Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

RfC: Proposed lead section

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

---

Should the proposed lead section replace the current version? If not, what must be changed to make progress? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

While the discussion above has evolved into a source battle over depicting Russian interference as fact or allegation, I'd like to submit the updated lead section as amended by myself and several editors before yesterday's revert by MrX. This version does not call the intervention alleged, although several editors have failed to acknowledge this simple fact. Besides the "alleged" controversy, some editors have expressed concrete concerns about awkwardness of the first two lead sentences and general "poor writing style". I say the first two sentences can be improved, and the writing style was even poorer before. Now, here's my proposal, with an amended first paragraph to address the discernable concerns. Please comment in the survey and discussion below.

The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks. In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia also meddled in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media.

Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear associated with Russian intelligence. In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face "serious consequences". Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.

In December 2016, Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. President-elect Donald Trump initially rejected the intelligence reports, dismissing claims of foreign interference and saying that Democrats were reacting to their election loss. Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.

Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Six federal agencies have been investigating possible links and financial ties with the Kremlin, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals. Russia did not retaliate.

List of citations has not changed; they will appear correctly in the article, as most of them are culled from the article body.
References

Survey

Please indicate your support or opposition to this version of the lead section, with a short rationale.

• Support paragraphs 1 and 3 only - "US" should be changed to the more conventional "U.S". Important material about investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page have been omitted from the second paragraph."Provided" should be "leaked". "Cut it out" should be change to "warned". The sentence: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." is not lead worthy.- MrX 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I switched to "U.S." per MOS:US, except in the citation of the report, which spells it "US". Investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page are mentioned twice in paragraph 4, just not named individually: Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. The Clapper statement is the only "status report" about those collusion investigations so far, hence relevant to the lead. "Provided" vs "leaked" was to avoid saying "leaked to Wikileaks" which looks awkward; what's wrong with "provided"? "Cut it out" is a direct citation of Obama's language, which gives some personal tone to the statement; we could instead paraphrase, e.g. "warned Putin to stop", but that's a bit dull. — JFG ^talk 15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

1. I believe the individuals being investigated should be named, but the rest of the sentence is fine.
2. "... and provided their contents to WikiLeaks." is a little vague. Perhaps we could say: "... and gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks."
3. "Cut it out" is not a quotation of what was said on the call; it's a quotation of Obama's reflections of what what said. Do you really believe that he spoke to Putin in idiomatic slang? How about this as a more faithful account: "In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop such cyberattacks or face serious consequences."? Mentioning the red phone is fairly trivial.
4. I can live with the Clapper statement if others can.- MrX 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks; I have incorporated all your suggestions except Kushner who is not named in the cited sources, and the word "stolen" which is redundant with "hacked"; replaced "provided" with "forwarded"; used "stop interfering" per source, to avoid repeating "cyberattacks". Hope this addresses your objections so you can move to a full Support !vote. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I'd like to know if you now approve the full text with the latest amendments. Your voice is particularly significant as you were first to revert the proposed lead changes. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Everything except the first sentence looks acceptable to me. Articles such as this should be written from a historical perspective. The use of present tense in the first sentence is jarring and sounds like breaking news. I also strongly prefer "officially concluded" or "concluded" over "highly confident".- MrX 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done OK, amended again with "has concluded with high confidence" directly in the first sentence, so there's no need to repeat it in the second one. Good? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. Thank you.- MrX 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support para 1 with the following edit — with due credit to Geogene. Afaics no one else has suggested using the phrase in the Oct 2016 joint statement that is the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? The progression from "is confident that" in the 1st sentence citing the Oct 2016 statement to "expressed 'high confidence' that” in the 2nd sentence citing the Jan 2017 report uses simple phrasings, allows all sides to move on peaceably, and can be further appended in a timely manner with -results- of the next official work product. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support other paras as long as para 1 comports with either my suggestion above or your further mod below in Discussion. 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Do you agree with the latest amendment to the lead sentence saying "has concluded with high confidence", per discussion with MrX above? If we get consensus between the two of you on this part too, that would be immense progress… — JFG ^talk 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes -- and with that in the lead sentence, I'm ok with the non-qualified (and ergo more certain) "stated … that x" in the 2nd sentence and "stated that y" in 2nd para 1st sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The current lede is much better than this version - The version above removes the "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015" fact from the first paragraph. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: That's only because this phrase was added to the lead after the RfC was opened; we could certainly incorporate it in the proposed new lead, perhaps in a more logical spot, I'll think about it. What do you think of the rest of the text? — JFG ^talk 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added the European intercepts to the paragraph about inquiries on Trump campaign associates. @Gouncbeatduke, Humanengr, and MrX: Please take a look. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We should use the same wording as discussed and agreed upon a few days ago: "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015". Pinging SusanLesch who led that discussion.- MrX 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had to edit it slightly to fit the placement in the paragraph discussing inquiries on links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Just now tweaked the wording to be closer to Susan's version: Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Fine? — JFG ^talk 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with.- MrX 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A bit long maybe, but if this is what it takes to get consensus fine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support This revised lede is clearer and more focused (e.g. "red phone") than the existing lede. Good collaborative effort. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The most significant part of this is that the FBI has an open investigation that "included looking at whether associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."(Comey) The paragraph needs to directly state that, not mention "ties" nor mention 4 individuals, which makes it appear that the investigation only includes them. I also agree with MrX's comments above.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal for improvement to take your concerns into account? — JFG ^talk 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a disaster of wiki-process, to launch another RfC on this topic and then short-circuit it by continuing to change the article. The result has been that one of the two RfC options no longer exists. Given this situation, we should close this RfC. There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question. Then, we can then either revert to the pre-RfC version or we can work to improve the current article version, which is no longer what the RfC proposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of your comment. We shouldn't open an RfC without waiting for consensus first??? Assessing consensus is precisely the goal of opening an RfC. I don't see why this one should be procedurally flawed. I also don't see your specific objection to the proposed text, which has been evolving to take into account other editors' remarks. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Simpler statement: It's disruptive to make changes to one of the alternatives while the RfC is ostensibly comparing its now-defunct text to a proposed alternative. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would support the changes, but suggest amending the first sentence per N-HH and TFD's comments below, as follows: The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Using the phrase "has stated" is the most truthful way of presenting this information. I would also propose adding Russia's denial at the end of the first paragraph, and expanding upon Russia's position somewhat later in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

<<"has stated" is the most truthful>> doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand. Please rephrase your point about "has stated" and "most truthful" in terms of WP policy and RS treatments of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Given the outcome of the other RfC "concluded vs accused", I believe we should stick with "concluded with high confidence" at this point. About Russia's denial, I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion without going into excessive detail. Perhaps simply add "Russia dismissed the allegations." with one of the relevant citations. Do you have a better suggestion? — JFG ^talk 20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I don't see any big red flags but I see some major improvements. I would add that the "intercepted communications" (fifth paragraph) were "suspicious" – because that's what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Thanks. Not sure "suspicious" adds much value to this particular sentence. It's not even in the current lead or full article. I think communications between Trump-related people and Russian operatives are suspicious by definition. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this must be decided in this RFC but the relevant discussion was archived before I had a change to raise this point. My opinion is that "suspicious" is somewhat important because every Russian having discussions with Americans is potentially a spy. Politrukki (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Can be debated after the RfC, if the new text is approved. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current lead paragraph is clearly messed up, but this RFC started a long time ago and therefore omits recent developments in the news. The current lead starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that conclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence; why not run an RFC like that? Then we could discuss what, if anything, ought to be added to the lead paragraph, and/or cut from the rest of the lead. Two items that seem appropriate in the lead paragraph's overview might be that Russia is not believed to have interfered in vote tallying, and/or no evidence has yet emerged regarding collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section discussion

Please place suggested amendments or longer discussions here.

The lede as of this version was much better. While a few editors have said they don't like the version I've linked, I don't think they've articulated any clear reason why, beyond disagreement with the word "alleged." The first sentence states the subject of the article:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election.

The second sentence gives a very short summary of the events that led to the scandal:

Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.

The third sentence paraphrases what US intelligence has claimed about Russian interference:

An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

What's the problem with this opening paragraph, beyond the word "alleged"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that "alleged" is a big deal. Other than that it's ok as far as the first three sentences go. The major problem with your version is that it then proceeds to conceal/remove a bunch of pertinent info that follows those three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Same for JFG's version actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is "concealed or removed"? 213.55.184.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If "alleged" is such a big deal, then why do many major news sources use it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop beating the dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That's not an answer. Do you have an actual answer? If you don't, then you should withdraw your objection to the use of the word "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's not an answer, it's a freakin' plea for you to stop wasting everybody's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've presented several major news sources (BBC, Financial Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde) that use "alleged" or equivalent language. If you don't have any answer to that, then you should withdraw your objection to that language. Right now, you're simply blockading without any reasonable rationale. You've cited WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at me several times now, and it's highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And this all has already been discussed. So... stop beating the dead horse. It's dead. It's not getting up. It's pre-glue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The objection before was that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact. That's not true, as the sources I've cited show. So now that you've been presented with evidence, has your opinion changed? If not, why not? You can't just ignore the evidence and continue citing policies. Reliable sources say "alleged." That's what the article should say, unless you have a substantive objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some sources will add the word alleged for safety as per their policy, and if you look hard enough you will find them. But, the beat-of-hooves is but a memory. Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Their policy of not saying things they don't know to be true. "Some sources" includes the BBC, the Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, the largest papers in Germany and France, and NBC News. If they're not willing to say that "Russian interference" is a fact, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. We're having this discussion because MrX reverted changes to the lede that several editors had hashed out together in one of the few productive discussions I've ever seen on this talk page. If you're going to declare this a dead horse, then you should do the honors and restore the reformulated lede yourself. One can't revert and then refuse to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can stop pinging me Thucydides411. I'm actively watching this page. You conveniently neglect to mention that several of these same news agencies do treat the Russia interference as fact. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I'm going to join in the chorus of others asking you to let this go. This incessant REHASH has become disruptive and could result in you being topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned.- MrX 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I hate to jump into this discussion, but I'm afraid the sources you just cited are reinforcing Thucydides411's case: Le Monde 1 says "allegations of Russian interference" and "Russia was accused by US intelligence services or interfering in the presidential election", Le Monde 2 says "Hacking attributed to Russia" and "The report by intelligence agencies affirms that the Russian president influenced the American election campaign.", Reuters 1 says nothing (just quotes Senators about requesting sanctions over "attempts to influence" the election), Reuters 2 mentions "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election" within a list of issues addressed by Tillerson (doesn't say it's a fact or an allegation, it just names the issue), NBC 1 says "allegedly meddling in the election", NBC 2 says "alleged ties between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government", AP 1 talks about "the House probe into Russian interference" (doesn't call it a fact, just says there's a probe), AP 2 talks about "an investigation into Russian meddling" (same thing). So out of 8 sources, that's 4 explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged", 1 saying nothing of substance, 1 just naming it as an issue among other things, and 2 talking about the existence of investigations. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with JFG's assessment of the sources. MrX, when you say that a source treats Russian interference as a fact, you should say in what way you can tell it treats Russian interference as fact. Reading through your links, I don't see the news agencies making any assertions that Russia interfered in US elections.

You and the chorus of people asking me to let this go should instead be asking yourselves why you're holding onto your position in the face of mounting evidence. You guys haven't been able to quote a major newspaper saying directly that Russia interfered in US elections, and there have now been dozens of articles posted on this talk page where major newspapers explicitly call "Russian interference" an allegation. So rather than threatening to try to topic ban me (for what - doing research on what reliable sources say and then posting it here?), why don't you actually consider the evidence here, and possibly change your mind? If you don't change your mind, you at least need to express some rationale that passes a basic plausibility test. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And the dispute is not new either: here's FallingGravity pointing to plenty of RS explicitly calling the allegations "allegations" in January 2017.[10] The reply from the "it's an undisputed fact, DEADHORSE" chorus? Crickets… — JFG ^talk 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your analysis of my sources is flawed across the board. For example in Le Monde 1, the word "allégations" is from a quote from an unnamed third party, not the voice of the newspaper. "Hacking attributed to Russia" means "the hacking that Russia did", not "the hacking that Russia is alleged to have done". My reading of the body of sources makes it very clear that sources overwhelmingly treat the Russia interference as fact.- MrX 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT.jpg

Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT

Anyway, a chorus Trumps a quartet, and there is a countably infinite number of RS that say "russian interference" in the editors' voices.[11] SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a basically illiterate understanding of what "attributed to" means. See: [12].

verb (used with object), attributed, attributing.

1.to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually followed by to)

2. to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated

3. to consider as made by the one indicated, especially with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof

4. to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign

Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't care any longer whether Russian interference is called "alleged" in Wikipedia's voice, but I can't just remain silent when you guys keep straight denying that a very large fraction of RS articles either express no opinion on the U.S. intelligence officials' accusations against Russia or call them explicitly "allegations". (I knew I shouldn't have jumped into the source battle, but now I'm there…) Back to Le Monde, the first article quotes a Washington official using the word "allegations", that's even stronger than the journalist's neutral voice; the second article merely says that the attribution of hacks to Russia "has become the official position of the American administration". And the title word "imputé" does convey an attribution, effectively saying "somebody (US intelligence) is accusing somebody else (Russia) of something". Best translation would be "Hacking blamed on Russia". Don't take my word for it, just check the numerous examples in a French analytical dictionary. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, examining NBC2 as per your example: Meddling is used twice, once with, once without alleged; interference/interfere is used four times (Russia’s election interference, Russian interference in the election, Putin … became personally involved in the campaign to interfere, Moscow’s interference). So by your reckoning this source is "explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged""? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Given the excerpts you cite, you must be talking about NBC1. So let's look at the context around the words (emphasis mine): "Sen. Ben Cardin […] called for an independent commission into election meddling", "sanctions imposed by the Obama administration against Russia for allegedly meddling in the election", "a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election", "U.S. intelligence officials believe [that] Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election", "Trump frequently denied the claims about Moscow's interference", so yes by my reckoning this source is not taking an affirmative position about the nature, scope or impact of the interference, it correctly attributes the claims of interference to US intelligence services, it mentions calls for investigations and it does call the meddling alleged in the journalist's voice. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK good, cause even the non-RS say that Russian Interference is a fact [13] With JFG no longer contesting the fact, next step would be to deep six (American Nixonism) the latest lede RfC. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour.[14] It seems to be a fairly common and evenhanded term used when police or others have made accusations against living people that have not been proved in a court or other tribunal. Here's ABC an article called, "Charleston Shooting: A Closer Look at Alleged Gunman Dylann Roof". That did not cast doubt on whether Dylann Roof was the gunman. That's just how serious sources report things. TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Strawman type C-16. That dude is an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution. Next. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the title is so difficult to understand that it needs to be explained in the lead, then maybe we should change it, to something like "Alleged Russian …"? No, wait, been there, not done that. Replacing hacking & providing to WL with "release of emails", "leaks" - did the DNC and Podesta turn them over to WL? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, SPECIFICO, but I don't know what C16 means. I don't have a copy of the DNC talking points glossary. FYI, people who commit crimes against the United States or its citizens are subject to prosecution in the U.S. Osama bin Laden for example was on the FBI ten most wanted list despite having never entered the U.S. and attempts were made to by the U.S. government to apprehend him. Closer to the topic, Julian Assange, who released the DNC and Podesta emails, is currently under criminal investigation in the U.S. for possible violation of the Espionage Act. Guccifer, a computer hacker living in Romania, has been indicted on multiple counts in the U.S. and is facing extradition. TFD (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean the alleged Osama! Assange takes credit for "wikileaks" Guccifer is as real as "SPECIFICO", not a person. Next... SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible to reply to my statements without going off on a tangent? Guccifer is a name for Marcel Lazăr Lehel, "an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution." Whether or not Assange takes credit for wikileaks, he does not take credit for conspiring with the Russian government to subvert democracy in the United States.Any person regardless of nationality or current whereabouts may be prosecuted by U.S. authorities if they were involved in hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails. So just concede you were mistaken about your strawman argument accusation and move on. TFD (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK we'll get serious cause folks don't know you're just flirting with me. The tangent is bringing up examples of OTHERSTUFF instead of sticking to whether mainstream RS overwhelmingly accept the fact that Russia took various actions to interfere with the US elections. So let's reboot and you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is not that Russia tried to interfere. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that they consistently qualify the claims with terms such as "alleged." And they will continue to do that until evidence is presented and experts provide their opinions. That does not mean they question the intelligence any more than they questioned WMDs in Iraq or that accused criminals are guilty. And that's how this article should be written according to policy. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the intelligence community actually claimed that Iraq had WMDs as claimed by the executive branch? Objective3000 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We're going round and round here. There were a couple of threads on this earlier (such as the hatted discussion about Iraq in this RfC). The TL;DR is that both the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies were complicit in aggressively overselling intelligence about supposed Iraqi WMD. In the years afterwards, we in the public found out that the internal, classified conclusions of the intelligence agencies were much weaker than had been publicly stated. We had been told they were certain about things that they weren't actually certain about. That's a cautionary note for everyone to take to heart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On that note, Thyc, I urge you to step away from this fruitless pit. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are required when assessing the reliablity of sources. U.S. intelligence has consistently provided conveniently misleading information and therefore is not a reliable source. Whether or not specific claims are accurate is something we determine based on what reliable sources, such as mainstream news media and academic research, say. TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now we have your opinion, and then we have U.S. intelligence declarations published in RS. Hmmmm...which should we choose, your opinion and OR about their reliability, or the RS? Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an ongoing investigation, and as more has leaked out, we have discovered that any seeming dissembling by them was because they had to protect the investigation, and what has been revealed is that the seriousness of the interference is far more than anyone of us realized, and that the likelihood of collusion seems stronger as well. The latest revelations about Carter Page, and his denials (which draw quite the revealing picture) are very interesting. His denials are like dots scattered on the floor, with an area with no dots, and that area is a picture, exactly the one described on page 30 of the dossier. Without being accused, he "doesn't" mention it several times in several different interviews. How odd. It's as if he knows something. Stay tuned.

My point is that your OR seems more based on personal POV than upon the revelations coming from RS, so I suggest we just go with them, and time will tell. Otherwise, this is the talk page, and this is an interesting discussion, but we can't put yours or my speculations in the article....fortunately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's your personal OR. However, having an opinion quoted in a reliable source does not make that opinion a fact, unless the reliable source says it is. And reliable sources policy does not mention U.S. Intelligence agencies as reliable sources. Anyway you know that, I know that you know that etc. TFD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You really hit on the heart of the problem. The fact that a reliable source quotes person A does not mean we should treat that person A's statement as true. Putin has been quoted by reliable sources as saying that Russia did not interfere in US elections. That doesn't make Putin's statement true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the lead sentence cite the Oct 2016 report instead of the January 2017 report? Humanengr (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed text cites the Nakashima article about the January 2017 report; we could cite an extra source mentioning the October 2016 report; their conclusions are essentially the same. As you recently pointed out, mentioning an exact date was superfluous in the lead sentence itself. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We are not relying on "US Intelligence" - we are simply reflecting what RS say. Mainstream RS could report on a confident idiot in a cage and we would need to cite that. It has nothing to do with our opinion of the opinion, let alone our opinion as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Is your cmt here mis-pinged, mis-placed?? Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Re "their conclusions are essentially the same": Yes, contra the 1st sentence, neither report said "concluded that".

The Oct report said "x was confident that y". The Jan report said "x had high confidence that y" -- as noted in the 2nd sentence after the title and 1st sentence have set the tone for the entire article; too late. (Good to link 'high confidence' though few will follow that; the damage has been done.)

The certainty of the title and 1st sentence are reinforced elsewhere in the lead paras.

Any RS's that reports that the USIC "concluded that" are lying about the degree of certainty and should be disqualified as RS; their error-checking is meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, but feel free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think you can get other editors to concur with that reasoning.- MrX 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: So, in your view, "x concluded that y" = "x was confident that y" or "x had high confidence that y"? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You do understand that different sources may use different words to convey the same information, right? I don't understand why anyone has difficulty understanding why journalists would interpret "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises..." to mean "USIC concluded that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises...". See also WIKT: conclusion: "A decision reached after careful thought."- MrX 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Re "use different words to convey the same information": so you think those statements are equivalent? Humanengr (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the context used, those two statements are semantically equivalent. I thought that was obvious from my previous response.- MrX 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for responding, but I don't see them as semantically equivalent. Follow-on: Do you think the DNI does? Humanengr (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have precious little time to help improve this article, and this discussion is not helping to fulfill that goal. Cheers.- MrX 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the DNI does not see those statements as semantically equivalent, is there any improvement you could make that is more substantive than to use their language in the lead sentence? Why propagate a misrepresentation? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: And yes, I can understand some "journalists would interpret …". They inhabit a common culture with common biases that distort. The DNI report is clear and succinctly indicates degree of certainty., There is no excuse except our own biases not to use DNI language in the very first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Report said "determined" which was in the article briefly but reverted by one of the POV fringe edits. It's really important everyone review the history of the article and the talk discussions, because the more we reopen rehash and relitigate settled discussions, the less participation we're going to have here and the worse the article will be served. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Determined" is not in Jan 2017 report. Cite ?? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[15]. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Why did you post that link? That is not a report. What are you trying to say? Humanengr (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I kept "concluded" because any other word is going to be fiercely contested, and because there's an open RfC about using this exact word vs "accused". I once suggested "affirmed", which sounds more neutral and factual to me, hoping we could get consensus on that… Opinions? — JFG ^talk 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I appreciate your efforts. 'Affirmed' seems both nebulous (affirmed what?) and too certain (the 'that x' part). Here’s a thought that afaics no one else has expressed: How about using the phrase in the Oct 2016 report that is in the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? As much as I don’t think it helps to continue to refer to the older report now that the newer one is available, it does allow for a short accurate summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: On the chance that Geogene agrees (see discussion above), given the time constraint, would it make sense to incorporate this into this RfC, start another or ?? Humanengr (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I would support this alternate wording; please add it to the survey section, similarly to MrX's amendments "Support, conditional on suggestion XYZ", so that other editors can follow the draft evolution without going through walls of text. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As the second sentence already says "high confidence", we would have to rephrase it slightly. I would suggest:

The United States Intelligence Community is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully others will agree. Humanengr (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK as I understand the situation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were highly confident the Russians had been behind the hacks. What about the rest of the US intelligence community? The FBI see to have said the Russians did do it. GRIZZLY STEPPE accuses the Russians. So the lead must reflect the fact that much of the US intelligence community has said the Russians did it.

"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, much of the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.[1] However an assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton..."

Seems to reflect the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It seems we are converging. My focus is almost (but not completely) on the 1st sentence. Re your proposed 1st sentence, 'alleged' works for me but not for many here as we have seen. Re your cmt at Teahouse re 'high confidence': JPG's mod (immediately above at 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) shifts that from 2nd sentence to 1st. IMO, that accomplishes much. I can explain further and comment on the rest, but wanted to get your reaction to that. Humanengr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're "converging" with one editor? That's not converging. That's diverging. Your proposed words are much worse than what's currently there, and your negotiations among the scant minority of editors who will even bother responding to you are fruitless. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think we mostly agree on the first paragraph. The only change I'd make to your proposal would be to remove the word "However," because the statement that follows "However" doesn't really contradict the preceding sentence. This proposal is very close to what a number of editors worked out together earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"A number of editors worked out" What number do you claim? I count about 4 out of 30-40 editors who've collaborated to produce the current consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SPECIFICO here. I still fail to see an argument against the current consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: Arbitrary break

• General comment -- I'm finding this RFC to be hard to follow. I'm not even sure what we are supposed to !vote on. Generally, I'd like to convey that the use of "alleged interference" is not some nefarious way of casting doubt on the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Essentially, Wikipedia is reporting on a current event (investigation of said interference) and it's good journalistic practice to qualify the incident in question as "probable" / "likely" / "evidence of", etc, and not as a statement of fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that we are not journalists and this and the alleged RfC can be ignored. Various parts of the article actually need work right now. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Should I read "alleged RfC" as a manifestation of your sense of humour or as a personal attack? I find it really insulting that you would disparage my efforts to build consensus, especially as I've been following your own advice! — JFG ^talk 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another scarecrow. I said to take it to a Sandbox page and work out something that has a snowbowel's chance of being accepted. I suggest you withdraw it and do that now before more time is wasted on this. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to reply here, rather then above as this discussion is far too long and rambling.

It is clear that whilst one arm of the US intelligence services has used ore diplomatic language to make the claim much of the rest (and it seems to be the majority) have not caveated their comments and have asserted that Russia did it. Our lead must reflect that, any thing else is weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I should have limited my response to your use of 'allege' in your lead sentence. You're ok with using that term there -- right? Humanengr (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am OK with it, it is an allegation/Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just popping in here. Slatersteven, I assume we're discussing this sentence: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played ...." Is that correct?

So the first part is without "alleged" (I totally agree), and the second part is with it. What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? I'm just throwing this out there to probe your thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What "first part" and "second part"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(Perhaps BullRangifer mistook your "OK as I understand …" para as a proposed lead para?)

Re 'alleged': As others here have objected to that word, can you offer an alternative phrasing to the lead sentence that captures your intent? Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was referring to the first and second halves of your sentence I copied in my comment. Here it is again: (1) "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to (2) the alleged role that the Russian government played ...."

Did I understand you correctly, or am I way off base? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes those are the words I used, I am not sure what there is to not understand. It is an allegation, so it has been alleged. As to alternative wording. However I am wondering what we are arguing about, as it stand the opening paragraph of the lead seems to sum it up. |Maybe wee need to make it clear that not all the US intel agencies were quite so equivocal, but I do not see what about the lead paragraph is a problem.

"A number of US intelligence agencies officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[1] In January 2017, whilst another U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.[2] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015"

It is odd that it says that "everyone" and then goes on to say "except these people". This is the germ of the debate, the fact we do over egg the cake over the degree to which US intelligence had concluded the Russians did it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we aren't arguing about anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. My questions were just as much to figure out your meaning as to learn from you. I'll repeat them here.

What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? Why use alleged? I thought there was a lot of certainty about the involvement of the Russian government, enough that we wouldn't need to use the word "alleged" there. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure this out. I've read most RS, but there are other RS and other ways of looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot as not absolute. And whilst there may be "a lot of certainty" this is not 100% (even in the US intelligence community). it is not "a lot of certainty" that is needed but "beyond reasonable doubt", and that seems to me to not be the case yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the reformulated first paragraph

I think it's time to reinstate the reformulated first paragraph of the article. Here it is:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."

I'm not saying this first paragraph is perfect, but it is much stronger than the current first paragraph, and I think it has greater support from active editors on this talk page than the current lede. The advantages of this first paragraph, in my view, are:

1. The first sentence states generally what the article is about.
2. It gives a brief description of the major background elements of the affair (the release of emails by Wikileaks, the claims made by US intelligence).
3. It uses the appropriate word, "alleged," to refer to the allegations of Russian interference. Many reliable sources use exactly this word regularly, and almost all treat "Russian interference" as an allegation.

A number of editors worked together to formulate this intro paragraph. It was then reverted by MrX (diff). In the ensuing discussion, several more editors have expressed support for the reformulated first paragraph, and I think that it has majority support here. The main bone of contention with this text has been the word "alleged," but I think the above source discussion has shown that "alleged" is completely in line with reporting from numerous reliable sources (among them the BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC News, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde, although this list is by no means exhaustive).

Since the source discussion has established that "alleged" is a completely mainstream designation for Russia's alleged interference, I think this objection is now moot. I'd therefore propose to reinstate the reformulated intro paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Thanks for helping me out. — JFG ^talk 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Can you take a shot at answering my questions following your statements above? Thanks, — JFG ^talk 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"No, just no" is not a very productive attitude to take. If I understand your above post, you're saying that since US intelligence agencies ("Those who understand these things best") have said Russia interfered in the US elections, we should take that as fact. That's not how Wikipedia works. We go on the basis of reliable sources, and the large majority of reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. I say "large majority," because I'm holding out the possibility that one or two newspapers might state unequivocally that Russia interfered. I haven't seen any such clear statements from reliable sources, and they're apparently sufficiently difficult to find that (to my knowledge) they haven't been posted in this talk page yet. We go with source like the BBC and Reuters, not with allegations made by intelligence agencies.

We should absolutely describe the allegations made by US intelligence agencies, and the reformulated first paragraph does that. Reliable sources have reported heavily on those allegations, so we will, of course, describe them in this article. That's very different from taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact, which is something we're not going to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you wrote "large majority". You must have missed my explanation of the flaws in your thinking. There are plenty of RS which don't use "alleged". Your search, which "includes" alleged just confirms your bias. Others have performed the same search "without" alleged and found plenty of RS. This just shows that the search, especially without a complete (that would be hundreds of references) analysis on a time line, really doesn't prove anything other than that we can find RS which use it and which don't use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I responded to your points here. The fact that a newspaper does not use the word "alleged" in a particular article does not mean that the newspaper does not treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There are synonyms for "alleged," and there are plenty of ways of describing an allegation without endorsing it as true. Anyways, what I said above is that the large majority of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, and based on our discussion of sources above, that's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t seen anyone here taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact. Exaggerating what other editors have done does not convince. I’ll say it again, if you are attempting to convince other editors, you are using the wrong tact. This talk page is way too long, filled as it is, with the same repetition . Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: BullRangifer clearly said, in reply to my proposal, that we should take the claims of US intelligence agencies as fact. That is specifically what I was responding to. I assume you disagree strongly with BullRangifer on this - if you don't, please correct me.

Thank you for the note about my tact, but I'm proposing something concrete here. What do you think of the proposed wording of the first paragraph? I think the source discussion above settled the issue of whether "alleged" is a mainstream way of describing "Russian interference" (again, please correct me if you disagree), so I think we can move on to reimplementing the reformulated first paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not convince. I do not agree to the change for reasons stated over and over. This is a boring waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask my two questions directly:

1. Do you agree with BullRangifer's statement that we should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts?
2. Do you agree that reliable sources often use "alleged" when describing "Russian interference," and that they generally treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, without endorsing it as fact?

I really don't know what would convince you, but I think I've shown what needs to be shown: that reliable sources generally frame "Russian interference" as an allegation. I've also said why I think the reformulated first paragraph is better than what we have now. If you don't agree, it would be more helpful if you'd say what it is you don't like about the reformulated first paragraph. "You do not convince" isn't productive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You've made your point. The community can't allow a talk page to be bludgeoned against consensus. We all need to accept reality when our views are not shared by the consensus of editors on a given issue. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say that we "should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts." I believe they are correct, just as you, as an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow , think the U.S. intelligence community is wrong. (Okay, I guess Putin has a right to have someone defending his POV here, and God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process. C'est la vie.)

What we should NOT do is make the intelligence community state it as an "allegation", when they have "concluded" it happened. Don't misquote them. They are certain, even if you aren't. The current lead sentence is: "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Don't change that to "alleged". That's dishonest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, have you read the proposals? Thucydides' text does not connect "alleged" with the intelligence agencies' statements: he says that this article discusses the alleged role of Russia in the US presidential election, and that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks", that's pretty unambiguous. Alternately, my proposed lead in the RfC totally removes "alleged" and states, in their exact words, that said agencies are "highly confident" that Russia interfered in the election. Isn't that satisfactory? — JFG ^talk 03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The text I'm proposing is the one that you helped write. I don't think your comments here apply at all to the text that I proposed above. For example, the text states unambiguously that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks." I'd really appreciate if you gave it a second look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired right now (jetlag), and this is a bit confusing,so maybe I'm conflating things. Somewhere on this page is a discussion to rename the article to some kind of "alleged" whatever. I think that's wrong, but I suspect that both of you support that idea, even though multiple intelligence agencies (USA and foreign), plus multiple competing cybersecurity companies, all conclude that the Russians did interfere in the election. That's factual, and there are plenty of RS which say it. That's the view which should get the most weight, and the title should reflect it.

I have made this comparison before, because I see what's happening here as similar to what has happened with the subject of climate change/global warming. The scientific consensus among 97% of published real climate scientists says that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but there are multiple non-climate scientists and many amateurs who say it's not true. So in people's minds they see the 97% as ONE (as here they count the 17 US intelligence agencies as one), and the long list of people in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as a whole lot of people (because they are named and can be counted) against that ONE. They think the deniers have the weightier argument. Fortunately the Wikipedia community gave the climate scientists the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, here I see the opposite happening. The amateur deniers get to push their POV and get more weight than the real experts when it comes to naming the article. They want the title to enshrine the doubt. I see that as problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW neither Thucydides411 nor I are suggesting to change the title. We do agree with Adlerschloß and others that the article is biased towards the "official" POV, especially the lead section, and there are two proposals being floated to make it more neutral: this section and the open RfC. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is being misframed as an either/or. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the intelligence agencies have concluded something does not mean that it ceases to be an allegation in the wider sense. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and the CIA etc do not act as the sole adjudicators of fact. The comparison with climate change is a little off-beam. The agencies are not a wide range of disinterested parties relying on the objective scientific method to look at hard data, but partisan players, from a narrow and specific sector, who are in the business of making often subjective assessments about actions and motive etc. With a history not only of getting things wrong but of deliberate misinformation. There is widespread scepticism IRL, at least among those not too heavily invested in blaming Russia for everything that went wrong for Clinton and right for Trump, about their claims on this point. The page should reflect that, not privilege the IC conclusions, let alone take them as read or as the last word N-HH talk/edits 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

But we're not relying on them alone. The strongest evidence comes from competing cybersecurity companies whose individual interests would be best served by not agreeing. Instead CrowdStrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect agree that Russia was behind the hacks. They are essentially looking at the DNA left under the fingernails of those attacked. It's strong evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Have you had a chance to look again at the paragraph I'm suggesting above? It's the same paragraph that you were involved in formulating, and that you previously expressed support for. I think it pretty clearly states the position of US intelligence, which seems to me to be your main concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and I've lost any desire to do much more here. It's fruitless and a waste of time. Nothing I say will make any difference. There are far too many threads rehashing the same issues. It's just too complicated. I'm not removing this from my watchlist, but I feel it's hopeless here. RS have documented what experts say, but when those experts are not given the weight they deserve, there isn't much point in continuing. Just retitle the article Rebuttal of the unfair charges that Vladimir Putin would ever have any desire to destabilize western democracies, and then sign it, since that's the opinion of a number of editors here. This was obviously the doing of some 15 year old kid, just to mess with us. It's not at all notable. Nothing happened. There's nothing to see here folks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit that editing here is frustrating, but I think you have the completely wrong idea about what I'm proposing here. It's a fairly limited change to the article, and one that you previously wrote you thought was an improvement. But yes, it is frustrating to edit here, and the environment is far from collegial! -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This version is inferior to both the current version and the amended version proposed by JFC above. The first sentence (basically "Interference refers to interference") is just poor writing because it is redundant. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy."). Neutrality^talk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No, the proposed first paragraph does not way "Interference refers to interference." It says, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election." The proposed first paragraph gives a concise description of the subject of the article, and properly refers to it as an allegation. It's vastly superior to the current first paragraph, which picks one random aspect of the subject to put in the first sentence, and doesn't give any background to the subject. The background is the publication of emails from the DNC and Podesta, which US intellgience alleges were given to Wikileaks by Russia through intermediaries. Any decent first paragraph would mention that. Instead, we have a jumbled lede that includes random elements of the subject, in a random order, and which gives far too much weight to the views of the spy agencies of one particular country. A lot of editors here seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between reliable sources and US intelligence any more, which is one of the reasons the lede is such a garbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any revision. Please do not disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the first sentence is unacceptable and would never fly in a formal RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolved lead text

Since the opening of this RfC, the proposed lead has evolved following remarks by MrX, Humanengr and Gouncbeatduke in a consensus effort, thanks. Could those editors who have not yet commented in the Survey section please take a fresh look and voice their opinion? @Adlerschloß, BullRangifer, ConservativeTrumpism, Darouet, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, Factchecker atyourservice, FallingGravity, Geogene, Guccisamsclub, Isaidnoway, James J. Lambden, Jytdog, K.e.coffman, Markbassett, MelanieN, My very best wishes, N-HH, Neutrality, Objective3000, Slatersteven, Softlavender, Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, SusanLesch, The Four Deuces, Thucydides411, and Volunteer Marek: + any others I forgot or passers-by, you're all welcome. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest JFG, I've read through the long thread above and it's unclear to me where we stand. Regarding your proposal at the very top, and considering N-HH's comment on the nature of intelligence organizations, I'd propose only to attribute the statement of confidence:

The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Other issues can be addressed separately from this thread in my view. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for your comment. The wording of the lead sentence was developed by compromise between very opposed positions of MrX, Geogene and Humanengr. Personally I would be fine with your variant "has stated it is highly confident" instead of "has concluded with high confidence" but we'd need those other editors to agree as well. Apart from this first sentence, do you think the rest of the proposed text is an improvement compared to the current lead? — JFG ^talk 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, generally I support other aspects of your revision. I had done a bunch of legwork earlier on this topic - reviewing editorial policies about how this topic is presented in the media - but just haven't had the time to come back here, with real life work (teaching, research). I apologize for that, and hope to be more involved at some point. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. There is no deadline, except you may want to chime in within the nominal 30 days of the RfC period. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we would need consensus among all the editors who are active on this page or who come to this page to discuss. We can't make progress by using the consent of a few editors as if it were the consensus of the larger group here. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC puts a comprehensive text forward and specifically asks editors to suggest changes which could gain their support, as part of a consensus-building effort. You are obviously free to oppose, and other editors are free to support the outcome of this collective work towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - Thucydides411 is correct that alleged is the more prominent sources and majority of all sources. Google count for '"russian interference" us elections' is 1,250,000 with alleged vs 721,000 without. The with list firstpage is aol, cnbc, bbc, foxnews, nbc, and dni.gov; the without list firstpage is indivisibleguide, talkingpoints, resistencemanual, usnews, euractiv, and cbc. Also, those top 8 'with' all seem factual reporting, while the 'without' snippets seem only 2 are factual reporting (resistencemanual and euractiv) and the rest opinionating (cbc opinionating there will never be a smoking gun for this). Going several more pages in you do see some flakes in the 'with' and a few bigger names in the 'without', but it looks like 'alleged' retains a clear quality of RS and quantity lead.

Otherwise, I'll agree the RFC process looks a bit broken/confused by now, and largely rejecting the text as proposed -- 'prior version was better' crowd plus the 'only part A' crowd seem a majority. It might be better to tackle it para by para or individual points to avoid overwhelming size because 'alleged' goes on a bit. Concerns I can see with the top text here is is that a couple of the cites I tried are funky, and that the narrative is rather skipping about (2017, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2016..) and not a linked or overall picture -- even parts of the same para may be a puzzle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thanks for your comments. The discussion about using the word "alleged" has wasted enough editor time and we will never get consensus on it one way or the other. This perennial conundrum can be solved elegantly with the proper attribution of the "Russia interfered" statement to the intelligence community, as implemented in the proposed text. We don't need to choose between "A did B" or "A allegedly did B" when we simply write "C said that A did B".

For the rest of the lead, I agree that it does skip back and forth in dates, because it is rather arranged by themes: US intelligence statements (Russia meddled in the US presidential election), how Russia interfered (email hacks and online propaganda), political investigations, and finally diplomatic retaliation. I'm open to re-arranging the narrative in chronological order, but I think we should first de-clutter the current lead. Do you think the proposed text in an overall improvement compared to the current version? Do you have specific suggestions for further improvement? — JFG ^talk 06:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template

I just added a POV template to the top of this article until this RfC is closed. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when does an RfC necessitate POV tags on an article? Darknipples (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Podobnyy/Page, Prince, Hayden, etc.

I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:

• (1) Page's past contacts with Viktor Podobnyy before becoming a Trump advisor - although this incident took place in 2013, it's relevant because, as the sources reflect, Page was dumped from the team after the FBI investigation into the Podobnyy contacts came to light, and because the sources more generally cover it in the context of the 2016-present investigation into 2016 election interference. I added text to make clear that although the FBI interviewed Page in that case, he was never accused of wrongdoing, which I think we must mention. The relevant, full-length citations are:
  • Adam Goldman, Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump, New York Times (April 4, 2017).
  • Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with Russian spy in 2013, Associated Press (April 3, 2017).

• (2) Regarding Trump/CIA rupture - deletion of the word "unprecedented." - I can't understand the rationale for this deletion at all. The sources directly describe the rupture as being unprecedented. This is valuable historical information because it signals to readers how unusual it was. The citations reflect that:
  • New Yorker ("Never before has a President or President-elect spoken so dismissively of the C.I.A.")
  • ABC News ("an unprecedented public display of acrimony")
  • WSJ ("an extraordinary rupture").

• (3) Erik Prince section - this was deleted completely. I don't get this deletion as well. Although the Prince/Seychelles meeting occurred after the election, it's clearly related to the page topic. See Washington Post cite ("U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump."). We do appropriately mention that Prince had no formal appointment on the transition team, but that alone does not make the material irrelevant. If there is something we can do to shorten the text without omitting important information, or to add text that reflects any kind of doubt on the significance of the meeting, then of course I'm open to that, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem to be called for here.

• (4) Hayden sentence - I've restored a shortened version of the Hayden op-ed. Hayden is a very influential figure (he is more important than McMullin, who gets two sentences), the weight (literally one sentence) is proper, and it's clearly relevant here. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed rationale and partial revert with precise changes, that's refreshing. Here's my take on your remarks:

1. The Page anecdote of 2013 is over-extended but you explained it more clearly than the version I had trimmed, so I'm fine keeping it this way; some WP readers may appreciate spy novels…
2. I had removed both qualifiers "immediate and unprecedented" which are non-neutral; keeping "unprecedented" is fine, per sources.
3. This is a complete side story, entirely based on one source which quotes unnamed officials and remains prudent about the connection and the motives: "an apparent effort to establish a back-channel", "the full agenda remains unclear", "Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.", "alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump". Both the White House and Prince strongly denied the innuendo: "“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Therefore, I still think this entire section should be deleted. Or at least radically trimmed and balanced with denials.
4. Fine with the shortened Hayden citation. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad we can narrow the range of items under dispute. I don't think that a lack of clarity necessarily demands deletion; given the subject matter, a lot of this is shrouded in mystery. I understand that you would like to see the Prince section go altogether, but what do you have in mind for a "radically trimmed and balanced with denials" alternative? If you have some suggestion, maybe we can agree on a version we can all live with? Neutrality^talk 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We probably could agree on a trimmed version, although I still think this section should be entirely removed as a WP:BLPVIO. Let's first wait for comments on the BLP aspects, at WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince. — JFG ^talk 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I made changes on the entry for Prince.[16] It is perfectly fine to report allegations even if false provided they have received adequate attention. See for example "Freddie Starr ate my hamster." But we must always explain whether they are facts or allegations and if so whether they are disputed. Furthermore, in this case it is important to explain the supposed reason for the alleged meeting - to get Russian assistance on Iran. Otherwise the implication is that it was part of the alleged Russian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD, where did the idea that the meeting's purpose was "to get Russian assistance on Iran" come from? Maybe I'll have to read the source again. I just don't recall it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD - Half of your edit introduced content directly at odds with the source. There is no dispute that the meeting took place (Prince through his spokesman acknowledged that it took place, but said "The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump"), so the addition "allegedly took place" and "allegations" of a meeting is wrong). The statement "The Trump administration denies the meeting took place" is also incorrect (Spicer said "We are not aware of any meeting"—which is very different from an outright denial). Best, Neutrality^talk 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the article says, "Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions."[17] I now see that the article did not question whether the meeting took place. However, it is incorrect to imply that it's purpose was to subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!! But are you saying that WP should not report on the foes of America who may subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known? Battlestations! There's cleanup to be done on the Nixon, Jefferson Davis, & Alger Hiss. I'll take care of Tokyo Rose. You can work on the Rosenberg's. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. TFD (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See also, the collected speeches of Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help..." SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There's not an "even split". There are 8 for retain, and 4 to 5 remove. That's a clear supermajority to retain. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exact even split of 7 to 7 at the BLPN discussion; I have carefully listed all editors who commented there. But of course you reverted the contents claiming no consensus… Well we can say there's no consensus to remove the story and we can say there's no consensus to retain it, so how do you propose we solve this? Per BLP policy we must err on the side of caution, so "no consensus to keep" should trump "no consensus to remove" in this case (pardon my pun). — JFG ^talk 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you've miscounted; it's 8 to 4 or 5. If you'd like me to list each editor, I can. There is zero consensus that mentioning the cited Erik Prince activity is a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This contention there's a problem with RS content is a nonsense attack that has been decisively rejected at BLPN, where it made its unfortunate appearance as an ex-post defense of a 1RR DS violation. And P.S. we don't count votes around here, especially by involved or self-interested parties. Anyway, the aye's are above the no's. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "especially by involved or self-interested parties." What do you mean by that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: and friends: it's interesting how you vehemently called upon BLPVIO to suppress contents you didn't like, and now you vehemently run the exact counter-argument to keep contents you like. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP/N outcome

The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Extended content
References

It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody commented in 6 days, so I have applied the proposal. Qui tacet consentire videtur. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You just reverted this change, saying "There was no consensus to short this at all." Perhaps you had not seen this talk page section and the BLP/N discussion which shows consensus to shorten? Looking forward to your comments. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus anywhere for your edit, which alters the meaning of the text and is less faithful to the cited source. Your "silence procedure" link has nothing to do with WP editing policy. In general, the more relevant issue is WP:BLUDGEON. Folks get worn out repeating the same policy-based arguments and so they retreat from being asked over and over to justify their clearly stated viewpoint. Maybe we need a "safe word". SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I did not see this discussion in which you incorrectly claim that there was a "consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok". You removed the corroboration by two intelligence official but you left in the shallow denial from the white house. I see no justification for shortening the material. - MrX 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Please read final comments by Dumuzid, Thucydides411 and Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive254#Erik Prince, a couple hours after your last contribution to that discussion. You did not object further before the thread was archived, so I took it as silent assent. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dude, all these are involved editors. That's definitely not "consensus at WP:BLP/N". Come on, quit trying to pull one here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were editors with opposing views on the BLP issue, who reached an agreement through civil discussion. I call that consensus. Note: Dumuzid and Masem were *not* involved in this page, as far as I know, they just reacted to the BLP/N thread. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX here. There was no closure in the BLP/N discussion and I don't see a consensus to shorten there. Even if it should be shortened as a matter of style or weight (not BLP), the shortened form that you propose is (as MrX and SPECIFICO write), less faithful to the cited source and emphasizes the wrong things. Like MrX said, I can see no justification for leaving in the White House's cursory denial but taking out the corroboration from intelligence officials. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I'd be happy to consider an alternative proposal taking your concerns into account. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How is a bilateral negotiation consistent with your view that there was a community consensus at BLPN? Wouldn't you need to reopen the whole thread if in fact there had been consensus there? Not clear what process you are proposing. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The process looks clear to me, but I'm happy to recap what happened:

1. Once upon a time, a new section on Erik Prince was created in the article.
2. I deleted it among a bunch of other things which looked off-topic or newsy.
3. Neutrality restored parts of my edit, improved the contents and started a discussion
4. I answered and found consensus with him on all disputed points except the Erik Prince part, which I considered a BLP violation
5. I opened a discussion at BLP/N.
6. Meanwhile, several editors continued tweaking the text here.
7. The BLP/N discussion demonstrated a sharp divide among editors considering this section to be a BLPVIO and others who didn't
8. On 19 April, three editors from opposing views at BLP/N reached a consensus to mention the affair briefly, with "two lines, including the denials". Nobody commented further.
9. Two weeks later (4 May), I posted a text proposal here to implement this outcome, soliciting comments.
10. After 6 days with no comments, I applied the proposed text.
11. MrX reverted, and we are discussing. (That's healthy!)
12. I have invited editors to amend my proposed summary, so that we collectively reach an acceptable version for everyone involved.
13. I don't think we should re-litigate the BLPVIO issue, but if we fail to agree here, I suppose we could request a formal closure of the BLP/N discussion.

Voilà, à vous la parole! — JFG ^talk 01:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The fact is you edit-warred your preferred version into the article, falsely claiming consensus in your edit summary, and a torrent of opposition ensued. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So you consider that applying the WP:BRD process in collegiality with opposing editors as a form of edit warring? Invoking the outcome of a bona fide WP:BLPN discussion is "false consensus"? You repeatedly tried to focus the BLPN discussion on a bogus DS claim against me, and you got sanctioned for that. Please address contents soberly instead. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

14. Ne vous Trumpez pas!- MrX 02:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good one. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly this is well-sourced, and I preserved the source, I just summarized the core assertions made in the source. I did post on this talk page when opening the BLP/N discussion.[18] Many editors participated in that discussion. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So your only notification to editors on this page was one message given as a response to an editor mid-thread and telling that editor to wait. Seems to be the conversation was going against you here and you were engaging in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPCasprings (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I still think that lacks important detail. We should stay close to the main source. Here is my proposed version:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign.

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

I tweaked the wording and arrangement of a couple of sentences. I removed DeVos who is not relevant in any of this.- MrX 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First thoughts:

• Your version asserts as a fact that the FBI is investigating the meeting when actually the FBI declined to comment.
• When I rewrote the material, I assessed weight of many claims against the Washington Post piece and ten additional sources. If I recall correctly, DeVos was mentioned in all of them.

I think I would be ready to scrap "The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reports "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." No objection to editing the material so that it more closely aligns with the source, but there's no value in stating that the FBI didn't comment. I don't object to adding DeVos back in if other sources point that out.- MrX 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version looks good to me. It follows the sources, is appropriately concise but complete, and fair. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit too long on details. Here's a middle-ground variant:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

Good enough? — JFG ^talk 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There appears now to be consensus for MrX's version. The alternative directly above is weaseled and is less clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter version looks less weaseled to me. Prior version is still long on content-free prose such as "at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community". Yeah, that's something we already say a dozen times in this article… — JFG ^talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, MrX, Neutrality, and Politrukki: Any comments on the two latest rounds of proposals by MrX and yours truly? — JFG ^talk 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If everybody else thinks that Betsy DeVos should be omitted, I could accept your latest proposal. Politrukki (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think she should be omitted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to adding DeVos again for context. I had her in my first proposal, MrX omitted her and added Bannon. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version per SPECIFICO.Casprings (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I support that version as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX + DeVos, then. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I still support my slightly longer version, with or without DeVos.- MrX 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is what everyone is supporting, the longer MrX version with DeVos. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Needs to be shorter. The editorial point about "major donor" should go. It still is only a single day story with absolutely no followup. The contradictory accounts by "sources" cast enough of a pall that we shouldn't be tossing the mud that the Washington Post couldn't make stick. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, the gratuitous disparagement of the Washington Post doesn't help advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial point" but the donation was a fact that both sources found noteworthy enough to report.- MrX 20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That amount does not make him a "major donor." $10 million is around the "major donor" category. WaPo's animosity towards Trump has been noted elsewhere. The comment was neither disparaging nor gratuitous but it is an accurate observation that neither party holds the other in high regard. If we are going to use one as a source, we should be honest with their intent. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to replacing "... was a major donor to..." with "... donated $250,000 to...". We have not disqualified The Washington Post (or The New York Times or CNN) as sources for Trump-related information, so I don't see how your comments in that regard apply here.- MrX 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would you cherry pick a donation out of the entire article? Stating a donation doesn't impart any relevance other than he supported Trump. Why not highlight the inconsistency in the article where it attributes Prince statements to UAE as a connection to Trump but when they really want to link it to Trump they say no meeting would have been scheduled without his explicit okay (which would thereby negate reasoning they use to introduce Prince)? It's like they are stretching whatever line they need to make it more nefarious but not realizing that it invalidates other accounts. Also, no one is investigating "Trump-Russia" ties, they are looking to see if there were links to the Trump campaign, not Trump the person or Trump as President. That is a significant difference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.

The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Prince reboot

So here we are, after a month of discussion here and at BLPN, instead of turning this story into a "brief mention" as agreed, the latest proposals still argue to keep most of the contents and innuendo in a rather lengthy paragraph. Meanwhile, this "mysterious" meeting did not get any more press coverage, nothing seems to have come out of the reported discussions, and "back-channel" stories are now focusing on other places and other people. One still wonders why Trump would need to open all those back channels to Putin if they were long-time BFFs colluding to steal the election. But as long as it's printed in a reliable source, it seems the most tenuous stories must be included in the encyclopedia these days… At least we should be relieved that this one didn't spawn its own article. Any volunteers to finally cut the wording on this particular "spy-novel-of-the-day"? — JFG ^talk 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's move on please. Sarcastic misrepresentation is not helpful here. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS

Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald [19], Harper's [20], and Fortune [21]) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: [22]) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Conditional support - I would support a shorter version of this, without direct quotes, provided that someone can find at least one or two solid additional sources. The Miami Herald and VOA are reliable, but I'm concerned about the story being promoted in Breitbart, The Daily Mail, fringe blogs, and RT. Carr seems to dismiss CrowdStrike's findings on rather flimsy reasoning, in my opinion. Regardless, his expert view should be represented once it passes WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Based on the two additional sources presented (Harpers and Forbes), I now believe that a couple of sentences discussing Carr's criticism of CrowdStrike's findings should be included per WP:NPOV. Softlavender, did you really just reject a reputable source because of it's geographic proximity to Trump's other White House?- MrX 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose It is (as I say below) not exactly accurate as to what the sources say. It needs rewording, not just shortening. There is also as issue with Undue, CrowdStrike are not the only IT security firm to claim Russian interference, so it rejects just one piece of evidence, the article is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose use of Voice of America material, since that is simply Trump's mouthpiece. Also Oppose use of Miami Herald as a source, as that regional newspaper is way too close to Trump's Mar-a-Lago. If there is a major reliable unbiased national newspaper that says the same thing, then I would be open to reviewing that. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What a bizarre rationale to exclude mainstream sources! Who said VOA is "Trump's mouthpiece"? If the Miami Herald is too close to Mar-a-Lago for comfort, then would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower?? Where does this end??? This argument makes no sense at all, sorry. Focus on the contents rather than the messenger. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower??" No, because New Yorkers hate Trump. That's why he goes to Mar-a-Lago every weekend. Plus the New York Times is a highly respected national and international newspaper, and is the newspaper of record for the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: the Miami Herald endorsed Clinton for President [23], brag that they don't indulge in "alternative facts" [24], and the VoA has numerous articles critical of the Administration: [25][26][27]. What is your take on this? -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support These are reliable sources and coverage in various sources establishes weight. I agree that coverage in unreliable sources does not establish weight, but that is a red herring since none have been presented. TFD (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Generally Oppose The problems with the text are manyfold. First, there’s too much speculation. Carr admits he doesn’t have all the evidence known to the agencies that have reported Russian influence in the election. He criticizes one of the sources based on a belief that they were incorrect in another case, while ignoring other sources. He argues that a report does not prove a case; but that report cannot include classified info. He was not a part of any of the deliberations behind the report. He is a private consultant with no direct connection. I’m also bothered by the statement growing doubt in the computer security industry. He does not speak for the industry and provides scant evidence for such a general statement. Pronouncements like this reflect poorly on his testimony. I also am troubled by Carr’s statements that he knows what investigations the FBI did and did not perform. I’m also bothered by the attack on CrowdStrike in a different case. CrowdStrike and Carr may be competitors and Carr has made strong statements about CrowdStrike in the past. (Apparently he detests McAfee whose execs funded CrowdStrike [28].) As an aside, Carr’s comments in Harpers are sarcastic in nature and comments elsewhere are dismissive. It just sounds like someone on the outside upset he isn’t on the inside. I’m not casting any aspersions, it just doesn’t sound like a good source. BTW, I think he is no longer associated with Taia Global Inc. Possibly a one or two sentence mention with a better source is acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Jeffrey Carr is barely notable, and this opinion column by the former TV columnist of a lesser-tier newspaper doesn't elevate JC's expertise to anything near significant enough to publish in Wikipedia. And how reliable is the source when the columnist refers to Carr as being CEO of this defunct wannabe cyberstartup that apparently raised a total of $80,000 venture capital funding before its demise? Talk is cheap, but WP is not. Lesser opinion columnists will smile-and-dial until they get some fodder for an op-ed, but consider the source. And the biases that (however unfortunately) select against the best expert comment appearing in the least expert publications. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:NPOV, but agree with MrX that a couple of sentences is sufficient. Other sources that quote Carr include: Associated Press, PBS Newshour, McClatchy and Arstechnica, not in depth coverage from these particular sources mentioned, but still enough to indicate that Carr's opinion was given some weight, and with the additional sources listed above I believe that a couple of sentences is warranted per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Prior to this (in 2014 and 2015), Carr's opinion has also been featured in Newsweek and CNN. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Carr was not the only one pointing out that the incriminated hacking tools were freely available to anybody, and not exclusive to people connected to Russian intelligence services; a bunch of cybersecurity experts have cast legitimate doubt on the inferences attributing the DNC hacks to Russian sources, e.g. John McAfee and Kevin Poulsen come to mind. However I think we can do with shorter prose, and we don't need to repeat Carr's statements about CrowdStrike's reputation. Here's proposed text with other sources: — JFG ^talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cybersecurity analyst Jeffrey Carr stated that CrowdStrike's inferences pointing at the Russian intelligence services were baseless because the incriminated X-Agent tool was freely available for anyone to download. Wordfence and Errata Security noted that the PHP malware referenced in the JAR was an out-of-date version "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world."

Extended content
References

Um, gee. This RfC is about Carr. Let's try to stay focused here. RfC should be closed, since nobody really seems to think Carr is a notable cyberexpert security guy. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose undue weight, marginal notability of Carr, and doubtful relevance of Ukrainian howitzers to DNC hacking. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Carr has been cited by a number of newspapers, as well as the wire agency AP ([29]). In connection with another cybersecurity story, he's recently been cited by the New York Times as well ([30]), so he's clearly regarded as an expert commentator by at least several newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TFD. Anyone who doubts he's notable should check out his bio and mentions here, here (there are more) and of course the Miami Herald. He is on of the more notable and knowledgeable voices on the issue. Keep in mind however that the malware fingerprint was not the only evidence found. So Carr can cast doubt on some of Crowdstrike's findings, but the he never said that the evidence was nonexistent, only that it is less conclusive than some think. Editors who are afraid that readers might misinterpret the proposed text as saying that no evidence exists, should actually take a moment to learn something topic and summarize the existing evidence for the readers — instead of trying to keep notable minority view points out. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here is text under discussion. It tells, among other things, that CrowdStrike itself was found by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2017 to have used data erroneously to falsely accuse Russia of being responsible for hacking a Ukrainian military artillery app. (ref). First of all, that is irrelevant to the subject of this page. Second, after reading the source, it appears that a report by CrowdStrike (on a different subject!) was disputed and needed some corrections, but was not actually wrong. This suggestion looks like a poisoning the well. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: My proposed shorter text addresses your objections, nothing to do with Ukraine indeed, and no undue criticism of CrowdStrike; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed per several editors above. Yes, per MVBW, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at a POV poisoning the well. Yes, per Geogene, the person is not really notable. On the other hand if this can be properly worded - perhaps the way that Guccisamsclub suggest with the "less conclusive" conclusion actually in the text then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Minor include - google is showing me reports about these on VOA, PBS, Politifact, Harpers, Wired, Ars Technica, Slate, Mother Jones, Daily Mail, News Day, .... so has some mainstream presence. But the quantity of mentions is much smaller and the ones I looked at had him as a brief bit, more of a side remark about a dissenting voice in a larger article. So I'd say shoot for a minor include is OK, but kind of optional and not to be done if there is something else giving doubts with larger prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Do you have links that cite Mr. Carr recently discussing the Russian intervention on all those publications or sites? That would be surprising. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Yes, as I recall basically Google turned them up from '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking', and then I paged thru and noted the URLs of places that seemed notable, and read the google snippet and clicked thru to read detail sometimes. (If you want a specific one then make it '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking VOA' or whatever.) Again, those seemed mostly to give him just a brief mention -- but that he is noted by them seemed some WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support including Carr's claims given his reputation and coverage of the claim (Miami Herald, Fortune and particularly Harper's.) Wait for additional sourcing on International Institute for Strategic Studies report – VOA is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't even mentioned in our article on Carr. If this fringey opinion is mentioned at all in WP it should be there, not here. See WP:ONEWAY. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• No -- excessive intricate detail; there's already too much of it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: What the article really needs is balance. While the article should be substantially shortened (it's become a coatrack for everything Russia-related in US politics), we shouldn't be excluding only material which is critical of the allegations made by US intelligence agencies. The significant criticism of US intelligence reports should be noted in the article. The article is chock-full of lengthy quotes from US intelligence, and has a separate section for nearly every single allegation that some person is connected to Russia. Until that bloat is addressed, I don't think we should be paring down the underrepresented dissenting viewpoints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would support JFG's text proposal as well-sourced and one of a number of other critical commentaries that should likely appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to fringe opinions, this would make it worse. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - not really notable and gives undue weight against the bulk of the relaible sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT if it's weighted appropriately with other sources. I'm not persuaded that the Miami Herald isn't sufficiently a reliable source for this information, and somewhat surprised that came up as an issue. Voice of America is definitely a WP:RS. If we use Crowdstrike as a source to document facts in this article, their credibility is an issue. It's really important for our readers to get a balanced presentation of facts on contentious issues. It deserves brief mention with reliable sources cited so readers can read the stuff that doesn't fit in a summary weighted with the other information. loupgarous (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose I don't have strong opinions about whether or not Carr's opinion is included, but I'm opposed to attacking CrowdStrike because of an updated report to "corroborate" someone's opinion per WP:SYNTH. It's akin to attacking a source because it issued a correction on an unrelated story, which is actually a signal of fact-checking per WP:RS. ^Falling_Gravity 22:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: My proposed shorter text above addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we have one bunch of "industry outsiders" opinions I see no reason why we should not have another.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC):However your text, I think, does not reflect very well what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This RfC deals with whether to include these sources, not my exact text. We can discuss text after the RfC. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks more like speculation than information. And, I see no reason to include such from any bunch of industry outsiders. Objective3000 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Carr was not really "speculating" about anything at all but describing problems with CrowdStrike's report and how it does not amount to proof. And we already include citations from several "industry outsiders" expressing degrees of agreement with the CrowdStrike report. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, indeed it is opinion not fact. But so is the entire story. And weight requires us to report opinions. TFD (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And this article is not about Crowdsrike.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Adlerschloß, you need to indicate in your OP what "information from Carr" you are talking about, who "Carr" is, what "CrowdStrike report" you are talking about, and what "information from IISS" you are talking about. Otherwise, this RfC is completely incomprehenible and invalid. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding additional reliable sources requested by MrX, Carr's viewpoints were also discussed in Harper's [31] and Fortune [32]. These discuss more than just the CrowdStrike report but would be appropriate to include in the same section (Cybersecurity analysis). Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Softlavender's remarks alleging the Miami Herald to be unreliable for reasons of geography, I will point out that Mar-a-Lago is 90 miles away from Miami, and that the Miami Herald endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election: [33] Adlerschloß (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Trump won the election and is in power, and that regional newspaper is his regional newspaper. Carr lives in Seattle. The fact that only the Miami Herald would interview him is telling, as is the fact that he is the founder of a failed cybersecurity startup, and the fact that he only posts on Medium (a blogsite) and LinkedIn. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: With all due respect, do you realize that your inferences about Jeffrey Carr and the Miami Herald sound like a conspiracy theory? — JFG ^talk 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MMfA has mentioned the coverage.[34] I note that no other papers have picked up the story from the Miami Herald, so we need to be sure that we be clear the story has had limited mainstream coverage, but was widely reported in right-wing sources, the Daily Mail and RT. TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's disruptive to jump from one bad edit to a month-long RfC struggling to shoehorn Carr back into the article. It's already well-established consensus on this talk page that JC is not RS this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We are not using Carr as a source, we are using the Miami Herald. Note that reliability relates to facts, while the issue is whether to include his opinion, which is an issue of weight alone. Whether or not his opinion should be mentioned is decision of reliable secondary sources, such as the Miami Herald. TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Right. As I stated above his opinion is insignificant as is the Miami columnist's. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The Miami Herald opinion columnist's references to Carr's bio read like out-of-date material from Carr's LinkedIn page. "International cybersecurity expert" etc. Entrepreneur etc. Grey Goose etc. All defunct. From the best available information, JC appears to be a retiree who may be available to answer the phone for a journalist but is hardly in the loop these days. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Miami Herald article referenced is not a column, but a news article appearing in their national section. And as other references in above discussion and survey indicate, Carr's analysis on this subject is considered noteworthy by many reliable sources. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Of others have well have said thus, why not make it more general, and not have one man named as an authoritative source?Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding remarks by Myverybestwishes accusing me of bad faith edits -- it is potentially valid to argue that the erroneous CrowdStrike report on Ukraine is irrelevant to this specific article (although I disagree, as VOA in two separate articles linked these errors to CrowdStrike's narrative on election interference), but you are not accurate in flatly stating that CrowdStrike's report "wasn't wrong" in some objective sense. CrowdStrike retracted their allegations of combat losses caused by a military artillery app hack (their false reading of IISS data was the premise behind their overall narrative) while not retracting their larger claim that a hack occurred (although per their corrections it would seem they argue a hack occurred that was meaningless or had no tangible effect); but the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense argues that neither the combat losses nor the hack occurred at all, see: [35] Adlerschloß (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do believe you misinterpreted these sources, possibly because you did not read them carefully. Here is your link, and here is "retraction" by CrowdStrike your source refers to. This "retraction" tells, According to an update ... the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations and This previously unseen variant of X-Agent represents FANCY BEAR’s expansion in mobile malware ... reveals one more component of the broad spectrum approach to cyber operations taken by Russia-based actors in the war in Ukraine. It further tells (as relates to the subject of this page): The collection of such tactical artillery force positioning intelligence by FANCY BEAR further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces operating in Eastern Ukraine and its border regions in Russia. This is not retraction, as also clear from reading your link/source completely, instead of indiscriminately citing only the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My Very Best Wishes mentions that the IISS criticizes CrowdStrike for another analysis supposedly unrelated to the current one and therefore we cannot mention it. But it is a reasonable assumption that if a CrowdStrike has been wrong in the past they are less likely to be right now. Not something we can say, but a conclusion in a reliable source that we can report. Unless one subscribes to the gambler's fallacy. TFD (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also a tiny minority viewpoint, far out of line with coverage in the bulk of sources. I don't see how the alleged hacking in Ukraine relates to the DNC hacks, and I also don't see how CrowdStrike's choice of sources for Ukrainian battlefield casualty rates are related to its competency (or lack of it) in regards to cybersecurity. As far as I know, they aren't in the kind of business that Stratfor or Jane's Defence Weekly are in. So all of this seems like a tremendous stretch on both counts. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:You don't believe in mean reversion? Tell that to the hedge fund statisticians. One man's fish is another man's fallacy. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you were joking about mean reversion. Our article on that topic clearly defines it as "the assumption that a stock's price will tend to move to the average price over time". Mean reversion depends on sound inferences drawn from huge amounts of financial data. Crowdstrike's record of accuracy vs. inaccuracy is a very small data set compared to that. In evaluating the record of an intelligence analysis firm (or any other source or processor of intelligence) you have to rely on their record. I don't think that Crowdstrike's inaccuracies in one field are irrelevant to their overall reliability as a source of information, either. loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly joking, just trying to point out how preposterous was the reference to "gambler's fallacy" in a content/sourcing discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin redux

In the Ars Technica source [36] being debated above, Goodin makes two interesting observations. One is that the government's report on the North Korea Sony hacks was criticized on the same grounds, and two, that it was "likely" that the reason the report was light on evidence was because the intelligence community doesn't want to teach the Russians how to evade detection. Last two paragraphs. So it's not an accurate representation of the source to throw in a quote from Goodin that says "no evidence!" [37] and leave it at that. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to include Goodin's analysis (and so far, there is no consensus to do so), we should summarize his key points rather than quote the entire lede.- MrX 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is to include, of course. But Undue isn't the only issue with the current version. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly.- MrX 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so why is this being added back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously because of our policy that says that content cant't be removed unless there is consensus to remove it.- MrX 12:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've copy edited the material to properly summarize the source. That should not be interpreted as an endorsement for keeping any of the Goodin material per my previous comments.- MrX 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a better summary of the source. It took one very minor element of Goodin's article, and then prefaced it with a suggestive wording that's not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article ("while acknowledging that ..." suggests that what follows is true, even though we don't know if it is). I've restored the previous summary of Goodin's article. The above discussion suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article. Before changing this passage (and I don't see why it should be changed), propose the changes you'd like to make, and see if there's consensus for them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the "above discussion" DOES NOT "suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article." There are strong objections. It's still UNDUE and should be minimized or removed altogether. SPECIFICO is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It does show the majority favor inclusion. Discussion has slowed with no new arguments or editors since the 10th (I believe.) We can revisit this if new information comes to light or, if an editor feels strongly they can start an RfC. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. For the record, I'm also opposed to including it per the arguments above. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There are "strong objections" to nearly every aspect of this article, but that doesn't mean that us editors with strong objections get to blockade everything. The strong objections to including Goodin's article on the JAR have been noted, but a majority of editors thought it merited inclusion.

@Fyddlestix: The above discussion showed a majority for inclusion, and the arguments against inclusion were simply weak. I asked BullRangifer several times to support their claim that Goodin's analysis of the JAR has been contradicted by later reporting, but BullRangifer was never able to provide any sources to back up that claim. A number of other arguments were tried, like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, but the JAR is an important part of this story, so expert reaction to it is eminently WP:DUE, and the reactions that Goodin goes over are anything but WP:FRINGE. They were the mainstream reaction among experts to the JAR. The arguments fell flat, and a majority of editors favored inclusion. That should be good enough for inclusion.

Just generally, I don't understand why there's such opposition to including a short journalistic summary of expert reactions to the JAR. This is a very small addition of a larger article, and the addition reflects a completely mainstream analysis, so I don't understand how one can object so strongly to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There having been no demonstrated consensus to include the Goodin bit, I have removed it from the article and I have requested a close to this discussion at AN so that we can move forward with other matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a majority in favor of inclusion. Unless you have some substantive objections that outweigh the majority opinion of editors, the material belongs in the article, and its removal is inappropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

i think this article isn't very neutral

its about the language. for example instead of

"The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

it should be

"The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

--81.136.77.195 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but as you can see, this has been a point of contention for months on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, a "claim" is a statement made without evidence (e.g., Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him), the US intelligence agencies have substantial evidence, so they drew conclusions based on the evidence. To say that Russian interference is a claim would be unsourced, non-neutral, and of course, false. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A claim can be made with evidence. It's simply a statement that is unproven. How much evidence US intelligence agencies actually have is unknown at this point. The publicly released evidence (e.g., in the JAR) is very sparse, and there's speculation that there may be weightier evidence that's classified. Almost all the available evidence comes from private security firms, at this point.

We don't really know what the intelligence agencies have concluded - we'd have to have telepathic powers or some inside information to know that. We know what they publicly state, and past experience shows that there's often a wide gulf between what intelligence agencies state publicly and internally assess (that's in the very nature of their being secretive organizations). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not our problem. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as it affects how we write the article, it is our problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Intelligence agencies concluded" is a statement of fact. One can dislike the fact, one can disagree with the conclusion, but that it is a fact is not something that can be negotiated. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that state that the United States government's intelligence agencies did NOT conclude the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections? If not, I don't understand your point. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Claims can be made without evidence but conclusions presume evidence. In this case, intelligence weighed evidence, so conclusion is a better description. Since conclusions are not necessarily correct or even reasonable, I don't think the term is inaccurate. If evidence shows they are wrong, we would change it to "wrongly concluded." TFD (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues with the lead that doesn't seem neutral. The word interfere seems to mean too many things also and needs more information. The intelligence reports more likely showed they were trying to influence the election. So using influenced is more likely what he intelligence documents were saying. The media outlets and others are sensationalizing the story and making it into a bigger story than the intelligence reports actually found. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's actually exactly why "interfered" is better than "influenced". The latter implies that it had an actual effect. The former only that there was an attempt - whether successful or not - at influence. So I think you got it backwards. Also "media outlets", at least those which meet our criteria, is exactly what we use as reliable sources. So you're not going to get far by asking Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources because you happen personally to believe they are "sensationalizing" something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess I should say trying to influence. That implies that they tried to but doesn't mean they actually did. Interfere sounds more substantial to me than influence the election. I guess we are now talking semantics on this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

semantics is essential. Without meaning we can say nothing. Influenced is a causal term that implies an effect. Interfered means actions were taken to influence the election outcome, but it does not imply that these actions actually influenced the outcome. I think what you may be getting at is that "interfered" carries with it intent whereas "influenced" does not imply intent. However, sources clearly establish intent on the part of the Russian government. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess I should become a lawyer because it looks like an be an argument of meaning and definitions of words here. The word influenced might carry with it intent because they intended to do effect the election which is the same as interfere which also carries intent of changing something in the election. Influence simply means they were trying to influence the voter and participants of the election. They weren't actually trying to interfere with the actual election itself though. Interference seems to be more of a forceful action of doing something. In any case there can be intent with either one. You can intend to influence an election and also intend to interfere in an election. Its not about intent but more about the actions which were specifically took and the evidence that supports it with the sources. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be worth asking yourself; can you imagine a situation in which one party was "trying to influence" something without "interfering" in it? From where I sit, the only way to attempt to influence something without interfering would be prayer. And if you believe in God, then whether or not you've interfered by praying becomes an arguable point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not a lawyer. You should become a Philosopher or a priest. But we're not lawyers or philosophers here. Just lowly editors -- most of us with no particular opinion as to the underlying facts and events. Just scouring reliable sources for the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well there is differences in the words obviously and how they are being used. It seems that interference has more of an action with it and different intention with it. The definition of interfere is more about trying to stop a process or something from occurring with it. It has more of an effect on the thing happening and what is occurring. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't the with the intelligence community conclusions, the problem is the completely synthesized relationship to the Trump campaign and the investigations around Russian influence. There simply is no current link and to synthesize one is beyond what a neutral encyclopedia should be. --DHeyward (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Somehow, I doubt that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the problem seems to be that some news media sources dont even use those intelligence conclusions. They make up their own conclusions. Then this being wikipedia they are allowed to have them as sources and be used on here with little thought. Simply because they have been granted almighty status because they are media companies. Fox news can also say what they want and many on the other side would scream bloody murder if they were used. So I guess it can go both ways with this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence (not just media reports) that U.S. intelligence agencies either concluded or claimed that Russia interfered in U.S. elections? If not, why do so many editors insist on attributing that assertion (instead of the one actually made in the cited intelligence report) to U.S. intelligence agencies instead of media reports? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence of this includes the released IC assessment. Media reports from reliable outlets are adequate, too. GAB^gab 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to the same IC assessment cited by those media reports, it does not in fact say that, as I assume you know. If you're referring to a different IC assessment, please provide a link. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why reliable sources all saying "they concluded X" isn't enough evidence that they concluded X. If there is that broad of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, then any attempt to get around it on a public part of the internet is doomed to failure, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Because we have access to the very same primary sources cited by and used by those supposedly reliable sources. They're not suppressing the truth, they're just relying on the fact that they can cite a primary source, even provide a link to it, and still get by with claiming it says something it doesn't because their intended audience won't bother to check because they like getting spoonfed. Wikipedia can bother to check. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources should at least be examined more. Do you trust Fox news as a reliable source? Some people do and others don't. So the definition of a reliable sources doesn't mean much unless you are able to look at them more. Also the intelligence reports say influence from what I have seen in them. They don't mention anything more or the impact of what occurred. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For simple statements of fact, I do trust Fox News. Do you know why? Because Fox News has a habit of getting simple statements of fact right. It's when you get into their opinions and their overall portrayal of politicized news events that they become questionable sources. But NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (etc, etc...)? They have a habit of getting the overall portrayal of politicized news events right, and giving well-informed opinions. I understand skepticism; I'm a skeptic. But the current fad among the extremes of the political spectrum to distrust the "mainstream media" isn't skepticism, it's a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Its because nobody trusts the supposedly reliable sources. This is not an appropriate argument or believable. If you have a problem with what is considered a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Such discussions cannot be played out on every talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The criteria for reliable sources are right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of the previous points on corrections to the opening sentence:

1. "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded.." - not all of them. In fact, not even MOST of them. This should be changed to "Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded...". To use the current sentence is to state that all sixteen coordinated, which isn't true.

2. "...the Russian government interfered..." - this is not fact, it's speculation. The declassified information from the three intelligence agencies concludes that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." (from page 7 of the official document). Whether their efforts were actually effective in altering the election is speculation. There are many who believe that the Russian campaign had no impact on the election results and therefore did not interfere. The official document only uses the word "interfere" twice, neither of which are used to describe Russia's actions. "Interfere" is the wrong word.

Both of the above changes are factual. Consequently, the entire sentence should be changed to...

"Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government, led by Vladimir Putin, ordered a campaign with the intent of influencing the 2016 United States Presidential Election." droxford —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The current opening sentence is supported by reliable sources. Your suggestion is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My suggestions are supported by the official document that was released by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Try reading it. It's only 25 pages long. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The article should state fact. It should not be used as propaganda. droxford —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've proven that I'm right. You're ignorant to reality and facts. Droxford (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The reality is that if you call other editors ignorant, they will ignore you, at best. "I’m right and you’re ignorant" is not a very good argument. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My retort was appropriate for his in-depth and thorough "you are wrong" response. If he wants to respond childishly, perhaps I should have responded with "you're wrong infinity". However I believe it's better for all to keep this discussion at a higher level.

Regarding the article, I stand by my statements. The change should be made to ensure that the article presents factual information, not personal agenda. Droxford (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First, personal attacks are very likely to get you blocked from editing, and absolutely no-one here has the slightest bit of respect for an editor who has to rely on them to make their case. The are only "appropriate" to an editor who's trying to get blocked.

Second, your argument above is pure original research, and completely unusable. The reliable sources all agree that all 17 agencies lent their weight. You aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're telling every reputable journalist who has covered this report that they're wrong, not to mention the hordes of intelligence agents who haven't been blowing the same trumpet you're tooting here.

When all 17 intelligence agencies agree on a conclusion, but only three send representatives, that does not, in any way indicate that only those three agree on the conclusion. How the ever loving hell you need this explained to you is completely beyond me. But apparently you're in luck, because politifact took a turn at the claim in the lead when Clinton said it. Spoiler alert: You're wrong.

Deal with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Seems to me that Droxford has a point: when pressed on this question of "17 agencies" in various interviews and Senate testimonies, Brennan, Clapper and Comey all said that only 3 agencies contributed to the reports on Russian interference: FBI, CIA and NSA (which makes sense, as they all have relevant competence). Separately, the ODNI does supervise all intelligence agencies, and those facts were conflated as a campaign talking point to say "all 17 agencies agree that Russia did it" whereas the facts of the matter are that the ODNI made that assessment and you can't find anywhere in their report that 17 agencies somehow contributed, expressed an opinion or even were consulted. The Politifact evaluation you cite doesn't say anything different (emphasis mine): We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. — JFG ^talk 03:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Campaign? SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, campaign: the Russia-WikiLeaks claims first surfaced on July 25, 2016, at the opening of the Democratic convention, just a couple days after WikiLeaks had published the DNC emails. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats Then Clinton emphasized the "17 intelligence agencies" claim during the third presidential debate. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/ and media coverage picked up from there. Compare a news search for "17 intelligence agencies" and "Russia" from January to September 2016[49] with the same search for just October 2016.[50] — JFG ^talk 06:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A candidate stating a fact doesn't make it a campaign talking point. Let's not tell the intelligence agencies how to do their work. Let's just report what they say, as scrutinized and verified by RS. This point has been hashed and rehashed here so many times it would help not to bring it up any further here. WP editors' theories about how the US intelligence services "should" conduct themselves is of no interest to our users. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh? "Let's just report what they say"? That's exactly my point! The head of the intel agencies said under oath that the report was compiled by FBI, CIA and NSA, nobody else. There is no "WP editors' theories" behind this at all... — JFG ^talk 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG I refer you to my comment here. Even ignoring that completely insurmountable objection to this edit, it's still not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The simple fact is; when the spokesman for an agency speaks for that agency, they are speaking for that agency. That you've "uncovered" the fact that only three of the agencies worked on the report only shows that three of the agencies worked on the report. It doesn't indicate, in any way -as such an edit would- that the other agencies disagreed with them or even held no opinion on the matter. Indeed, we have a statement prepared on behalf of the entire US intelligence community which states quite clearly the lack of any disagreement, whatsoever. Neither of you have, nor can prove that no-one in any other agency did not review the report and endorse it, for example. I know you both see this as "there's no evidence that any of the other agencies had anything to do with this," but that's simply not an accurate view of this report. The authors were explicitly speaking for the entire community, as evinced not only in the report but in the reliable third-party coverage of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not me saying it, it's the DNI director in charge. Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, his opening statement:

As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term. The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/ — JFG ^talk 05:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Product of" != "statement by" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Right: the reports were a product of the FBI, CIA and NSA research, and the conclusive assessment was a statement by the DNI. I fail to see why people are so hung up on this "17 agencies" myth. — JFG ^talk 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's stated by multiple reliable sources, and never contested. Reminder: Nothing in that quote you provided contradicts any of the possibilities I mentioned above. This is analogous to a situation in which a company (let's say Google) takes a contract to provide some service to another company (let's say Amazon). Six months later, the CEO of Google could say "only these three out of our 17 departments have directly provided services to Amazon," but that in no way implies that other departments within Google aren't going to provide services, aren't required to provide services, or that the heads of those departments would argue that the contract doesn't include their departments. You've provided evidence that 14 agencies weren't involved in working on the report, but you're using that to claim that 14 agencies have nothing to do with the report. That's OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Methinks you're grasping at straws... There are plenty of reliable sources who say the world is real and atoms are a thing, but nothing in the scientific body of knowledge contradicts the hypothesis that we all live in a simulation. By Occam's Razor, we do live in reality and the 14 intelligence agencies that are never mentioned played absolutely no role in building or endorsing the reports. Note that this fact doesn't remove an ounce of credibility to the IC assessment; if anything, it would reinforce it, because the FBI, CIA and NSA are certainly more qualified than the Marine Corps Intelligence to opine on Russia's nefarious cyber-schemes. — JFG ^talk 16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Forget Occam's Razor. This is Jack the Ripper. RS reflect how the intelligence community works and collaborates and if there were a dissenting view among them, this would be reported and could perhaps be relevant to the article. Or perhaps not, because it didn't happen so we have no way of knowing about something that didn't happen and wasn't reported by RS. SPECIFICO talk

Agree with SPECIFICO. This is a waste of time and parsing hairs. The 17 agencies are 17 agencies and this is what reliable sources say. To debate otherwise without suggesting any sources to back up claims to the contrary is a waste of time without reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You can think whatever you want, it won't make you right. Your analogy is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not sure if you noticed that or not, but the unsupported hypothesis that there's no evidence against is yours, not mine. The report explicitly speaks for the entire intelligence community, something which I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. I'll be the first to admit that it's not overwhelming or even particularly compelling evidence that, for example, INSCOM agrees with the report, but it is evidence. On the other hand, you keep offering evidence that might mean I'm wrong about an implication I've made, if you interpret my remarks in a certain way and interpret that evidence in another, certain way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is yet another dispute I don't understand. It's perfectly clear to everyone here that three agencies (not seventeen) were involved in producing the report. That's what Clapper said rather explicitly in his testimony (and I see no reason why he would have lied about such a trivial detail), and it's also pretty obvious that the Coast Guard Intelligence wasn't involved. We're just repeating a campaign line that we know is factually wrong. Why? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP does not publish the beliefs of its editors or what they can and can't understand. Let's stick to the mainstream of RS reporting. This is the US National Intelligence Assessment and it presents the conclusion of 17 agencies based on whatever however manyofthem shared with the other howevermanyofthem. That's what RS say. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO. To do anything different would be to violate WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no "belief of editors" involved. Quoting the ODNI's own report and Clapper's sworn statements is not "original research". Again, look at the ODNI report of January 2017, section "Scope":

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. […] When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

That same report doesn't say anything about "17 intelligence agencies", it doesn't even contain the number 17 or the word "seventeen". When it talks about intelligence agencies, it says: "All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." Again, not a word on other agencies.

Add Clapper's sworn testimony of May 7: As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office.

Since January, there has been no further report or statement contradicting this fact. It's high time Wikipedia reflects reality (which again, is perhaps even more convincing than the "17 agencies" myth, but that's a matter for individual judgment). — JFG ^talk 09:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants - you are flat-out wrong. The report does not "explicitly speak for the intelligence community." It NEVER states that, or anything similar to that. If I'm wrong about this, please cite the section in the report that you're referring to.

The report DOES explicitly state (in the Scope section on page i) that "this report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among the CIA, FBI, and NSA, which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies." This sentence is a clear and explicit OMISSION of all other intelligence agencies.

This article should not continue to obfuscate this clear fact. Do not bend the truth. Droxford (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary reliable sources over primary sources when available, partly to avoid original research issues. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh noes. He told me not to meddle with The Truth™! What shall I do?! But seriously, if your boss makes a statement for the whole company, it doesn't matter whether only the PR department worked on it. It's a statement for the whole company. This is true even when you work for the government. When the chief of intelligence makes a statement on behalf of the intelligence community, they are speaking for the intelligence community, not for the specific agencies (or to take it further, the specific agents) who wrote it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article, redux

Today's changes to the lead section by Enthusiast01[51] and MelanieN[52] have redefined the scope of this article as covering the investigations about Russian election interference and suspected Trump campaign misdeeds. In prior discussions, the scope had been defined as covering Russian meddling activities broadly construed, and not just the investigations about them. More recently, as the article grew to include various allegations about the Trump entourage, I suggested a split between the Russian election interference here and the Trump–Russia collusion investigations elsewhere (see draft), but this proposal was rebuked. Now, if the scope is redefined as all-inclusive of various investigations into Trumpian affairs beyond Russian election interference, then the title is grossly inappropriate. What can we do? I see three logical options:

• Option A: Accept new lead, focus article on Trump–Russia links and change the title to something like "Investigations of Russian election interference and collusion between Trump and Russia]]
• Option B: Keep current title and split article between Russian interference on the one hand, and Trump team collusion stories on the other hand, as proposed in Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (exact title to be discussed)
• Option C: Revert recent lead changes to prior status quo, defining article scope as Russian interference and its aftermath (several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed)

Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. This article should be about the wider topic, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, broadly construed. Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• I didn't think of the changes as "redefining" the subject, simply as "defining" it, per WP style for a lede sentence - rather than plunging right into the story without any introduction as the article did previously. In other words I saw it as a style change to conform to WP:LEDE, not a changing of the scope. So the problem you see is that the article isn't just about the investigations as such, it's about the broader story, of which the investigations are one part? That's a valid point - so how would you word a lede sentence/paragraph to get that idea across? --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. There are many RS accounts of these events that relate to investigations as to whether the Pres. Trump, his campaign people associated with it promoted and enabled the Russian interference. So I think that mainstream reporting on these factors is inseparable from current RS accounts of the interference. It would violate NPOV for us as editors to separate them, although many other articles may elaborate on various aspects of the suspected collusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. I reverted the bold edit because it doesn't make sense. The construct "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also called the Russia investigation, refers to investigations by agencies..." is poorly-worded and semantically incorrect. Interference is not a synonym for investigation. The edit also reduced the scope of the interference from U.S. election to Presidential elections, which has previously been discussed (with sources) on this page. Now I'm off to fix the grammatical error left by another user earlier today.- MrX 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, sources say the Russians interfered in multiple down ballot Congressional races, as well. Sagecandor (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? Which ones? Oh, you mean the report that a Florida candidate solicited and received information from Guccifer 2? I don't think we have anything about that in this article, do we? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ETA: Changing my !vote pending clarification of from MelanieN about "several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed". What do you consider to be off-topic or loosely related?- MrX 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were not my words, those were JFG's. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry MelanieN. I should read more carefully.- MrX 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I was referring to several "breaking news" stories about whatever is deemed controversial about something Trump tweeted or some meeting a dude he knows attended. Sure, some of those stories are noteworthy and should be mentioned but many are just fluff which can only be connected to the article topic (election interference by Russia) through mental gymnastics of the most speculative kind. Wikipedia is not meant to be a live detective story… — JFG ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• putting aside the options, the Russia investigation (no matter how it originally began) now definitely now covers questioning of Trump players vis-a-vis Russia. That is what the current discussion has extended to. This fact needs to be mentioned, even in brief, in the lede. I do agree though that the article is getting too long, and that the issue of hacking etc has been basically settled and that a separate article for "collusion" or coordination with the Trump team is worthwhile. This is what the current discussion is all about. It seems that that is where the current investigation is going, with hacking etc being a basically settled issue. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. You can't separate the question of Russian interference in the election (hacking and other stuff) from the question of whether that interference included actual cooperation/collusion from the Trump campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I also do not advocate splitting the materials, especially as the issues are closely related. I'm saying that that connection should be mentioned in the lede and not be treated as a side issue. The deleted summary lede paragraph should be restored. I would also suggest changing the name of the article to "the Russia investigation" as the investigation is now past merely the election period, and includes attempts to shut down the investigations, besides other controversial actions such as dismissal of an FBI Director, officials recusing themselves, appointment of social counsel, etc. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the lead paragraph was a bit nonsensical. "Interference" is not synonymous with "investigation". The interference was much more complex than simply "attempts to influence president candidate Donald Trump" et al.- MrX 01:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think we need to take more care about changes and additions to this article. Recent revelations are both unbelievable and believable at the same time. And, they are coming out in rapid fire. WP:Recentism applies more than any other article I’ve noticed. When events are curiouser and curiouser, WP should err on the side of caution. Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree with that. There's a lot of POV stuff and UNDUE stuff that is put into newsy articles but is not really worth the trouble to dispute. Soon enough, the central mainstream narrative becomes obvious. For example, we wasted weeks on marginal comments, nitpicks, and cherrypicked sources when the JAR was released. A lot of this is really wasted time because eventually the mainstream view was accepted by the consensus here. NOTNEWS really does free us to work on more important editing tasks. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence

The section above is about the scope of the article, which I don't think was at all what was intended with the recent (now reverted) addition of a lede paragraph to the article. Letting that discussion about the scope of the article go on (as far as I am concerned the scope of the article is fine as it is), I would like to work together to come up with a proper lede sentence, Wikipedia-style, explaining what the article is about - rather than simply jumping in with the story without any introduction. Anyone have any idea how to do that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of brainstorming, here is a proposal to get the discussion moving.

• Version 1. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was discovered by U.S. Intelligence agencies, resulting in further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

- MrX 00:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good start. The first sentence should mention [53] [54] the unanimous high confidence conclusion of the entire United States Intelligence Community that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need that detail in the first sentence, but do you have a proposal for how that might be worded?- MrX 00:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It was actually "discovered" by the DNC or its consultants at Crowdstrike. TFD (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair observation.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's even worse that what is there now. We should very definitely NOT privilege the opinions of the intelligence agencies (as we do now and as people seem to be suggesting above) and should certainly not say they "discovered" interference as if it is a given fact. As has been pointed out, the lead sentence needs to explain broadly what the topic is, not simply highlight one aspect of it or one published claim by one set of actors about it. The point is there are allegations of interference, with dispute as to whether it happened and to what extent, and whether the Trump campaign was complicit, and ongoing investigations into all those things. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest something like, very broadly:

• "Allegations that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election are currently being investigated by [the FBI, congressional committees etc]. Russia has been accused of undertaking cyberattacks, disseminating fake news, making inappropriate contact with members of Trump's campaign team [and ....] in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favour."

That sets out what this is actually about and what Russia is alleged to have done, and actually defines the topic – as any normal WP intro should – rather than just launching straight into telling us what the US intelligence agencies happen to have said about whether this as-yet undefined thing happened. That can come in the second paragraph, which can also do more chronology as to how the story unfolded (which is slightly jumbled and repetitive as it stands). N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We're way past the alleged stage. You may want to review other discussion on this page where 'alleged' was firmly rejected and the accompanying source analysis. Also, Russia didn't attempt to interfere. They actually interfered.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to review them, I participated in some of those discussions. As I pointed out then, something can be "concluded" by one party but remain an "allegation". As others pointed out, probably most of the media, especially those removed from the partisan frenzy surrounding this topic in the US, continue to report these as "allegations". Yes some people denied that, but I can't do anything about wilful blindness. You can be as sure as you like personally about exactly what happened, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, exact phrasing is obviously open to debate, but what about the more fundamental point in my suggestion that a WP page should actually define what it is talking about first? N-HH talk/edits 13:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please watch terms like willful blindness. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for any other explanation, but happy to accept one. N-HH talk/edits 13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I already responded in the relevant discussion. Not doing it again here. Objective3000 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, you didn't actually make a substantive comment in this discussion, where the sources were discussed in depth. Also my point is that the justifications people purported to give for rejecting the research there didn't stand up, so there must be something else behind it. N-HH talk/edits 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. X's version is good. 1. Sentence starts with the subject of the the article. 2. It completely captures the scope of the article. 3. The word discovered is neutral. Casprings (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I give up. 1) US intelligence assessments about this are not the subject of the article. 2) It "captures the scope", even though it fails to define the alleged interference or explain what it supposedly consisted of? 3) "Discovered" is neutral? N-HH talk/edits 13:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't give up. 1) The sentences that I proposed do not establish the intelligence assessments as the subject, they merely establish a major milestone in the overall event. 2) The first sentence cannot possibly detail all of the complex elements of the interference. 3) "Discovered" is not really non-neutral, but it is inaccurate as pointed out by TFD.- MrX 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Casprings. Here is another proposal, primarily to address TFD's concerns:

Version 2. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawning further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

- MrX 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Documented" is another can of worms for the deniers, because the intelligence determination was not publicly "documented" to various pundits' satisfaction. This will give rise to another round of tail-chasing which essentially disregards RS accounts in favor of memes about WMD, etc. I understand why you propose to start with the bolded title of the article, but I don't think this is a subject like Graperfruit or even Grape-nuts or Great Dane where that format works for the lede. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Determined" or "identified" could work as alternatives for "documented". We don't have to include the title in the lead sentence, but I struggle with how to summarize the scope of the article without including "election interference by Russia" in some form.- MrX 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "determined" is actually what they did. It's rich in meaning in the sense of accumulating and evaluating a sufficient amount of data such that no other conclusion was possible. I don't like "election interference" because it is passive and, whether by the dictionary or its sense in common usages, suggests a conclusion that is less determinate. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think version "1" by MrX is fine if to replace "was discovered" by "was investigated", i.e something like Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was investigated by U.S. Intelligence agencies, the FBI and the U.S Congress ... My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Good proposals overall. Option 2 is more accurate than option 1; I would support that. I would also suggest to replace "2016 United States elections" with "2016 United States presidential election" which is the actual scope mentioned in intelligence reports and which gathered 99% of the RS coverage. The only non-presidential thing that was cited is usage of some leaked DNC documents by Republicans in Florida, something they would do regardless of the leak source. — JFG ^talk 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice. How about:

Version 3. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned investigations by both the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials. Casprings (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is better.- MrX 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I am thinking about it, let's bring down the words some:

Version 3a. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned FBI and Congressional investigations into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

Just another thought.Casprings (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 4. Better yet with two sentences:

The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly documented Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. Further investigations were started by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, looking into suspected collusion between members of Trump's presidential campaign and Russian government officials.

— JFG ^talk 19:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I like the idea of the first words of the article being the title and written in active voice. Also, keeping this discussion to one sentence might be worthwhile.. It forces you to craft a sentence about the article that is short and captures the essence of the article. Clearly we can have another sentence, but agreement on one sentence to start out on might be a worthwhile exercise. Just my thought.Casprings (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I support N-HH's wording proposal, per the treatment of the subject by reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, as very clearly shown above. MelanieN I'm curious what your opinion of that proposal is. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• To make N-HH's proposal more concrete,

Allegations that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election are currently being investigated by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have accused Russia of undertaking cyberattacks, disseminating fake news, making inappropriate contact with members of Trump's campaign team in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favour."

-Darouet (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this have to be added to every section of this page? Is nothing ever settled? Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate all of the comments here in an edit of the first paragraph of the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted. It was inappropriate for you to insert your own, undiscussed version into the article while discussion is still ongoing here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not always the practice here, but you might at least have copied it here if you prefer that process. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My reaction: I see merit in parts of several of the proposals. How about combining aspects of several of them? I do like the first words of the lede to be the title, although that isn't always a requirement. I don't want "allegations" in the first sentence, we have long since reached consensus that these reports are more definitive than "allegations". I don't think really we can keep it to a single sentence. I like N-HH's second sentence. I like Capsprings third sentence (except I would say investigating "the possibility of" collusion rather than "suspected" collusion, which is a little stronger than the current state of knowledge). Let's see if I can combine several of these proposals. Call it version 5.

Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections has been reported "with high confidence" by U.S. Intelligence agencies. The interference, in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favor, included cyberattacks, data thefts and leaks, disseminating fake news, and social media trolling. Ongoing investigations by a Special Counsel and multiple congressional committees are trying to determine whether there was inappropriate contact or collusion between members of Trump's campaign team and Russian agents.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can we please have the first sentence not be passive voice? Casprings (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. I'm not a fan of the passive myself, but in this case I thought it made the sentence more understandable. Open for discussion, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton and to promote the candidacy of Donald Trump.[1][2][3] The U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe later stated that they had found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015.[6]

SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to start off with the bolded title in the lede, then the first sentence would best contain a definition rather than a statement about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am good with that, but the second sentence should be about the ongoing FBI and congressional investigations. That is really the most important thing about the subject.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec x2) OK, now it is here and we can discuss it. Call this option 6. My own preference is for option 5 at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: this is basically the same as the existing lede paragraph, except that the lede sentence has been modified to define the subject matter. Correct? --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I was surprised you reverted it. I do agree with you and others however that there should also be a sentence about the ongoing investigations by various agencies. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton.[1][2][3] In December 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Several European nations and Australia had shared intelligence information relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015.[6] A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.

SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The goal of the discussion was to clarify and shorten the lead paragraph; your proposal crams too much detail into it + it's not neutral. — JFG ^talk 00:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please number all of the versions here and let your colleagues make the decision. Pre-emptive exclusion of several versions can only sustain the uncertainty and prolong the process. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't change any numbering, just bolded what was already numbered. You are free to assign a number to your own proposals. — JFG ^talk 06:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a new one, with some elements by MelanieN and Specifico, call it version 6:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump, notably by attempting to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. In response, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington in December 2016. Extensive investigations were started by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents. Reports of inappropriate contacts have led to the dismissal of Michael Flynn from the position of National Security Advisor.

I think this packs a lot into a compact space: actions, intent, attribution, consequences, and ongoing investigations. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This misrepresents the sources, weasels up key details and brings in less important detail, such as the expulsion. I again ask you to assign a number to my version and to MelanieN's version. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

These last couple of versions (5 and 6) are too detailed for a lead sentence. Darouet's is completely contrary to what sources widely report and not an accurate summary of the article. Version 4 narrows the scope to only the presidential election and is a little too wordy.- MrX 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you think Darouet's version is contrary to what sources report? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:REHASH.- MrX 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where we've discussed Darouet's proposal above. What, specifically, is "contrary to what sources widely report"? That's a very vague criticism. There's no way to change what Darouet wrote in response to your criticism, unless you say what, specifically, you think is contradicted by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How about Version 9

• • • Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections through a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption. Russia used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton. These conclusions were stated by the US Director of National Intelligence in December, 2016 and affirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017. Other nations had shared intelligence relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015. A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.

SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's too detailed and it's not one sentence. Clinton should not be mentioned at all, nor should the article start with Putin. Versions 2, 3, and 3a better conform to WP:LEADSENTENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support Darouet's proposed version. It is completely in line with what sources widely report and an accurate summary of the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it utterly fails to describe or delimit the subject of the article. It's a small off-center subset of what's published in RS and fails WEIGHT and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How does it fail NPOV? It's not easy for any summary to capture the full scope of the article, because it's completely unclear what this article is actually supposed to be about. The best approximation I can get of the content that's been added to the article is, "Anything having to do with Russia and Trump." Maybe we should start the article with, "A lot of stuff has happened involving Russia and Trump over the past few months." That would be the most accurate summary of what's actually been added to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think JFG's version may be the best yet, although like SPECIFICO I would leave out the sentence about the retaliatory expulsion. And in its place maybe include the sentence detailing the methods used, found in my version #5 and both of SPECIFICO's versions. I don't like putting "Vladimir Putin personally" in the lede sentence - and yes, I realize it is in the lede paragraph now; both of SPECIFICO's versions move it to a more prominent place than the name and its sourcing deserve IMO, and I'd like to get rid of it altogether. I don't like Darouet's version because it is all weasely; we are way past the point of calling these intelligence reports "allegations" and have had that consensus for some time. Otherwise let's keep trying, I do think we are going to be able to hash this out and come up with a consensus version. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and a couple of quibbles regarding JFG's version #6: Instead of "Extensive investigations were started" I would say "Multiple investigations are underway". And I would just say "several congressional committees" because there are actually four working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not getting any closer to a consensus here. This section started out seeking a lead sentence and now it's become a discussion about how much can be crammed into a lead paragraph. Maybe we should first get consensus on what we're trying to accomplish here, then a consensus on which major points we are going to include, and then consensus on the specific wording. - MrX 03:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with JFG's proposed opening paragraph is that it states Russian interference in the Presidential election as a fact. That's not supported by reliable sources, as has been repeatedly established in previous discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that Thucydides411 and Darouet have acted as a tag team since 2011. They might know each other. They seem to be in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:881C:5500:2992:54FA:E30A:398D (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and next it will be claimed half the editors here are paid by Putin and the other half by Soros… We can't tolerate WP:ASPERSIONS coming from an anonymous IP user posting their only ever contribution to the project. Say who you are or shut up. — JFG ^talk 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're a sock of Azul411: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azul411. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-random break

Taking into account feedback on version 6 by MelanieN, MrX, SPECIFICO and Thucydides411, here is version 7:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. In response, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington. Several investigations are underway by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents. Reports of inappropriate contacts have led to the dismissal of Michael Flynn from the position of National Security Advisor.

Two people said Clinton should not be mentioned, so I removed that. I replaced the "extensive investigations were started" by "several investigations are underway"; I kept the full list of known investigations: FBI, House, Senate and Special Counsel, I don't believe there are any others (Melanie?). I chose to keep the expulsion of Russian diplomats because that and Flynn's demise are the only concrete consequences of this saga so far; the rest is merely an ongoing political feud. Sure, we have more than one sentence, but the article is complex enough; I think this lead paragraph provides a fair definition and overview of the subject matter. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For people who would prefer a shorter intro, here's an alternate version 7a:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. Several investigations are underway by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents.

This version keeps only the main sequence of events: hacks and propaganda, intelligence assessments and ongoing investigations, without listing consequences. I still prefer v7 but I can live with 7a if a shorter paragraph gets more support. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anything that begins with "Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption" is basically declaring "Russian interference" in the elections to be a fact. As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I understand your concern, but what else can we do to convey the distinction between facts and accusations? As long as the article is titled "Russian interference", we are bound to reflect what RS have said about this "Russian interference", even if parts of it may not be Russian and other parts may not be interference… This version is more neutral than the current lead, because it immediately clarifies that such misdeeds were attributed to Russia by the U.S. intelligence agencies. This is the closest I've ever seen to standing a chance of gaining consensus among editors holding different viewpoints, and indeed various sources being more categoric or more doubtful. We can't just prevaricate for years until the "true story" emerges. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Look at Darouet's proposal above. It manages to describe the subject without stating "Russian interference" as a fact. The problem is that your proposed opening sentence makes a declarative statement that isn't supported by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. You keep repeating this. It's simply false. I can only find one source, the BBC, that still uses the term allegations. Reuters has stopped using the word. Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: We've gone over this issue several times, and each time, the result was that most reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There were some editors who didn't accept this conclusion, but they didn't present sources to back up their views. Do you have sources to show that Reuters' editorial stance of "Russian interference" has changed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"We've gone over this issue several times, and each time, the result was that most reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation" is a blatant falsehood. This is not the place for you to repetitively push alternative facts. Please stop beating this dead horse over and over! This refusal to accept consensus at any cost is disruptive and tendentious, and I intend to raise it at AE if it continues. - MrX 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I consider your threat of AE an attempt to use intimidation to stifle discussion over a content dispute. For the record, we have been over this issue several times, and each time, editors arguing that reliable sources do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact have done a lot of source work to show this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I oppose both 7 and 7a. First, a lead sentence should consist of a sentence, not two or three. The first sentence should state in general terms that there was interference in the 2016 elections and that investigations ensued. That's it.- MrX 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The discussion is trying to provide a proper introduction to the subject matter, which is too vast and delicate to be distilled into just one sentence, although I agree the lead paragraph should be kept brief and to the point. Do you have an alternate wording to suggest? — JFG ^talk 12:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm not opposed to doing just that as a second step. Trying to bite off so much at once is failing, as is evidenced by this divergent discussion. Add to that the exhausting WP:REHASH about "alleged" and we end up at an impasse.- MrX 12:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact of life on this article that some discussions about one word have failed, some discussions about one sentence have failed and some discussions about whole sections have failed too. Nevertheless, we must persist, as the saying goes… This particular discussion doesn't look like it's doomed to fail yet; with a little bit of good will from everyone, we should be able to improve the crucial introduction to the subject matter, to the relief of our confused readers. Shall you play? — JFG ^talk 12:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to persist without me. Please ping me when it looks like consensus is building around a particular version and I will gladly comment then.- MrX 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Delicate?" Putin? Trump? CIA? SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse both 7 and 7a, with a preference for 7a. Thank you, JFG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. On further research,[55] I find that other committees (such as Senate Judiciary) are holding some hearings on the matter, but the formal responsibility is with the Intelligence committees so I am OK with the wording you have. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. Reading them again, I now prefer the shorter version. I would still suggest one amendment: "other disruption" is very vague, perhaps we can replace it with "propaganda efforts", which sums up rather well the combined effect of document leaks, fake news and online trolling, all aimed at discrediting Clinton. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 15:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Disruption" is not vague, it is general. Disruption is broader than "propaganda" and more closely fits the content described in the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I dislike "disruption", and I don't think that word has been used by Reliable Sources. "Propaganda" is somewhat better but not great. How about "cyberattacks, propaganda, and other activities"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: What kinds of "other activities" do you reckon should be mentioned? I don't remember seeing anything that can't be described as either cyberattacks or propaganda. — JFG ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I look at the entire paragraph, I find mentions of "hackers", "propaganda", and "collusion"; that probably covers it. I endorse 7 and 7a as they are. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Versions 7 and 7a "as they are" still contain the vague "other disruption". Are you okay with replacing that by "propaganda" directly in the first sentence? In that case, we might need to avoid repeating the word "propaganda" in the next sentence; surely that can be done without altering the essence of the intro. — JFG ^talk 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I probably misread your comment: do you mean that there were three kinds of disruption: hacking, propaganda and collusion? In that case, we could go with "… was a campaign of cyberattacks, propaganda and suspected collusion …" because that last point remains unproven today, just under intense scrutiny. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Collusion" is not intrinsically a form of interference. That would be more in the realm of tactics. Please consider what you mean to communicate by "propaganda"? I have not seen that used in press or other discussions of the elections. Also, the collusion is not "alleged" -- it has been widely reported and was done publicly on at least one occasion in a televised speech of candidate Trump. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

JFG: No, I prefer it the way you have it: with a separate sentence saying there are investigations into possible collusion as per 7 and 7a. SPECIFICO: I disagree about "collusion". It is not "widely reported", it is not even "alleged" in Reliable Sources, and are you really claiming Trump publicly admitted to collusion??? Gotta see a source for that, for sure. 0;-D I have not seen any reliable source state affirmatively "there was collusion", it's always things like "raises the possibility of collusion". We need to leave it as a suspicion, under investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:- I'm surprised. Are you OK with collaboration, exhortation, coordination, etc.? "Collusion" does not necessarily mean that Trump's approval was critical to the Russian interference or that his group contributed to the initial cyberattacks. But this is beside the point because the Russians apparently have well-developed cyber- and disninformation-warfare capabilities and did not need Trump's computer savvy to steal data or to initiate fake news and trolling. However dozens of public speeches and televised statements show Trump and his team colluding in the common dictionary meaning of collude, meaning to act according to a common mutual understanding to further the goal of harming some person or thing. "Collusion" is not the name of a crime, just an action. Here's one discussion of the collusion: [56]. Anyway let's see how others see this? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Good. So shall we go with 7a or keep talking until the cows come home? Please let's try our best to avoid another RfC… — JFG ^talk 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and propaganda efforts, which the U.S. intelligence community attributed to Russian intelligence services, aimed at favoring Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential election, and it spawned investigations to determine whether members of Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents.

• Who is doing the investigation and what intelligence agencies are doing the investigation are not important for the opening. Just tell the reader the so what in as few as words as possible.
• I concur with MrX. What the reader needs to takeaway from the article can and should be done in one sentence. We can expand from there, but we should focus on that one sentence first. Can't we do that and stay focused? Casprings (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written and unintelligible. 18:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

There is nothing magical about a single sentence. If the information can be better conveyed in a couple of sentences - as I think this long discussion has clearly demonstrated - then use a couple of sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Also if we state interference by "propaganda" then "propaganda attacks" is redundant. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegations

Many people dispute the Russian intervention narrative including anti Trump progressives. Shouldn't the article be more neutral. There isn't really any conclusive evidence of Russian hacking and this is a polarizing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.54.222 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere will always dispute everything. We just use the reliable sources. WP:IRS Objective3000 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources refer to it as allegations by intelligence which is what we should do. No reliable sources dispute the intelligence, they just agree that it is at this point just allegations. TFD (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, D.C. police are investigating IT staff employed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other Democratic members of Congress for security breaches and theft of computers. TFD (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have an RS for this, it may be a BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See "House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation" Heather Caygle, Politico): "Alvi, Awan and three other House aides, including Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, relatives of Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, are all linked to the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the probe." TFD (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Tried to follow it three times; but kept running out of breadcrumbs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure of classified information to Russia

I think the whole Disclosure of classified information to Russia section should be deleted as it does not go to Russian interference nor the investigation of officials. Enthusiast01 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

During the meeting, Trump told the Russians he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. That is why it is there and that is why it is important.Casprings (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: If we keep the 2 sentences about Comey, as I suggested below, are you OK with deleting the rest of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Enthusiast. This article is expanding well beyond its scope and is just shy of adding a kitchen sink to being an all-out position paper against Trump. Trump was talking about collusion, not interference, with his meeting with Comey. It is not the subject of this article and its presence here is highly prejudicial.LedRush (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The disclosure of classified information was related to the effort to defeat ISIS, and I'm not aware that had anything to do with Comey, the 2016 election, or the Russian effort to defeat Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is largely off-topic. It should be reduced to a brief mention in the section about Comey's dismissal. — JFG ^talk 07:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Comey related stuff definitely belongs in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, it is not really related.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the disclosure of classified information is irrelevant to this subject. I suggest that we transfer this sentence to the Comey paragraph - In a May 10 private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved "great pressure" on him. He stated, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," adding "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." - and delete the rest of the section. MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Disagree with deleting the rest. There needs to be some mention that in the meeting he also disclosed classified information, as that is also mentioned in every RS that discusses this. Moreover, it is important to the event. In a meeting which he disclosed classified information, he decided to also tell the Russians this.Casprings (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have MAJOR non-related events?

Should this article have major non-related events? It seems like that would provide some context when reading a timeline. For example a SC justice being sworn in, health care, or a new war. I just think it would help the timeline because you would understand the other ongoimg Casprings (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is already far too much superfluous and tangentially related information in this article.LedRush (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No. People who want to read about other stuff can just click the relevant links… The joys of hypertext! — JFG ^talk 07:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it would detract from the main content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, as they are unrelated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized I posted this on the wrong article. Meant for the timeline related article.Casprings (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)|

Time to form sub articles ?

This article is getting big.

Time to form sub articles and then to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here? Sagecandor (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposed split was rejected by most editors. It distinguished two phases: the election interference proper and its immediate aftermath, up to the expulsion of Russian diplomats over Christmas, then the 2017 developments around the Trump administration and former associates, with new inquiries and revelations. There would be a clear cut date between the articles, and they would prominently refer to each other. Got a better proposal or adjustments to that one? — JFG ^talk 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not too big. We could trim it a little, for example by removing the "disclosure" section as discussed above. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Many sections could be shortened, actually. For example, the Comey story is fully detailed in two separate articles (Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos); the essential points could be trimmed to a single paragraph here. — JFG ^talk 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The section "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" is a laundry list of detective clues, which kind of begs to be forked into its own article. Many of the reported contacts are indeed related to Russia but unrelated to the election interference. — JFG ^talk 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this article should only be about the election, with maybe a wikilink and a paragraph outlaying "CONNECTIONS".Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN about doing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here, trimming sizes of sections would help. Removing the "disclosure" section, and trimming the info on Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos to defer to a summary here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO we already have the Trump material "forked" into too many places. For someone who is trying to keep a neutral eye on those articles, it is impossible to keep up; we seem to get a new article with every headline. This is a coherent subject and I believe it should be kept in one place. For starters on the trimming, we could take any section that already has its own article and trim it to a single "highlights" paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this idea of a "highlights" paragraph, here, for topics with existing sub articles. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Three of us have now mentioned the James Comey section as something that could be trimmed. Considering that there is a full article, linked from the section, that does make sense. I'm going to start working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed the Comey dismissal material by about 3,000 bytes. It could be trimmed further if someone wants to remove some of the citations; it seems overcited to me but I decided not to prune the refs at this time. If anyone wants to, feel free. Now I'm going to work on the "Comey memo" section. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed another 2,500 bytes about the Comey memo. I didn't trim the material about the other reported attempts to influence the investigation, just the Comey memo because it has its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian reactions

User:MrX: I don't believe it is "undue" to add a small subsection about Russian reactions. If it were five long paragraphs, it would be undue. I added two lines based on an article from the Financial Times, which were overdue. We need to include all relevant views. We are not an advertising website for the USIC; we are an encyclopedia. I'd like you to remove the "undue" tag and hopefully let other editors add a few more Russian reactions. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with edit summary explanation by MrX at [57]. Fringe opinion. Unreliable. Not noteworthy. No more relevant here than including "Russia Today" or "Sputnik News" as a source. Sagecandor (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Financial Times is not reliable now?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the edit summary by MrX said. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A Putin ally is, by definition, not a fringe character. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We need to have a global perspective on this (including Russia).Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What other reliable sources are quoting Andrei Kostin, chief executive of VTB, the [Russia] state-controlled bank? Please demonstrate that his views on election interference are noteworthy.- MrX 18:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If two other secondary sources quote this guy, we could maybe consider it as noteworthy. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a second one. We could add more Russian reactions, too. Hence the expand section tag. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole entire section Commentary and reactions is too big. It could either be spun off, and or judiciously trimmed down. Way too big. Article should stick to just the facts and events and developments. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We are probably giving too much weight to US reactions, yes. Some are also biased; for example Mike Morell supported HRC for POTUS. But in any case, adding foreign reactions cannot hurt.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We can move the Russia Putin ally response to the Russia government reaction section. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Russian government reaction should be moved to the "Commentary and reactions" section, because that's what it is. We should keep all the reactions in the same place.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording "an ally...suggested" is too ambiguous for an encyclopedic article. What kind of ally? Does that imply he was speaking for Putin? Suggested how exactly? Why didn't he just come out and say it? The only justification for inclusion would be if it had received widespread media coverage, in which case commentators would have attempted to answer all those questions. TFD (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please e-mail the Financial Times journalists? Here's also quoted by CNBC. But the FT is very reliable; if they call him an ally of President Putin, we have no reason to question them. As for what he is saying, we relay content here, no matter how inconvenient that content might be.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made a copy edit to conform to the sources. I'm still not convinced that the material is noteworthy enough to include in the article. The lack of widespread coverage does point to an WP:UNDUE weight problem.- MrX 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials

Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials

This should be its own separate article.

And then most important bits as WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, back here. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This looks like an easy split, and would cut one of the longest chapters of this article. — JFG ^talk 19:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done – Nice haircut here, and full details in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Commentary and reactions

Commentary and reactions

Whole entire section should be spun out, and or just judiciously trimmed way way down.

We are losing focus.

Time to see the forest for the trees.

Article should focus on the facts, events, developments, and not become over bloated with "Commentary" and "Reactions" that are not official developments and facts. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Are they facts or hypotheses? Very useful to know who says what, and this is on topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not asking for a "vote". This could be a separate article. As it is, it is over loading this article with bloat. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

And there is no consensus for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to bloat the article with cruft so much that it becomes unreadable and useless. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I can read it fine. Who else is unable to read it please? You need to get consensus before you make big changes.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Public-opinion polls

Public-opinion polls

Way too big.

Can someone maybe trim this down, and or make it into a table format ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials

2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials

New article.

Per multiple talk page suggestions, above.

Please trim that section of this article, and use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here, instead. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Now at 2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials. Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe title of page might change to encompass more than just the campaign itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to redirect it to Allegations of 2016 Trump campaign ties to Russian officials?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I do it now. Thank you for to make recommendations for to having of link. Sagecandor (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is now titled Links between Trump associates and Russian officials; Sagecandor and I both created a fork but we eventually agreed to merge them. — JFG ^talk 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That article is now listed as a candidate for deletion. ^Falling_Gravity 04:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WHACK!

Whack!

@Sagecandor and JFG: This was very much uncool. Whatever happened to consensus and process? Last I saw we were talking about trimming a little of the fat from this article. Then at 19:18 Sagecandor suggested splitting out "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials", JFB liked the idea, and wham! without any further discussion or input or even coordination between the two of you, you EACH created an article, which then had to be merged. It was done by 21:48, a bare 2 1/2 hours from the first suggestion. During that brief time window Zigzig (the only person who had time to comment) opposed and reminded you of the need for consensus, which you ignored. I would have opposed if you had given it any time at all for discussion. Many other people would have had suggestions or improvements if you hadn't gone off half cocked. You did this before anyone had a chance to weigh in on whether it was a good idea or what should be included. You created it without any discussion of the title, meaning it has been moved several times already and will be moved half a dozen times move before it finally gets a stable, consensus title. This was BAD FORM, totally unWikipedian, and the slipshod, do-it-over-half-a-dozen times result shows it. To both of you: don't ever ride roughshod over the community like that again. Seriously.

There, now that you have been properly trouted, let's get down to the business of fixing it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Trout accepted! However I consider my actions a WP:BOLD move, and apparently Sagecandor reached the same conclusion. This section was the most bloated after the Comey stories that you handled. Note that Zigzig20s didn't oppose to forking out this section, rather he opposed spinning out "commentary and reactions" and I didn't touch that. Regarding consensus, several people had expressed support for de-bloating this section: Sagecandor, Slatersteven and yours truly. When it was done, Zigzig20s commented with an alternate title but didn't object to the fork. All in all, I think we're better off now. Entries for each suspected individual have been trimmed to the essential facts without much of the "he said-she-said" chatter, but full contents have been WP:PRESERVED in the new article. What else do you feel needs fixing?

To your concern that there are too many articles about each daily headline, I very much agree and I sent quite a few to AfD already. The article we just created will be a natural recipient for the incoming headlines about any connected person suspected of anything, so we can point people there when they create news-story-of-the-day articles. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Being bold, in the absence of any discussion or controversy, is one thing. Being bold, in ignoring an ongoing discussion and abruptly implementing a completely new and undiscussed major change, is something else. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the prior talk page comments about bloat, by those including Thucydides411 [58] [59], Slatersteven [60], BullRangifer [61], SPECIFICO [62], and JFG [63]. I'm thankful to JFG for the helpful explanation and the bold action to create the sub article [64], which can be WP:PRESERVED, back at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What to call the new article

Presumably the discussion about what to call this thing should be carried out at Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, if that's still its name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there still so much about links in this article?

I'm puzzled. I thought the whole idea of spinning off the new article was to reduce the size of this one. Why, then, are there still multi-paragraph sections about each of the various people and their contacts with Russia? Will it be OK with people if I, and others, reduce those sections to few summary sentences, since the main information is now in another article? And please, to avoid another TROUT situation, let's get consensus to do that before we actually do it. I think we should wait at least 24 hours for people to comment. Personally I favor a major trim - I'm talking 50% to 80% of the information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have one section with signal sentence summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Few summary sentences sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is more material being added, we should be reducing it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"More material being added"? Do you mean that I expanded a sentence [65], which incorrectly named only the FBI as having been asked to push back with public statements, so as to mention the other agencies that were approached, and added an additional reference? Or are there other, more substantial additions you are talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Which added over 500 characters, so yes it was an addition, not just a slight rewording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, it was an addition. And now someone has added the new information about Russia's denials. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think anyone has interpreted "this article is too big, we should reduce it" to mean "and we should have a moratorium on adding anything to the article." --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It just seems odd to argue that we should reduce the size of this section (I agree) and then expand it. We should not be adding material but discussing what we can take away (and I think much of this added material of yours falls into the category of "better off in the other article". We do not need to know here who said what or did what with relation to every allegation. This is what the other article is for.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this material needs to be substantiallly trimmed. Some of the main actors like Flynn, Kushner and Sessions could be summarized in two to three sentences each. The others could be reduced even more. The Steele dossier doesn't really belong in that section, if in the article at all.- MrX 18:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As an example

"The Russian Ambassador had met several Trump campaign members and administration nominees; Trump's team has issued a number of denials and justifications concerning these meetings, several of these denials turned out to be false. In the early months of 2017, the Trump administration was accused of asking senior government officials to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia."

Much shorter, and still contains the gist of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about trimming here. IMO this suggestion trims out too much detail, but that's what discussion is for. One point: before we trim major detail, we should make sure it is included in the other article. Also: when trimming prose, we should be careful to retain necessary supporting references. And of course, to make sure that our trimming is NPOV, not aimed at either "getting rid of the stuff that makes Trump look bad" or "getting rid of the stuff that makes Trump look good." --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It's a bit vague, no? We at least need to mention the name of the person with the connection. For example, the Eric Prince section is about right, although it doesn't need to be in its own section. For Carter Page, I would propose something like this:

"Carter Page's communications were monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant during the summer of 2016, after he was suspected to act as an agent of a foreign power (Russia). Page met Kislyak during the 2016 Republican National Convention, and in 2013 met with Viktor Podobnyy, who was later charged with spying."

- MrX 18:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No i do not think it is too vague, it is only really a headline to draw attention to material that should be covered in greater detail in the other article. Nor do I think we need names for every sentence, again all we really should do is just have a brief section alleged collusion, hell I am not even sure we need more then one paragraph about that, an overview.Slatersteven (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing this to one paragraph per involved person. Maybe make an exception and keep a dedicated subsection for Michael Flynn as there seems to be more substance and more scrutiny in his case, plus he was indeed fired over a conversation with the ambassador. — JFG ^talk 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that some entries were shortened to one paragraph; I shortened the remaining ones and grouped them under a section "Other Trump associates", keeping the Flynn case as most prominent. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election

1. Cole, Matthew; Esposito, Richard; Biddle, Sam; Grim, Ryan (June 5, 2017), "Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election", The Intercept, retrieved June 6, 2017
2. Fessler, Pam; Ewing, Philip (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election", National Public Radio, retrieved June 6, 2017
3. Mathis-Lilley, Ben (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Says Russian Hackers Targeted Voter Registration Officials in November 2016", Slate, retrieved June 6, 2017
4. Weissman, Cale Guthrie (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report finds Russian hacking of U.S. voting machine companies and election officials", Fast Company, retrieved June 6, 2017
5. Shabad, Rebecca (June 5, 2017), "NSA report indicates Russian cyberattack against U.S. voting software vendor last August", KPAX-TV, CBS News, retrieved June 6, 2017
6. Quigley, Aidan (June 5, 2017), "Who won the election? NSA report suggests Russia might have hacked voting system", Newsweek, retrieved June 6, 2017
7. Dreyfuss, Ben (June 5, 2017), "The Intercept Discloses Top-Secret NSA Document on Russia Hacking Aimed at US Voting System", Mother Jones, retrieved June 6, 2017
8. Kilgore, Ed (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Suggests Russian Hacking Could Have Affected Election Day Itself", New York Magazine, retrieved June 6, 2017
9. Rozsa, Matthew (June 5, 2017), "Russia attempted to hack US voting software days before election: NSA document", Salon, retrieved June 6, 2017
10. Bertrand, Natasha (June 5, 2017), "Top-secret NSA report: Russian hackers tried to breach US voting systems days before the election", Business Insider, retrieved June 6, 2017
11. "Breached - NSA: Russian Hackers Targeted U.S. Election Officials", The Daily Beast, June 5, 2017, retrieved June 6, 2017
12. Ng, Alfred (June 5, 2017), "NSA report discloses Russian hacking days before US election", CNET News, retrieved June 6, 2017
13. Gallagher, Sean (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report says Russians tried to hack state election officials", Ars Technica, retrieved June 6, 2017
14. Mindock, Clark (June 5, 2017), "Russian hackers tried to hack US voting software days before election, leaked NSA document suggests", The Independent, retrieved June 6, 2017
15. Smith, David; Swaine, Jon (June 5, 2017), "Russian agents hacked US voting system manufacturer before US election – report", The Guardian, retrieved June 6, 2017
16. Dellinger, AJ (June 5, 2017), "Did Russia Hack U.S. Election? NSA Details Attempts To Compromise Election Systems, Report Says", International Business Times, retrieved June 6, 2017
17. Uchill, Joe (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians hacked US voting systems maker just before election", The Hill, retrieved June 6, 2017
18. Kosoff, Maya (June 5, 2017), "Russian military intelligence may have tried to hack U.S. voting system", Vanity Fair, retrieved June 6, 2017
19. Pierce, Charles P. (June 5, 2017), "Why Would Russia Stop at 'Influence' When They Could Hack Directly?", Esquire, retrieved June 6, 2017
20. Vara, Shannon (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians targeted U.S. election officials before election", Axios, retrieved June 6, 2017
21. Coldewey, Devin (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report names Russia in pre-election hacks, contradicting Putin's claims of innocence", TechCrunch, retrieved June 6, 2017

Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to fit under the "Intrusions into state voter-registration systems" section of this article. The leaker Reality Winner (currently a redirect) might deserve her own article if she gets enough notable coverage. In the mean time, I'd urge editors to add some of the higher quality sources listed above or beyond to avoid WP:OVERCITE, if I don't get around to it myself. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Original source: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election. The Intercept, Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim, June 5 2017 -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely a significant development worthy of inclusion.- MrX 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It still doesn't answer the question of whether actual vote tampering occurred, at least by this method, but this would not have occurred if something like that wasn't a possible motive. Planning vote tampering and actually doing it are two different things. Did they ever "do" it? We don't know yet. The preparations were certainly laid. Let's see if RS will soon answer these questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

MSM reports regarding Reality Winner ...(that name is bittersweet af!!!)....

• http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-leak-top-secret-russia-document-n768561
• http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/federal-contractor-leak-prosecution/index.html
• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-contractor-reality-leigh-winner-arrested-for-sending-classified-nsa-intelligence-to-news-outlet/article/262501 - Darknipples
• & Julian Assange - http://thehill.com/homenews/news/336470-julian-assange-alleged-nsa-leaker-must-be-supported ---- Darknipples (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, everyone's suddenly loving the Intercept, a source they've mocked and denigrated when it suggests a bit more critical scepticism, once it finally provides them with yet another "important/significant" thing that "must" be included. Btw note this paragraph from the original report:

• While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

N-HH talk/edits 09:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I point out, the only thing the report ([66]) states was done by Russian actors was spear phishing. The headlines are catchy... but getting people to hand you information deceitfully is a lot different than hacking (the NSA even noted in the report that they had no evidence of what the data taken was used for, if anything at all; so to assume this had any impact on, or in anyway "interfered" with, the election is beyond wannabe detective work). ... Simple media sensationalism of a criminal government contractor just to turn up the clicks shouldn't bleed over onto an encyclopedia. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We report what OR say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth is more reliable (I'm assuming you intended to acronymize WP:RS not WP:OR) than the intelligence report itself might I ask? Is it not our job to be as accurate and verifiable as possible here? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a primary source, and WP relies on secondary source interpretation of them rather than our own. That said, the point about not driving WP content based on day-by-day headlines is correct, and one literally ignored since day one on this page. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Intelligence reports are not "primary sources", they are usually (and as in this case) a collection of many different sources. A report such as this is just as reliable as a published medical journal, if not more so... it's definitely vetted as much. Surely you can't tell me some rule is going to hold us back from doing what we're supposed to be doing here? I mean maybe I would understand your concern if this was an article about the NSA report (that would be quite primary indeed), but it isn't... this is an article about Russia's interference in the election, of which this report is a very trustworthy secondary source. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Do we know if this is the actual document or a forgery?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You have about 2 dozen links above you that state it's real. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So then we can say what RS say about it. Also it does not "The only thing the report states was done by Russian actors was spear phishing" It says that the spear phishing used data from an earlier attack. Also a single report does not mean this was the only attack(or even report). So this also falls into OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your grammar is horrendous. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt currently that it's real. As for primary v secondary, you can argue the raw data the report was based on are the primary sources, and the report the "secondary" analysis of those, but I'm not sure that holds up in this context. We have a standalone document which has been leaked. It's not up to us to conclude what it really means. And IAR is not what we are "supposed" to be doing as a matter of course, it's a get-out/exception when following the standard rules would be self-defeating. Also, pithy and pointless criticism of grammar in talk page posts doesn't help much. If someone's point is genuinely unclear, you could always ask for clarification. N-HH talk/edits 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well these are my thoughts nonetheless. I hope someone takes them into consideration. I'm off to do other things for now. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Primary source as citation ?

Disagree with this edit [67].

When we have plenty of secondary sources, no need to use primary sources here.

Can we remove this citation [68] ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, also disagree with this edit [69], as we have secondary sources backing up the same info. Can the now two primary source citations be removed? Sagecandor (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove them all. That section has plenty of sources without them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, can the primary sources be removed, in favor of only keeping the secondary sources? Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If secondary RS mention the primary sources, then we normally provide the primary sources as a service to readers. There is no policy-based reason to not include them in such situations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of entire section on Internet trolls ?

Strongly disagree with this undiscussed removal of entire section on Internet trolls and Trolls from Olgino at [70].

Undiscussed.

No consensus for removal.

Contains multiple different reliable sources.

None of the material from the cited experts was contested in the media, just the "ProOrNot" crap, which is not included here.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted, although I'm fine with tabling the Wapo bit if indeed they have retracted. Darknipples (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed that bit. Sagecandor (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely think we need a thorough, well sourced section on the use of trolls. I don't think we need to lay out the full title and qualifications of every source. That's what reference links are for. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense also. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The story has not been "retracted" - they simply added a statement by the editor saying that one of the sources they referred to (the PropOrNot report) has been contested and was later modified. I see no valid reason for deletion here - especially since the material in our article has nothing to do with the PropOrNot part of the Post story (and is therefore still perfectly usable/valid). The initial deletion of the entire section (with an edit summary about McCarthyism) was waaaay over the top BTW. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix:Agree with your assessment. Nevertheless, I've trimmed from that section a bit, and if we avoid that particular cite, hopefully we avoid problems in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to others here, but personally I see no reason to avoid citing that piece. The Post noting that PropOrNot might have some issues does not invalidate their reporting (which specifically attributed anything they took from PropOrNot to PropOrNot). All the other info/claims in the article are still perfectly usable. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the article will be less likely to have future conflicts about this, without it. It's come up before. I agree with your entire rationale. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: If you look at the WaPo article, PropOrNot is the source for most of their claims. It's not just that they disavowed one of their sources - they disavowed the source that was the basis for most of the story. This wasn't the prettiest episode in the Washington Post's history, and they were scolded by a number of reputable outlets for their use of a blacklist compiled by an anonymous group of seeming amateurs. PropOrNot doesn't just possibly have some issues. The authors turned out to be listing anyone they politically disliked as Russian stooges, including well-known publications like CounterPunch which clearly aren't anything of the sort. Their supposed validation of these claims was so weak that they were willing to remove anyone from their blacklist that complained about the classification. In short, the WaPo wrote an article based on some anonymous, probably amateur smear campaign by some random online group, and then when they were criticized for publishing the story, appended a note disavowing the main source for the story. PropOrNot shopped their blacklist around to other news outlets by the way, which weren't willing to publish it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

About PropOrNot: here's a New Yorker article about the Washington Post's decision to cite PropOrNot's blacklist, and the New Yorker's decision not to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That was only part of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the main source for the article. We really should not be citing such a shoddy piece of journalism. If we do mention it at all, it should be to describe the scandal surrounding its publication. The section would describe the Washington Post's decision to cite a blacklist compiled by a group of anonymous amateurs, and the heavy criticism the Washington Post faced for that decision, including the accusation of McCarthyism leveled at the Post. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm confused by this edit [71], as I already reverted its deletion. Darknipples (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So am I. I would have expected a message I the edit page saying the deletion found not be undone. At any rate the result looks ok to me. Am I missing something? SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears you reinserted the washington post reference that is in dispute and was removed by Sagecandor [72]. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Take a quick look at sections 1.3 & 1.4, and tell me if you are also seeing double. Thanks! Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha, I missed that part of it as well. I was just looking at the one section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - note edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I think the New Yorker article you cited should be included in context to this section of the article, as well. I don't believe it negates the rest of the section, but it is certainly worthy of inclusion in some regard. See what you think we can add from it. Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, do you agree that WaPo is a mainstream RS? SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with version [73] by NeilN. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, that edit was solely done for uncontentious, maintenance purposes (i.e., I wasn't involving myself in content matters). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not every article published by a normally reliable source is always reliable. In this case, there was a backlash against the WaPo's article, with other reliable sources calling it "propaganda" and "McCarthyism." The WaPo issued a partial retraction, and the main source for their reporting has turned out to be a group of politically motivated amateurs that other reliable sources didn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Note that you're taking a very different attitude here than you took above regarding Goodin. There, you argued vociferously against a completely mainstream summary in a reliable source of reactions to the JAR. You raised a whole number of objections to using reporting by a writer for Ars Technica, a reliable source. But now, you seem to be arguing that if something was published by a reliable source, we should include it - even though we know that that report was a bunch of nonsense, and other reliable sources said so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Who called WaPo "propaganda" and "McCarthyism," exactly? Got a link? And stop calling the editorial note they added a "retraction," it's obviously no such thing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker published a piece called "The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda", which was about PropOrNot and the Washington Post's decision to publish it. The article ends,

"But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."

If they're not outright calling the Washington Post's article "propaganda," they're calling the central source the Washington Post relied on "propaganda," and thoroughly scolding the WaPo for publishing the piece.

The Intercept leveled the accusation of McCarthyism against PropOrNot (and arguably against the WaPo) - an accusation that the New Yorker quoted in its article. Here's what The Intercept had to say:

"The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist."

Rolling Stone ran a piece labeling the WaPo article an "astonishingly lazy report." The Rolling Stone article quoted Pullitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges as saying the WaPo piece is an "updated form of Red-Baiting."

That's the kind of source we're relying on here. Why would we rely on a WaPo article that's taken this amount of flak, based on such a discredited source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it correct to read you to say that you deny that WaPo is a mainstream RS? (btw we all know that not every RS report warrants article WEIGHT and we all know the non-notable UNDUE Goodin bit is a straw man here.) SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Read what I wrote directly above, and in my post above that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, this is a place where I agree with Thucydides411. They are not saying that The Washington Post isn't "normally" considered a RS. It is, but there is no source which is always reliable. In this case it was provably unreliable and they admitted it, which is how professional journalistic sources deal with their own mistakes. Fringe websites don't do that, which makes them unreliable sources pretty much all the time. This is not a black/white issue. There are nuances. Normally, unless proven otherwise, the correct default position is to treat it as a RS, but this is one time to not defend the WaPo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My impression based on this and other opinions of Thuc was that he was claiming WaPo is generally shoddy. Hence my inquiry. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The section relies almost exclusively on two sources: the discredited WaPo PropOrNot piece, and a couple pieces by Watts and Weisburg. I don't think the WaPo PropOrNot article should come into consideration, unless we want to mention the PropOrNot scandal itself. That means the section is essentially a recapitulation of some claims about trolling made by Watts and Weisburg. I have doubts about the reliability of War on the Rocks, or generally about "research" that comes out of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). MelanieN says we need a well-sourced section on the use of trolls. What if there aren't good sources on the alleged use of trolls? The FPRI-affiliated sources we're giving a lot of airtime right now are questionable at best. We don't normally write sections first, and then look for sources afterwards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Is there anything you could propose for this section that isn't sourced to FPRI or the WaPo PropOrNot article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to do the research; the folks at this discussion have done a lot. I said we need a well sourced section. If there is consensus here that these sources are not good enough, I do not contest that consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian Institute for Strategic Studies

The subsection labeled "Russian Institute for Strategic Studies" begins by attributing some claims to US intelligence officials, the but rest of the section is written in a way that sounds like those officials' claims are being stated in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. I added attribution and appropriate modifiers signifying that these claims are, at this point, unsubstantiated: diff.

SPECIFICO reverted my edit: diff. @SPECIFICO: Are you simply reverting every edit I make to the article? That's what it seems like at this point. Your edit summary doesn't make any sense: "Rv pov synth insinuation. Use talk." None of what I added could possibly be interpreted as WP:SYNTH, even if you disagree with my edit. Here's what SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I didn't insert any personal conclusions in my edit. I simply included the attribution that the Reuters article itself gives - to anonymous US intelligence officials. As for POV, I don't see how clear attribution of claims is a violation of WP:NPOV. In fact, clearly attributing claims is exactly what NPOV demands. Finally, my edit didn't "insinuate" anything. I noted the source of the claims. How is that an insinuation of anything, and if it is, what did I insinuate? I think you're just blindly reverting my edits at this point, and applying whatever random acronyms spring to mind. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC) :Actually, I was the one that originally reverted it, and for good reasons, as the sources were reliable and the content was relevant. I do, however, agree that we should not be using WP VOICE to represent the claims made, so, perhaps we should add some "according to" edits to help clarify this issue. As far as the NY article, perhaps even another sub-section that details and focus' on that point, if there is enough RS to support it. OOPS Darknipples (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: when you reverted JFG, you explained that "those officials are already mentioned." However, JFG's point is that the text appears to be in Wikipedia's voice, not in the voice of officials, even if it's true that they are mentioned. I think it's reasonable to assume that an ordinary reader would understand

"The propaganda efforts began in March 2016. The first set of recommendations, issued in June 2016, proposed that Russia must support a candidate for U.S. president more favorable to Russia than Obama had been via a social media campaign and through Russia-backed news outlets. The second report was written in October 2016 when a Clinton win appeared likely. It advocated messages about voter fraud in order to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system and a Clinton presidency."

to be statements in Wikipedia's voice, and not coming from U.S. officials mentioned at the outset of the previous paragraph.

Similarly, even the sentence

"The development of strategy was ordered by Putin and directed by former officers of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service

could easily be construed to be in Wikipedia's voice, whether intended or not. There's no reason to leave this ambiguous: we should just clearly attribute the statements. -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey's sworn testimony to the senate June 8th 2017

File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf

8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

https://www.scribd.com/document/350654136/James-Comey-Statement-to-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-June-8-2017

This might be helpful to shed some light on the subject. Particularly the sections regarding the FBI opening an investigation into collusion and obstruction and his sworn testimony that there was none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs)

thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Already in article. Casprings (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael R. Caputo

Michael R. Caputo

New article, might have sourced info you wish to use to add to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mueller's investigative/prosecution team

Robert Mueller, Special Counsel, is assembling a prosecution team. We need to cover this in this article. Here are the current members, and feel free to add more as we learn more: -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:Agreed, good idea, I was thinking the same thing. Do you think the redlinks could be articles? Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Weissman has an illustrious career, with a potentially huge bio. Rachel Maddow discussed him in depth last night. Quarles could also qualify. I don't know the others. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Team members

• Robert Mueller, Special Counsel
• Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General (recused)
• Andrew Weissmann, head of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit
• James Quarles (attorney), an assistant Watergate prosecutor
• Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s FBI chief of staff
• Jeannie Rhee, a former DOJ attorney
• Michael Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket

Sources

• The Man Investigating Donald Trump’s Russia Connections Is Assembling a Murderer’s Row of Prosecutors, GQ
• Everything we know about the Mueller probe so far, Politico Magazine
• Mueller Enlists Top Criminal Law Expert for Russia Probe, National Law Journal]]
• Legal dream team in white shirts and dark suits, CNN

References

Top law firms refusing to represent Trump

Top law firms are refusing to represent Trump in the Russia matter. There are four named reasons:

1. Trump won't listen to advice
2. He has a history of not paying his debts, including to his own lawyers
3. Representing Trump could damage the firm's reputation and cause them to have difficulty getting new recruits
4. Representing Trump could damage the firm's reputation with their existing clientelle

• Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump, Yahoo News, Michael Isikoff, June 6, 2017

BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Who cares? According to reports from May 24, he is represented by Marc Kasowitz. The story of why law firm so-and-so won't work with him is undue. — JFG ^talk 04:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't suggested how, when, or whether we should use this, but "undue" refers to "how" we actually use it. If a relatively minor thing is given too much weight, then that's undue. If it's not mentioned at all, then undue is not part of the equation, unless it should have been mentioned, in which case it is not getting the due attention it should, and it should then get some mention. Time will tell. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the scope of this article, and the fact he did obtain counsel, seems like trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Who he's working with is worth including. Who decided not to (for whatever reason) is not. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is an irrelevance.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. There could be more benign reasons to not want to get involved (maybe they're already at capacity). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any direct connection to the article here. What exactly does this have to do with Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections, and why is it relevant enough for inclusion? - Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The relevance to this article is because Trump is trying (unsuccessfully) to lawyer up for legal defense in relation to his purported role in this whole business. Therefore it's directly relevant. One can question the degree of relevance at this point in time, and I would agree that we might not want to include this now. Keep in mind I have not suggested we include this YET, but the relevance does exist. (As I often do, I use the talk page for one of its important functions, to provide sourcing and suggestions for possible content. Whether it gets used is another matter. I won't get offended if a consensus decides not to use it, but I would object to anyone finding fault with any editor's use of a talk page for this part of its intended purpose.

Muboshgu, the four points are not guesswork. They are the reasons given by the legal firms. "More benign reasons" would be OR guesswork. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Except the article makes clear it was not unsuccessful only that four refused before he found one that would represent him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't heard he found one qualified for this job. Who has he found? I was under the impression he was still stuck with the one he's had for many years, his personal attorney Marc Kasowitz, a lawyer wholly unqualified for this type of case. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No snark, please. The discussion here is whether to include the report that he's having trouble finding a "top law firm". Consensus seems to be not to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No snark intended. Simply facts as stated in RS. I'm not pressing for inclusion. Good to have discussion. That's the purpose here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony about news article

Footnote 227 is a news article titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence". However, former FBI Director Comey testified under oath today that this news article was almost entirely wrong, so we shouldn't continue to leave the impression that this news article's accuracy has not been seriously challenged. See, for example:

“ Easley, Jonathan. "Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories", The Hill (June 8, 2017): "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence'.... Cotton asked Comey if that story was 'almost entirely wrong,' and Comey said that it was." ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is probably worthy of inclusion as long as it is properly attributed, however, it doesn't necessarily negate inclusion of said "entirely wrong" report. Comey's opinion certainly is notable here, but opinions should be noted as such. Darknipples (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

From NYT as referenced from the link in your citation from TheHill.com [74]; "Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid." Darknipples (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference

Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference.Casprings (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Another POV fork? You could at least try to give the article a non-POV-sounding name. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there is enough content available for an article and his Interference into the investigations is both historic and WP:N.Casprings (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There's not enough material for a separate article. It should be a part of a general article on the FBI investigation. All these POV forks with absurdly POV names are making a mockery of Wikipedia. Can you imagine if Republicans made corresponding articles on Wikipedia with names like "Hillary Clinton's destruction of emails relevant to an FBI investigation"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You have the former director of the FBI under oath saying that POTUS asked him to lay off a target of an FBI investigation. In regards to historical significance, this is apples and nuclear bombs.Casprings (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They're only apples and oranges if you come at it from a particular political angle. If you're trying to write a neutral encyclopedia, you don't write a separate article about each week's development in some political affair, and you don't give articles ridiculous titles like "Bill Clinton's inappropriate meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch while she was investigating his wife." -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Thucydides on everything except that the name sounds like POV pushing. I think it's an unencyclopedic name, but the attribution to Trump doesn't really strike me as POVish because there's no question whether or not Trump is the one accused of interfering. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Here are my thoughts from the deletion discussion. Delete AND Merge ALL the content into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Donald Trump because it is about Donald Trump's alleged cover-up/ reactions to investigations of the accusations of collusion by him and his campaign members.

  It's important to parse this matter properly. This does not relate to whether Trump and Co. actually colluded with Russia. It relates to whether Trump and Co. are impeding the investigation. That is a solid fact. He has done (1) nothing to help the investigation, and (2) everything to deny and impede it, and those two aspects can be documented with myriad RS.

  There can be no doubt that this is a very notable subject. It is currently an alleged cover-up. Some see very strong evidence for a cover-up, and others are doubtful if that term is proper, but there is plenty of interference occurring.

  As that section grows, it can be split off into a sub-article with an appropriate title. The current title is too strong and inflammatory, but that will likely change fairly soon. When that happens, the title can be changed. Right now I'd suggest Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Donald Trump's reactions to investigations of his alleged role in Russian interference.

  It may also be appropriate to merge the content to here: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#White House attempts to influence the investigation

  BTW, "POV title" is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to tweak the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lede intro and addition of POV template

Disagree with these changes by The_Diaz:

Lede changes [75]

POV template [76].

Lede changes are wrong as not supported by the sources.

POV template is not explained on this talk page.

Both edits need to be undone. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK DHeyward, you want to discuss NPOV. Kindly proceed.- MrX 20:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

His reason is WP:WIKIHOUNDING, per comments by admin at the now Speedy-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Sagecandor (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Note my comment in the subsection "Template". That explains the POV template since that RfC is about the neutrality of the lead section. Think before you speak. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 22:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As there is an ongoing RFC, there is already great attention from editors to this page and this topic. There is no need for the "POV" template for the entire length of time of the RFC. Sagecandor (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the RfC even still active? It looked to me as if the formal RfC petered out more than a month ago, and the later informal survey on the lede hasn't been edited for the past week. (P.S. I agree that the change to the lede by The Diaz was all wrong and was not even close to anything discussed here.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Insertion of the word "indirectly" into the changes of the lead by this editor is cause for concern, because, in reviewing the WaPo material I found that this is neither stated nor implied from within the text of the cited source. If it was not accidental, it is likely to be construed as WP:SYNTH. Darknipples (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is WP:SYNTH and both the lede should go back to previously stable version, and the {{POV}} template should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

POV template

@The Diaz: You have inserted a POV template into this article. Please explain what you find to be non-neutral and what changes you think need to be made. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Although you do good work MelanieN, this article is as biased as possible and unless wikipedia en changes and actually follows its WP:NPOV policy and guidelines, sadly nothing will change that. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifics ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No kidding. Govindaharihari perhaps you can provide evidence to support your sweeping claims. It seems like you are confusing NPOV with your own personal POV.- MrX 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict, yet again - comment, "Please explain what you find to be non-neutral and what changes you think need to be made". is , what's the word, asymptotic come to mind. @Sagecandor: the bias is so excessive as to be beyond neutral hope, in such a case a template stating such on the article can and should remain indefinitely. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Good honest neutral comment, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments betray your POV, suggesting the ugly "POV" template stay on this page until the heat death of the universe. That is ludicrous. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

My pov on this topic is WP:NPOV AND wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - I don't have a position on the subject, I see lots of not neutral reporting on this subject, that is all I am commenting on. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples? Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples, lol, the whole article top to bottom is written in violation of all of wiki policy and guidelines - the whole page is an example of biased non neutral reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is based on Reliable Sources. That is policy. Since you keep talking in generalities and won't give any specific examples, or any suggestions for how to fix the problem you claim to see, your commentary here is unhelpful and likely to be ignored. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: it's not correct that this article is simply "based on Reliable Sources." As I've pointed out numerous times, plenty of sources treat interference as an allegation or possibility, not a fact, and the lead text does not convey this. I've pinged you numerous times to get your input on this topic and you've ignored each ping while still editing here at talk, and on the page.

I agree with Govindaharihari and The Diaz that this section is written in a non-neutral manner and think we should keep the tag until these issues are addressed. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OIC. That's a LITTLE more specific than Govinda's generalities. So you feel that the interference should be referred to as "alleged" rather than a fact? And that's the issue you think justifies the POV tag? Just trying to get straight what people are saying here. And yes, I think I may have ignored several pings on the subject - frankly regarding it as a DEADHORSE. But let's at least get clear what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and now I see you have re-opened the subject yet again, just below. So I guess the answer to my question is, yes, this is the issue you feel justifies the POV tag. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm not challenging anything myself. I'm just noting the RfC (and this section now) about the lead and how it is supposedly non-neutral. I feel that the template should be removed when the RfC is closed. Which I'm about to request. do seeing that I'm technically uninvolved and that any editor can do so. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Any editor that feels the lead is POV must be able to point out each specific sentence they claim is POV, along with their citations, explain why it's POV, and we can go from there. Speaking in generalities will get us nowhere. Just saying something is POV without giving evidence is a waste of time for everyone here. Darknipples (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

SEE WP:SUBPOV

• "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism, and Criticism of the Bible, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors." - Darknipples (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with lede changes

Disagree with these lede changes [77].

Much has happened since the old RFC.

We should keep the lede, as it was, due to all the developments since then.

Looks like lots of sourced material was removed in the edit: [78].

Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The lede is in line with the proposal at the RfC. If we think it needs tweaking we can do that. It looks to me as if the latest developments are included. The main problem I see is one of style: too long and too many citations for a lede section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Seven paragraphs ??????????? Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to work on that: are there details that could be omitted? Are there paragraphs that could be combined? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's now five paragraphs - just by dint of combining similar subjects together and eliminating duplication. That's still one paragraph longer than guidelines so we can continue to work on it. As for eliminating details: IMO there is way too much specificity of exactly who said what and when. That is all in the article. The lede should summarize. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: @MelanieN: I simply judged what the community consensus was and it appeared to favor the proposed lead section. Unfortunately neither of you participated in the survey so I couldn't take your objections into mind when determining consensus. Time to drop the stick. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing your close, or the version you put into the article. Its overall thrust is fine. There are some tweaks that can be made, hopefully without needing another whole RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC, Reuters, and French, German and Spanish wikis still appropriately treat interference as an allegation, not fact

Editors taking turns looking at the text of Reuters and BBC articles describing "allegations of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election."[1]

I earlier pointed out that the BBC and Reuters have consistently treated the possibility of Russian interference in the US election as just that - a possibility or allegation - and not as a fact [79]. Our insistence on ignoring these sources has caused many editors to complain, since the neutral titles adopted by other language wikis are able to summarize the topic without leading a reader to any particular conclusion:

• French: Accusations of Russian interference in the American presidential election of 2016 [80]

• Spanish: Accusations of Russian interference in the presidential elections of the United States in 2016 [81]

• German: Hacking Affair between Russia and the USA in 2016 [82]

The BBC and Reuters are still maintaining the policy they've always had, treating this as an allegation:

• June 7 [83]: "...House of Representatives probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election..."

• June 8 [84]: "...Committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election..."

• June 4 [85]: "...amid allegations of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election..."

• June 8 [86]: "...agency's investigation of possible collusion by Trump's campaign with Russia's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election..."

• June 7 [87]: "...Clapper testifies about potential Russian interference in the presidential election..."

• June 9 [88]: "...the investigation into possible Russian interference in the US election..."

• 8 June [89]: "...Senate Intelligence Committee on alleged Russian interference in the US election..."

• June 7 [90]: "...the FBI is investigating Russia's alleged interference in the US election..."

Plain and simply put, when these major world news sources describe this topic with a few words, they write "alleged interference" or "possible interference," not "interference," unless paraphrasing American officials. We can pretend the earth doesn't rotate around the sun all we want, Eppur si muove. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please outline the objective search methodology that you used to identify these sources, and only these sources, out of thousands of others. Or shall we assume that you cherry picked them again?- MrX 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: they weren't cherry-picked last time. I provided a link to my last post: please provide a diff demonstrating cherry-picking last time if one exists. If not, please AGF and strike your comment. Admittedly, last time I was far more careful to look over every article written over a period of months; this time I spent less time, but since the results were the same, I didn't delve further. I invite you to look more carefully if you wish.

Methodologically, this time I went to bbc.com and searched for "Russian interference," filtering so as to only look at "news" results [91]. I looked at articles from the last week. For reuters I more or less did the same thing, except I searched through google. Last time I searched only through reuters and the bbc internally, and I not only searched for "Russian interference," but also "Russian hacking." Also, last time I noted when I found 1-2 articles that didn't write "possible" or "alleged" in the BBC's / Reuter's voice, and provided links to those. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. MrX I listen to BBC news every day, which is why I was aware of this phenomenon. When I did my careful survey previously [92], I pointed out that they appear to maintain this editorial policy across all media platforms and programs. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So you didn't cherry pick the articles, you cherry picked the news agencies. You selected two out of hundreds of others news publishers, and they coincidentally support the your view that the Russian interference is nothing more than an allegation. I'm sorry, but that does not qualify as objective methodology.- MrX 19:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Washington Post and New York Times write about this as a fact, not possibility or simply allegation. Do you acknowledge that the BBC and Reuters do not simply treat interference as a fact, but as a possibility and allegation? -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

We're been over this before. Most news agencies treat the interference as an accepted fact, even if you disqualify the the Washington Post and New York Times. We have to look at a broad range of reputable sources, not an exceedingly narrow range.- MrX 19:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see some confusion in this discussion.

Members of the news media do not typically use the terms "fact" and "allegation" in the ordinary sense in which they are being used on this talk page.

Whether such and such a thing is true or not makes that thing a fact or not. If it is true, it is a fact. If it is not true, it is not a fact, at least in the context of the way a member of the news media would typically look at this.

An allegation, in this particular context, means an "assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence". The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 94, Houghton Mifflin Company (Second Coll. Ed. 1985).

To allege something means "to assert without proof or before proving ". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 30, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976) (bolding added).

If something has been "alleged," that something has been "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved ". The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 94, Houghton Mifflin Company (Second Coll. Ed. 1985).

In short, if I say "Bill killed Joe", that is an allegation -- regardless of whether the statement true or false. If in fact Bill did kill Joe, my statement "Bill killed Joe" is still an allegation, since I have not provided any proof at the time I made my statement.

If in fact Bill did kill Joe, and even if in fact I actually have the proof in my possession, my statement that "Bill killed Joe is still an allegation -- because -- again-- I have not yet provided the proof at the time I made the statement.

The fact that a statement is true, and even the fact that I have proof in my possession that the statement is true, does not make a statement "not be" an allegation.

An allegation is a statement that is provided without providing proof that the statement is true. Members of the news media (of which I am one) typically use the term "alleged" in this way. Famspear (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I should have said "Members of the news media (of which I am formerly one)...." Famspear (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Famspear: That is all true. We can (like the German, French and Spanish wikis, and the BBC, and Reuters) describe the interference as alleged, while simultaneously leaving open the possibility that the interference really did happen. However, the phrases "potential interference," "possible interference," "possible hacking," etc. by the BBC and Reuters indicate that they treat this both as an allegation and a possibility. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Another point: Not everyone in the media uses the term "alleged" consistently. Various media sources may well treat a given statement as reflecting an "accepted" fact -- essentially, as having been "proved," so that there is thought to be very little risk to the writer's credibility by (and very little risk of legal liability for) omitting the word "allegedly." I cannot speak for all members or former members of the media. Certainly, many statements found in the media are treated by members of the media as accepted or as proved, even though those statements may technically be allegations in the denotative sense that I have explained above (that is, where the writer is offering no proof at the time the statement is made). Famspear (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

To add to your comments (I have also worked as a reporter in the past): Media sources almost never use the word "fact", but they also avoid "alleged" unless they think there are legal ramifications. What they do is state something and attribute it to a source. For a named source: "Lorem ipsum dolor," according to chief engineer Firstname Lastname. For an unnamed source: "Lorem ipsum dolor," according to several senior White House officials. The headline will simply be "Lorem ipsum dolor" without the attributions. And that is exactly what Wikipedia is doing here: in virtually every sentence of the article, we specify who says so. And the article title summarizes the content while omitting the attributions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: In discussions here, we've reviewed title possibilities that resemble those used by the German, French and Spanish wikis, and which summarize the allegations without implying their veracity or otherwise. All those wikis aptly summarize the subject while avoiding a POVTITLE. Here, a majority - never a large one - insisted on the present title while arguing in effect that Reuters and the BBC are wrong, and that interference is a fact, full stop. That is, the title at present is meant to convey that interference is a fact, not a possibility. There has always been a lot of opposition to this title and I bring up Reuters and the BBC to highlight that, however likely we may think interference is, two of the largest world news outlets insist on treating interference as an allegation and possibility, not a fact. We can do the same, while being careful to also assiduously source all statements in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is not what "we" think. The point is how Reliable Sources are handling the subject. Most of them are not saying "alleged". A few are. We go with the weight of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What we have here is statements by multiple parties (the intelligence agencies) that say they are in possession of convincing evidence, which they can't share publicly for national security reasons. That line of reasoning makes sense. Does that mean we have to forever regard them as liars, or at least potential liars, since they cannot show their evidence to the world? In my opinion the reliable sources here are the intelligence agencies themselves. They do have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", and they have a valid reason for not showing us the evidence they find so convincing. Most media sources (which also have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) have accepted their affirmation as sufficient to describe this interference as a fact. Some (BBC and Reuters) have not. I continue to think we should go with the majority of Reliable Sources and call it "interference" in Wikipedia's voice. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN where is the Wikipedia policy that treats American intelligence agencies as reliable sources? Does that policy extend to Russian and Iranian intelligence sources? As far as I know, newspapers, academic journals and books, and so forth are our guide, not intelligence agencies. In any event this is an international, and not an American governmental encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Melanie: The fallacy in your reasoning is that you seem to think that by using the word "alleged", we are "regarding them as liars." That is incorrect.

Even in the case of a reliable source that has a reputation for fact checking, Wikipedia itself cannot take a position as to who is "right" and who is "wrong". One reliable source may say "X is true" and another reliable source may say "X is false." The job of Wikipedia is to present both sides without Wikipedia itself taking a position.

As you seem to suggest, a possible solution is to have the article state something like "source X asserts A is true" and "source Y asserts A is false" (without using the word "alleged"). Famspear (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Famspear: it is true that the term used by Reuters and the BBC conveys uncertainty, perhaps appropriately, but is also perfectly consistent with interference having actually occurred. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And in fact that is exactly what our article does. From the very first sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe I misunderstood you. We say, from the very first sentence, "who says so" about Russian interference. Are you saying we need to put a denial in the lede also? Denial from who - Putin? Is he a reliable source? I don't think any reliable source has asserted that this is untrue. Which is why our article takes the approach it does. The job of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say. We don't have to "present both sides" with equal weight when one side is overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources and the other is a non-reliable, self-serving claim from one person. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This horse has been beaten so many times it is fossilized. We have exhaustively discussed this before, and the current title is fine. Neutrality^talk 22:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

At this point we don't seem to be talking about the title (at least I hope not; as you say, that issue is settled). We are talking about whether the article itself is POV, as it is currently tagged. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have pointed out elsewhere, I believe this article may fall into the WP:SUBPOV category. Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how other Wikis choose to phrase things. They aren't usable as sources for a reason, and in my own experience I've seen some of them used for overt propaganda (as a general rule, the smaller the Wiki, the easier to subvert). So as I see it that argument goes nowhere. Reuters and the BBC are reliable and therefore a different matter but as has been pointed out they are only some of the reliable sources available and it hasn't been convincingly demonstrated that the examples given weren't cherry picked. What I think is important here is that we have been discussing this for months now. While it appears increasingly likely that Russia was behind the election interference, the number of editors participating in this debate looks to be dwindling due to WP:EXHAUSTION and so even if Darouet's suggestion here were to cease being opposed, I would still reject it as being against consensus because most everyone isn't bothering to reply to it anymore. There reaches a point where it's clear that an argument isn't getting traction. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I agree with plenty of what you say, and would not propose to implement some momentary consensus favoring the caution of Reuters and the BBC without involvement by editors who've been very active here and supported the current title. -Darouet (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This article ignores two of the pillars of Wikipedia: verifiability and neutrality. TFD (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been asserted several times above that most reliable sources treat Russian interference as a proven fact, and that BBC and Reuters are in the minority. I've been following the discussion on this talk page for months, and I've never seen anyone make a convincing argument for that assertion. The editors who think that it's the case should either show that it is, or stop making the claim.

The fullest discussion I've found of this issue in the talk page archives is here. What I think that discussion shows is that in addition to BBC and Reuters, the Associated Press (one of the largest wire services), Le Monde (the French newspaper of record) and Süddeutsche Zeitung (the German newspaper of record) regularly treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or possibility, but not as a proven fact. There were several other news agencies (NBC, CNBC, Financial Times, Chicago Tribune) that were quoted in that thread calling "Russian interference" an allegation (or something equivalent). Once we have all these major news outlets treating Russian interference as an unproven allegation, we have to have a really good reason to overrule them and decide to present it as a proven fact.

@MelanieN: I can't express strongly enough how fundamentally I disagree with you about intelligence agencies being reliable sources. No intelligence agency, whether the FSB, CIA, Mukhbarat, FBI, Mossad, MOIS, or the ISI is a WP:RS. If you want to argue that a particular nation's intelligence agencies are reliable sources, take it straight to Jimbo, because that would be a fundamental turnaround in how Wikipedia operates. In my opinion, it would destroy Wikipedia's credibility. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Trump was furious"

User:Anythingyouwant added the following sentence to the lede: Trump was furious that Comey would not publicly say (until after being fired) that Trump was not under investigation.[27] It's now the second sentence in the last paragraph of the lede. I think it should be removed - maybe added to the "Comey dismissal" section, which currently doesn't mention it, but not in the lede. 1) Of the various reasons given for dismissing Comey, this one was way down the list (as far as the importance given to it by sources or the players involved), so it's kind of trivial for the lede. 2) Also, it interrupts the important link between "Comey was fired" and the evidence that the Russian investigation was the reason. (This article is about the Russian investigation after all.) 3) And of course, when we have new information we want to add, we are supposed to add it to the article, not the lede. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this doesn't belong in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, User:MelanieN. You seem to be suggesting that we keep in the lead an accusation by multiple FBI insiders that the firing was meant to stop the whole Russia investigation, whereas you want to delete that Trump was "furious" about a specific aspect of that investigation: that Trump had not been publicly cleared. This would make for an extremely slanted presentation on our part. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like the "FBI insiders" claim either. (Is it in the article? If not it doesn't belong in the lede.) I would prefer to cite Trump: that many people have interpreted Trump's subsequent statements as saying that the Russia investigation was at least part of his reason for the dismissal. (Details in the article.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @MelanieN: and @Neutrality:. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY @Anythingyouwant: - Darknipples (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

(ed) Checking: the "FBI insiders" claim is not in the article, so it should be removed from the lede. The article does describe, in detail, the comments by Trump that connected the firing to the Russia investigation. That should be added to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that Anythingyouwant has now removed both things from the lede: the "furious" sentence and the "FBI insiders" sentence. Now we need to talk about whether to add to the lede the fact that Trump himself has hinted that the firing was related to the Russia investigation. (BTW if you want to put the "Trump was furious" sentence into the Comey firing section (without taking away from Trump's own comments about the connection), I don't think anyone will object.) I see you already did. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have added that.[93]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And you added Trump's own explanation to the lede, as suggested. I have modified it slightly, hope you don't mind. If we are going by what Trump himself said in connection with the firing, it was the investigation itself ("that's gone away taken off"), not his reported anger about the stories suggesting a connection to him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump said: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." We can quote that explicitly in the lead if you prefer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you reverted so I guess you minded. 0;-D No, I don't want any direct quotes in the lede. But to me both of his comments (particularly where he said to the Russians, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. ... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." but also the one you quote, when he said he was thinking about "this made up story" in connection with firing Comey - I think he was talking about the investigation itself, that the allegation itself was a "made-up story"; he wasn't talking about the newspaper stories.) What do others think? For comparison: Anything's sentence, currently in the article, is Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27] My modification was Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction with the investigation into Russian interference in the election.[29][27] A small difference. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump being Trump, neither of those two quotes is crystal clear, and different people have interpreted them in different ways. The folks at National Review (Andy McCarthy, Rich Lowry) interpret it to mean that Trump fired Comey to stop the stories and leaks and insinuations that Trump was being investigated for collusion. Other people interpret those quotes differently. But there are further quotes where Trump has made very clear that he wants the investigation to go on, even if it finds wrongdoing by his "satellites". Would you like me to make a list? He was not dissatisfied with the investigation as a whole, only with the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over his head given that Comey refused to say he wasn't being investigated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's just look at the source material provided, and try to shed light some light on what the sources actually say, shall we?

• (current version) Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27]

1.[29] May 9: Trump fires Comey. The original explanation is that it was due to how Comey handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation — and was based on the recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- May 10: In an Oval Office meeting, Trump spoke with Russian officials about Comey. "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," he told them, according to The New York Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." -- May 11: In interview with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump said he planned on firing Comey regardless of what Rosenstein recommended. And he suggested the Russia investigation was a reason behind the dismissal. "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story."

2.[27] James Comey, the former FBI director, said he told President Donald Trump on three occasions that he wasn't the subject of a counterintelligence investigation, but Trump was upset that Comey would not say so publicly, according to Comey's prepared written testimony -- Comey also said the main reason he did not publicly announce that Trump was not part of the bureau's Russia probe was that "it would create a duty to correct, should that change." -- Comey wrote in the testimony. "He (Trump) said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. -- Trump seemed agitated that Comey did not publicly confirm he was not under investigation, according to the testimony. "He repeatedly told me, 'We need to get that fact out,'" Comey said. "I did not tell the president that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change."

• I think we should include that Trump originally claimed he fired Comey over the way he handled Clinton's emails, but later recanted, by saying he fired Comey because Comey would not say publicly that Trump was not under investigation, as the sources clearly state. Darknipples (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We do say that at the article Dismissal of James Comey. In contrast, Comey's handling of Clinton's emails is not really within the scope of this article, much less the lead of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this is not "within the scope of this article". If that is the case, it should just be omitted altogether, or, redirect to the Dismissal of James Comey article. Darknipples (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey's handling of Clinton's emails is very tenuously related to Russian interference in the election. Trump gave a whole bunch of reasons for firing Comey, including the reasons described in Rosenstein's detailed memo to Trump, and many more, such as Coney purportedly being a "grandstander". If we put Clinton into this lead then why not put in gtandstander too? Because we should stick to the Russia stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I guess can capitulate to your point as far as Clinton's email's, but something should be included from source [27] regarding Comey's testimony that he (Comey) refused to state publicly that Trump was not under investigation, and why (see 2. above). Here is my suggested edit...

• Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction that Comey had not yet made any public statements that Trump was not under investigation.

...Or something to that effect, as not to omit such a central detail of the source material. - Darknipples (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Trump never said that. The notion that "Trump was furious at Comey for not saying publicly..." was offered as a reason for the firing by anonymous third parties, not by Trump. Trump himself seemed to talk only about the investigation - and his relief that the pressure was off. Insofar as you can ever tell what Trump is talking about. (Some people claim that Trump "admitted" he did it because of the investigation, but that is reading far more into his comments than he actually said. At most he hinted at it.) And let's take reference 27 out of the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Ah, I see the problem, it is a simple mis-attribution on my part. Comey is the one that "indicated" this according to the source, so it is in no way an "anonymous third party" as you put it. Let me re-phrase.

• Comey indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his refusal to make any public statements that Trump was not under investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs)

Comey also says he "takes the president at his word" that he was fired because of the investigation. I think we should not put in the lede what Comey (or anyone other than Trump) thought was the reason. The Comey thinking can go into the article but not the lede IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Darknipples (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I decided to go with. [94] Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, on May 8, Trump tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?" The next day he wrote to Comey, "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” And, Comey's testimony included this: "In one conversation, Trump suggested that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I think MelanieN is right. If you would like to add these quotes, start in the appropriate section, i.e. here -->[95]. Darknipples (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't suggest putting any of them anywhere in the article. Feel free to do so if you wish. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, looks like we are all in agreement on that question. We got kind of far afield from my question about the small difference between Anything's version of the Trump sentence and mine. Anything's sentence, currently in the article, is Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to dissatisfaction with the story about himself and Russian interference in the election.[29][27] My modification was Trump indicated that the dismissal was connected at least in part to his dissatisfaction with the investigation into Russian interference in the election.[29][27] A small difference, basically whether he fired him because of the investigation itself, or because of the stories. Any thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You overlook and seek to delete the word "himself". That word suggests that perhaps he was firing Comey not merely because of the Russian interference or because of stories about the Russia interference, but because of stories linking him to the Russian interference. My paraphrase more closely follows what Trump actually said, whereas the other paraphrase is completely inconsistent not just with what Trump said to Lester Holt but also with what Trump said to Comey about "satellite" associates. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess you're emphasizing what he said to Holt, or what Comey said he said, while I'm emphasizing what he said to the Russians. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I think both are still somewhat disingenuous. We should try to be as comprehensive as possible to maintain WP:NPOV. Trump has his version(s), Comey has his, and so on, and so forth. I am not used to working on articles this size, and, this contemporaneous. If we look at the body to decide where the emphasis should lie, we should do a basic summation of the entire section 2017 developments, instead of just a blurb about Comey's dismissal. Either that, or "table" the entire addition by Anythingyouwant for the time being. Darknipples (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Before I edited the lead, it said: "On May 9, 2017, in a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the Russian investigation by the FBI...." That is POV-pushing. It contradicts secondary sources as well as primary sources, and is unfaithful to the cited source. Removal of the POV-pushing is my primary concern. As for what Trump said to Lavrov and Kislyak, wasn't it merely that the pressure would abate? And wouldn't the pressure abate if it became publicly known that Comey had said Trump was not under investigation? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Sometimes a mere attribution can help alleviate POV in that kind of situation. The problem is we shouldn't be so focused on the lead, as we are now. However, when I made that suggestion to you, you acted as though it made no difference, and basically suggested I do it for you. My point is, if you care so much about the lead in this article, maybe put some work into the body? Darknipples (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I inserted an attribution to FBI insiders, along with balancing information, and was told that we should instead focus on what Trump said. And then when I focused on what Trump said, there were objections to that. So I am kind of tired of taking the lead here and getting shot down every time. I am simply saying that I strongly oppose the lead stuff that was there prior to my edits, whether it's got inline attribution or not, because it is not neutral. It's also perfectly acceptable AFAIK to make the lead how we think it ought to be and then conform the article body. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is not a policy or guideline, and is not unequivocal either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It comes from Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and has more to do with the spirit of WP policy and guidelines, rather than the letter of them. So, you can absolutely dismiss it, along with the advice and opinions of other editors here, like myself. That's just not what I would recommend, since, as you put it, tends to put (you) at odds with Wikipedia:Consensus. Good luck with that. Darknipples (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, I really have no idea what the consensus is here, or what you are proposing the lead should say or what you are proposing the article body should say. I also don't see why we can't discuss the lead and the article body at the same time, but if you want to focus exclusively on the article body then that's fine with me. What are you proposing the article body should say about Trump's reasons for firing Comey? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what you've been trying to include, along with their respective RS. The Trump quotes would obviously go in the Donald Trump section... That Trump was "furious" about a specific aspect of that investigation: that Trump had not been publicly cleared, would obviously (possibly?) go under the Dismissal of FBI director James Comey section. I'm sure it will eventually help create a less POV lead for you. Darknipples (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the material that apparently you think ought to go into the article:

• On May 8, Trump tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?" <ref>Murray, Mark. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/amp/james-comey-donald-trump-russia-investigation-timeline-events-n769496 "James Comey, Donald Trump and the Russia Investigation: A Timeline of Events"], [[NBC News]] (June 7, 2017).</ref>
• The next day he wrote to Comey, "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation." <ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html |title=Inside Trump's anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey |last=Rucker |first=Philip |work=[[The Washington Post]] |last2=Parker |first2=Ashley |last3=Horwitz |first3=Sari |last4=Costa |first4=Robert |author-link2=Ashley Parker |author-link3=Sari Horwitz |author-link4=Robert Costa (journalist)}}</ref>
• Comey's testimony included this: "In one conversation, Trump suggested that if there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out." <ref>Bartash, Jeffry. [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/comeys-juicy-trump-account-leaves-some-big-questions-unanswered-2017-06-07 "Comey’s juicy Trump account leaves some big questions unanswered"], [[Marketwatch]] (June 8, 2017).</ref>
• Trump was furious that Comey would not publicly say (until after being fired) that Trump was not under investigation. <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/comey-told-trump-he-wasnt-under-investigation-2017-6|title=Comey told Trump 3 times that he wasn't under investigation, but his refusal to publicly say so infuriated Trump|last=Smith|first=Allan|date=June 7, 2017|work=Business Insider|accessdate=10 June 2017}}</ref>
• The dismissal was seen by multiple FBI insiders as an attempt to curtail their Russian investigation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation-refuse-end-fbi-insiders-director-hillary-a7729691.html|title=Donald Trump fired James Comey because 'he refused to end Russia investigation', say multiple FBI insiders|last=Roberts|first=Rachel|date=May 11, 2017|work=[[The Independent]]|accessdate=May 11, 2017}}</ref>

Please feel free to insert into the article wherever you think is most appropriate. Is that okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's call it a good start. Darknipples (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)