Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Conspiracy theory 2

Violations of WP:Forum and WP:Advocacy of conspiracy theories.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey folks, I don't know if you're aware of this, but this russiagate thing is a conspiracy theory that's based “on grounds now resolutely proven by Mueller to have been extraordinarily flimsy.” Update needed! http://fortune.com/2019/03/28/trump-2020-russia-no-collusion/ , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187 , https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/russiagate-donald-trump-mueller-report , https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million etc... --Kitsum (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) No. It's not.- MrX 🖋 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) That's exactly what the article already says. Although a bit of balance in the lead section wouldn't hurt: just like 2012 Benghazi attack says "Despite persistent accusations against President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations — six by Republican-controlled congressional committees — did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.", this article should state that Trump faced persistent accusations of collusion. But nothing more than that; partisan screeds do not belong on Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Well said. I feel the Mueller report would help shed more light on this subject, but currently it is being interpreted rather than released. DN (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) I don’t yet see any article that lists times when Trump was “falsely accused” of collusion. If he had been falsely accused, one might expect we’d have seen such an article by now, right? I mean, his supporters would’ve pounced on it. Does that suggest he wasn’t actually falsely accused, but rather the press reported on evidence that had come to light? The Trump Tower meeting, Kushner setting up a backchannel, the Seychelles meeting, the NRA contacts, the polling data Manafort gave Kilimnik, Trump Tower Moscow, Flynn’s coziness with Russians, Trump asking Russians to hack HRC and they tried that day, the escapades of Roger Stone, and more — none of that was made up. But remember the Benghazi stand–down order? That was made up and repeated over 100 times on Fox News. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Michael Flynn, deep state target, former Defense Intelligence Agency, knew too much about improper activities and had to be silenced. Trump Tower meeting, an obvious set up (Natalia Veselnitskaya was on Fusion GPS's payroll). Criminal referrals for between one and two dozen individuals related to the fraudulent Russia counterintelligence investigation expected to be issued next week. Sit back and have plenty of popcorn.Phmoreno (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, again, you present no reliable sources, only conspiracy theories. There is no such thing as a "deep state". Flynn's "improper activities" involved lobbying foreign governments without registering with the U.S. government and lying to the FBI. Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS. Devin Nunes can make all the grandstanding criminal referrals he wants, that doesn't mean he has any evidence of crimes. I do have my popcorn ready to go though, but for when the House Judiciary Committee gets ahold of the Mueller Report. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Insurance policy", "Media leak strategy" (13 pages of leaks), FISA abuse (Opinion of the FISC Court), Bruce Ohr testimony, Nellie Ohr testimony, James Baker testimony, Inspector General Horowitz report due soon. Far more evidence of a conspiracy against Trump than there was of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. (Lisa Page, James Clapper and others testified that there was "no evidence".)Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, but still, you present no evidence of any conspiracy, just buzzwords and names of scapegoats. Lisa Page and James Clapper never said there was "no evidence" of Trump campaign collusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Lisa PagePhmoreno (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC) James Clapper NBC NewsPhmoreno (talk) James Clapper CNN interview last weekPhmoreno (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno, the Lisa Page thing from The Hill is an OPINION PIECE written by John F. Solomon, who is not a reliable source at all. But anyway, that cite and the Fox News one only said the FBI didn't have evidence to support collusion BEFORE the Mueller probe. It says nothing about what Mueller found. Clapper's MTP interview has been mischaracterized. I didn't watch what he said on CNN. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Muboshgu,John Solomon is the most reliable source on the conspiracy, which is why people like you try to discredit him. Mueller had no evidence either.Phmoreno (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Phmoreno...sad. DN (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC) WP:Forum and WP:Advocacy of conspiracy theories. I see ZERO constructive editing on this subject based on RS from this editor. Nothing but repetition of Bongino's conspiracy theories. Time for a topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Sources

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

"The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) focused on the culture of Muslims, Christians, Texas, and even LGBTQ,"

should be changed to

"The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) focused on the culture of Muslims, Christians, Texas, and even LGBTQ people,"

LGBTQ is an adjective. "Culture of... LGBTQ" makes no sense, but "Culture of... LGBTQ people" makes sense.

Thank you, 108.245.173.217 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 02:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I took out the word "even". I don't see what purpose that was serving. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias

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

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

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

etc etc...

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

References

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

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

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

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

Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)

Those of you interested in this article, please keep an eye on Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). AG Barr's statements today have caused a ruckus over there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Spygate

Please be aware of this RfC: Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#"False conspiracy theory" in lead – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

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

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

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

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

Final paragraph of lead

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

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

Subjects not covered by Mueller Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of Mueller Report

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE

Re [1]. This WP:SYNTH two clauses by making it seem like when Trump said "I'm fucked" and "this is the end of my Presidency" he was referring to being unable to get anything done. But this is original research and probably false (the "I'm fucked" kind of signifies this). The two statements - "I'm fucked" etc and not being to get anything done where made in two separate statements to Sessions. Putting them together, even with the ellipses in there is classic WP:SYNTH where sourced material is put together to suggest a conclusion not found in the sources.

Additionally, the whole second part isn't really being reported on, especially not as much as the "I'm fucked" part. It's also off topic. As a result it means it's WP:UNDUE here and I would appreciate it very much if User:Thucydides411, who's been both warned and topic banned from this article for exactly this kind of behavior, refrained from edit warring and tried to get consensus on the talk page.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Trump then turned his anger toward Sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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