional with opinions and a resume, meets the WP notability hurdle. I hope editors find plenty of RS to establish notability. If that doesn't happen then, yes AfD would happen sooner or later. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time SPECIFICO has done this sort of BLP bulldozing to prove a WP:POINT on this page. She done the same thing with the Clapper bio. WP:NOTHERE?Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted back to previous version on Jeffrey Carr, please review and discuss on the talk page regarding recent edits. Thanks, Shaded0 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Assange denial

Should Julian Assange's assertion that the source of DNC leaks was not Russian be included in the lead section, just after the ODNI's assertion that it was? — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A section of the lead says:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.

We suggest to add:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of the documents.

Both assertions are sourced to several RS and are covered in the body text of the article. Discussion on the talk page has not resulted in consensus, therefore an RfC is appropriate. — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Answered below. — JFG talk 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Alright, I'll take your word for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Trust but Verify" -- [37] SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: WP:YOUTUBE WP:HUMOR WP:ISNOT a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, nor is it WP:DUE. Please WP:READ WP:WEIGHT, WP:LINKFARM, WP:V, WP:BALASP and WP:PROMOTIONAL . Also WP:REFRAIN from casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making WP:DISRUPTIVE comments. WP:FOCUS on WP:CONTENT. Consider this fair WP:WARNING. WP:THANK YOU Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please state your support or oppose stance with a brief rationale here.

• Oppose. I came here from the RfC notice. It seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to put that in the lead, because it in effect gives equal weight to Assange's claim and to the conclusions of the multiple agencies. It's entirely appropriate for the main text, with more context, but not worth an un-contextualized sentence in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Assange is an interested party and it's not appropriate to suggest an equivalence between the National Intelligence Assessment and Assange's denial (regardless of the facts, one can expect the accused to deny the act). Also, it's not clear he would even know who did the hack. All he knows is who gave him the data. He doesn't claim that he did it all himself from the Ecuadoran Embassy. This cannot go in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Of course it should. I don't know why we're even debating this. Assange is central to this story (he heads Wikileaks, which released the emails), and his statement that Russia wasn't the source received wide coverage. We shouldn't be worrying about whether Assange's statement will detract from the statements of US intelligence agencies. That's a purely political consideration (do I want US intelligence agencies to look good or bad?), and it has no place in determining what goes into the article. What determines what goes into the article is notability, balance and sourcing. There's really no debate on those questions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish and my previous comment above. This is clearly undue for lede. Can be mentioned in the body of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is a long-standing principle in Wikipedia articles that when subjects are accused of crimes or other misleads that we report if they have denied them. That does not mean that we are giving parity to their claims. "People accused of crime" says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." The least we can do is to mention they denied it. The fact that there is a political dimension should not matter. TFD (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"court of law"...(unless his name is Clapper) SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support look, it's just about due WP:WEIGHT -- and since the coverage saying Russia is about as prominent and common as the coverage of Assange says no, so it's put both in or put neither in. By simplistic Google count 'dnc leaks russia' is 800K hits and 'dnc leaks assange' is 560K hits -- so it seems only WP:DUE to put the denial alongside the charge and give both their attribution. Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: This is not about whether to include it in the article, just whether to put it in the lede. And while we have credible sources that tell us the hacks originated in Russia, the opinion of Assange as to their origin is sheer speculation. How would Assange know where they came from? Do you think the original hackers had any reason to trust him with the secret? These things are acquired via intermediaries. Assange knows no more than any other layman, and he's in the habit, per RS, of making self-serving statements of nonsense as if they were fact. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict) The coverage about Assange's statement is not as prominent and not as common as the coverage about "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections". Rather coverage in WP:RS about Russian interference in US elections overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is at best inaccurate and most likely misleading; because it has no basis in fact. There is also plenty of RS to show that he had a political agenda when making this statement - another indication that the veracity of this statement is suspect. I don't mind covering this is in the article, but it would seriously mislead readers about the WEIGHT of this statement if it was placed in the lede (per Tryptofish above). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.Should certainly not be in the lead as proposed because it fundamentally lacks context and appears to give equal standing to a bare, unsupported denial. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Washington Post Fact Checker did an in-depth analysis of "Assange's claim that there was no Russian involvement in WikiLeaks emails" and found, noting that Assange provided no evidence for his claim: "The facts we know contradict Assange’s assurance, and the situation is much too complex for him to make such a sweeping statement...We award Assange Three Pinocchios for his distortion of the facts." Or take Pulitzer Prize-winning author Barton Gellman's point: "Wikileaks is engineered for mutual anonymity. Even if source IDs himself, how could WL know he isn’t laundering RU docs"? We cannot present Assange's statement in the lead without bringing this context to bear. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support:The relentless drive to purge the article of material that hasn't been approved by the CIA continues apace. This has been going on for months. Wikileaks, Russia, US authorities: 3 major actors involved. WP:DUE to mention claims of each in the lead. Assange claims that he did not get the leaks from the Russians, which may be true even if the latter were the hackers. Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Neutrality above. In the text, of course. But not in the lede - it's just one sentence out of one big article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The argument that Assange has provided no proof in his denial is ironic in an article premised upon a claim for which no proof has been provided. Those who opposed "alleged" in the article title I hope will practice consistency and demand we repeat his counter-claim as fact. But the truth of the thing is irrelevant – if we paint someone as a stooge or conspirator in a plot they deny we must include their denial, prominently. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Actually, there is plenty of proof as demonstrated by plethora of reliable sources in the main-space of this article, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a plethora of sources repeating ad libitum what the US intelligence agencies have stated, without providing solid proof other than "trust us, it's classified". Quantity of coverage for this aspect of the story doesn't make educated counterpoints less notable, particularly coming from a pivotal actor in the story. — JFG ^talk 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Nobody knows whether Assange is telling the truth but Wikipedia policy requires WP:Verifiability, not truth. Assange's comments on the origin of the leaks are eminently DUE and notable because he has been questioned repeatedly by the press and gradually became more precise in his denial of Russian connections, making a dent in WikiLeaks' usual practice of neither confirming nor denying any reports on the identity of their sources. Besides, there is a BLP aspect to the accusations levied against Assange and WikiLeaks by the US Intelligence community and some politicians: his denial must be included next to the accusations, regardless of whether some Wikipedia editors believe him to be credible or not. — JFG ^talk 08:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality and others. I'm amused that some editors are pulling the WP:BLP card. Wikileaks is not a living person, in case that is not obvious.- MrX 11:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Assange is the accused, thus yes we should have his version of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - He is notable and credible in relation to the subject. Covered by many RS and given he is a central figure in the whole incident his statements are very DUE. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In two last "support" statements people argue that opinion by Assange should be included in the page. Yes, sure, and it is already included. It only should not be included in lede - per Neutrality and others above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As he should be, but I am saying its DUE that he be in the lead. Sorry for the confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You tell: Assange is "a central figure in the whole incident". What incident are you talking about? This page describes a large number of different events, and Assange is relevant to only one small subsection of this page, Wikileaks. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states: "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks". Yeah, that part. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it already tells about Wikileaks! Nothing else should be said about Wikileaks in Intro because it appears in only one small sub-section on the page, and we simply summarize content proportionately to its appearance in the body of the page. Actually, I am not entirely opposed to mentioning Wikileaks second time in the end of the paragraph: The Russian government and Wikileaks repeatedly denied they had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The opinion of Mr. Assange is not equivalent to that of 17 agencies. Support this in the article only, not the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the report and you'll see that only 3 agencies actually authored to it: NSA, CIA, FBI (nope, not Coast Guard Intelligence etc.) As Time put it: "not all participated". Contrast this with the de-classified—and utterly mistaken—2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, where 10 agencies directly and explicitly participated in the actual preparation of the report. The stuff about this being the "conclusion of 17 agencies" has a definite source: a tweet from Hillary Clinton that was inexplicably endorsed as "100% true" by Politifact on the basis of the fact that "James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group (of 17 agencies)." (just like your manager at work speaks "on behalf" you and and everyone else under his thumb, regardless of their actual opinions or knowledge) Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Is WP:UNDUE based on the amount of coverage given his denial from WP:RS. Moreover, there is good reason for this lack of coverage. 1. It is likely that the Russian's would have been given the emails by a third party. I am sure the way he got them wasn't someone directly connected to the Russian government. However, it isn't a creditable denial and he was never asked if he thought Russia was originally behind the hacking. 2. He clearly has an agenda. All that said, we should be driven by the WP:RS and how much coverage they provided. It is therefore WP:UNDUE.

Discussion

Please move any longer arguments on the merits of inclusion or exclusion here.

@JFG: Who is "we" ? SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Question for OP -- Wherever he got the material he claims is hacked DNC emails, how would Assange necessarily know who actually did the hacking and whether the stuff was authentic/unadulterated? SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's really no point in us speculating on what Assange may or may not know. He's a central figure in the publication of the emails, and he made statements about the source of the leaks that received wide coverage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It goes in the article, just not the lede. Do you know who is "we" ?? JFG seems to be on respite. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's important enough to go in the lede. Our speculation about what Assange actually knows, or about how putting his statements next to those of US intelligence officials might cause readers to perceive US intelligence agencies really has nothing to do with whether this should be in the lede or not. I don't even see why we're debating this. It just seems so obvious that Assange's statement about the source of the hacking is one of the most notable elements of this subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"it's obvious" is not an effective form of discussion. That's obvious. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting this lede would be UNDUE. Although his statement garnered RS, there is also RS to support he had a political agenda for making this statement. This indicates that he is being less than truthful. Also, he is not a cybersecurity expert and not an espionage expert on par with reputable cybersecurity firms. Anyway, the RS pertaining to this topic (generally or specifically) overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is not accurate and probably misleading, and that it is just a POV statement. It is little more than a guy on the corner telling me the same. He is hardly remarkable, other than Wikileaks is his progeny. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

What does it matter if Assange had a political agenda, or if his statement was false (and I don't agree that that's obvious)? It's a widely covered statement by a figure at the center of this issue. You guys keep making arguments about why you don't believe Assange, or why you think that putting Assange's statement in the lede will make US intelligence seem less credible, or about how you think Assange is politically motivated. Those would all be fair points to make on a political discussion board, but not when considering what to include in a Wikipedia article. The question here is whether Assange's statement is notable enough to go in the lede, and it clearly is notable enough. The endless political arguments here get really tiring, because they have nothing to do with article quality, and everything to do with pushing a certain point of view in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that the test? If so and it can be shown that those alleging Russian involvement may also have political agendas should we exclude claims of Russian involvement from the lede as well? Nonsense. I agree with Thucydides411: these conversations are off-topic and irrelevant. Repeated, they become disruptive. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think someone or some editors are being disruptive then I suggest taking this complaint to the appropriate venue. This is not about talk page suppression, and I don't recognize your authority to suppress talk page comments. Also, I think accusations of disruption are in themselves disruptive. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Umm, Steve, are you addressing me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Steve Quinn: please refrain from calling others disruptive after you recently launched three unproductive AE cases in short succession against editors who happened to disagree with you about the contents of this article. — JFG talk 09:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Per Thucydides411 - who at least has something salient to offer to the conversation, in contrast to a lecture by J.J.L. Assange is not at the center of this issue. The RS supporting Russian interference of the 2016 election and its ancillary tributaries (figure of speech), exceedingly surpasses Assange's several worded statement asserting Russia did not do the deed. He is a lone voice in the wilderness that happened to receive modest coverage.

It is a case of UNDUE and WEIGHT. Assange is expressing a marginal and fringe view, which is overwhelmingly countered by mainstream RS. Nuetrality (above) has pretty much demolished the argument that Assange has any sort of parity with mainstream coverage that counters his (Assange's) view. Per UNDUE:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views...Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute

Therefore, Assange should not be in the lede. As Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it is important to point out whether or not Assange is credible or not, according to mainstream sources. Not an editor's opinion. So perhaps my comments were taken out of context. I was referring to how main stream sources attribute Assange's comments. And this matters, because Wikipedia strives for accuracy per WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, since his is a minority opinion or view, it does not deserve parity or a place in the lede.

As an aside, Assange is not credible, and he was motivated by a political agenda. His opinion doesn't count for much. OH no, I did it again, is J.J.L going to take me to ANI or AE? Assange might be dissembling too, maybe - oops! --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what WP editors think about Assange's credibility, but as it happens, Assange and WikiLeaks have a pretty long track record of publishing leaked documents that were proven to be authentic and truthful, irrespective of the political consequences involved: Cablegate, Iraq War Logs, Stratfor emails, TPP draft, etc. Uncomfortable? Certainly. Partisan? Probably. Credible? Definitely. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• JFG I hope you can find this comment :>). Sincerely, I am not trying to express a personal opinion about Assange. That last comment, after I wrote "As an aside..." was probably not a good idea because I was being a little flippant. Let us just stay with my comments pertaining to what I think reliable sources say. And you make a good point - that Assange did at one time provide a service to the world without presenting a political agenda - by publishing leaked documents. Wikileaks is still providing that service - and it is baffling why Assange picked sides during our 2016 president election. In any case, picking sides or not, I try to speak through what I see reliable sources saying, nothing more - and it is the same for any Wikipedia pages I edit. Hopefully this makes sense. And this doesn't mean other opinions should not exist. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• (Redacted) --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who in the heck is "we"? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Let me echo that (again) - who's we JFG? The Delian League or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "We" in my RfC statement refers to the editor(s) who originally placed Assange's denial in the lead (no idea who this might be) and those who argued for its reinsertion (I'm part of them, so that's "we" not "I"). I don't understand why you all are so hung up on this question – WP:There is no cabal. — JFG talk 09:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG:Sorry, but that response makes no sense, and I don't see how it could be considered credible by anyone who examines it. You wrote "We suggest". Now, that doesn't just say that you expect others will agree with you. That is plain English for a joint statement. So please give a more complete explanation. Who do you speak for when you say "we suggest"? How do you know what others suggest? Which others? WP editors don't talk like that when posting RfC's, so it's real weird. It's reasonable to get to the bottom of it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) There's nothing more to it than what I wrote here. Some people will agree with the suggestion, some will disagree, that much is already apparent in the first batch of responses to the RfC, an exact 7-7 split so far. — JFG talk 14:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) C'mon Champ. That's the old turkey trot. Who did you know would agree with it? Who is "we"? Deflection is a tough bit on WP because everyone's focused on words and facts. Could you show us a couple other RfC's where the proposer is speaking for a group of We's? Cause what you "wrote here" looks pretty, um, problematic. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Please stop casting aspersions. — JFG talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Aspersions" would be unfounded. Here what "we" have is you slipping and wording the RfC in a way which strongly suggests you're coordinating with others off wiki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Enough hounding of JFG, already. Can we stay on subject? If not, someone might mention the Eastern European Mailing List, and then Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes will get upset. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC) So you guys aren't coordinating off wiki? Reason I ask, is because I have some advice for you: don't do it. Nice attempt at deflection though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Thucydides411: Dang, golly whiz. This gets curiouser and curiouser. This time it's Thucydides. How many "we's" are making that personal attack? 2? 3? 4? 5-1/2? Ask Mr. Ernie whether that's a smart move. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) As a matter of principle, I do not communicate off-wiki with anyone. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? — JFG talk 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - BLP is a Wikipedia policy., not a US Intelligence policy or a Congressional policy. Also, it is not Wikipedia editor's saying he is not credible. What is being said is reliable sources are reporting the reliability Assange's statement to determine whether it lacks credibility. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement does not need to not be credible. Its entirely possible that Wikileaks source for the info was not in fact Russia, which as far as I can see is all Assange has asserted. This is not contradictory to Russia arranging for the info to be hacked and passed on to Wikileaks by a third party. Assange going 'We didnt get this from Russia' can be 100% true in that situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states that Russia leaked the data to Wikileaks, according to US intel. This implicates Assange in a relationship with Russian spies. So Assange says Wikileaks did not get the material from Russia. Either you present both claims in the lede, or you present none. This is stupid simple. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that Assange has a relationship with Russian spies. Or that Assange even knows the ultimate origin of the content in question. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Trump administration response

Based on two articles (the AP and The Washington Post) I sketched in a subsection about the Trump administration. This information seemed to be missing. It could use the help of anyone here who has a wider view. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Undid for the night. Maybe someone can improve it or I will try again tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It appears to be within the scope of this article. I added it back in the article. Here is the diff [38]. Thanks for doing this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)