Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Requested move 4 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, pretty much for the same reasons as last time. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 18:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia – The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the RfC is malformated as the issue is not presented in a neutral manner. You want to have your say - that's what your "support" below is for. The RfC itself should be strictly factual. Please strike and reword.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Adding "alleged" does not deny the accuracy of the one-time claims by the CIA, it simply acknowledges this is an allegation and there is not a consensus concurrence in the same way there is with things like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - Again, is more in line with the tone of the article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This has been discussed and rejected many times over, most recently less than a month ago here. All editors who participated in that discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support The RS cited in the article present a fairly even opinion that may not be accurately represented by the article's current title. LavaBaron (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - per BlueSalix. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Weak Support - Situation seems to have evolved since last move discussion and may support a move. BobLaRouche (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a dead horse that, as Rob says above, has been discussed and rejected many times over, including less than a month ago. Moreover, all of the editors who participated in that discussion must be notified. Neutrality^talk 17:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has never been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. BlueSalix (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. Quite the opposite, in fact. Neutrality^talk 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You should probably look harder then. [1], [2], etc. You should, in fact, be concerned about ensuring articles are NPOV and accurate rather than policing WP articles to ensure they're "Rah rah! Team America!" as your compatriots, below, seem to be concerned about. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking editors, as you have done at least 3 times in this thread to 3 different editors. (Accusing other editors of acting in some sort of nefarious concert ("your compatriots"), baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias, nonsensically comparing editors to adherents to the John Birch Society and Infowars - these are all things that fly in the face of common courtesy.).

As to your links, they don't help your case as all. The study summarized in The Hill merely says that fake news may not have changed the result of the election. The article and the study do not conclude that interference didn't exist, or that the Russians weren't involved in it. Nor did it deal with the hacking affair. As for the opinion piece by Carden, the executive director of the "American Committee for East-West Accord," here's what's been said about the group: "Like several other analysts, however, Khrushcheva voiced concern that the group’s potential positive role was compromised by some of its members' knee-jerk tendency to blame all tensions on the West while excusing the Kremlin’s and Vladimir Putin's actions" (link). That kind of source is a very thin reed to base your argument on. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias" --> "anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions" [3]

The fact you are claiming this is "baseless" - when its veracity is directly diff'ed (above) - is either a personal attack by you against me, or you've simply been blinded by Old Glory waving in the wind. This coupled with the POV-entrenched, Americentric position you're taking across this set of networked articles - largely in support of newly churned and IP editors - has left your nic, "Neutrality," as something of a Machiavelian hoot. BlueSalix (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Continuing these personal attacks while refusing to respond substantively is, simply put, unproductive.

The bottom line is the reliable sources indicate that the Russians did interfere in the election. Experts (e.g., Michael McFaul, "the leading scholar of his generation, maybe the leading scholar, on post-Communist Russia") conclude that—while there's still a lot we don't know, including the particular aims of the Russians and whether it ultimately affected the outcome of the election—the Russians did engage in disinformation and interference. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that a majority of RS on this 90-day old topic claim there was interference, and a large minority (all the sources that have recently been deleted from this article) claim there was not. WP is not a winner take all system. BlueSalix (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notifying users of previous discussions is not required and may be a form of inappropriate canvassing. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly not the case. As the policy says, notifying "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" is an appropriate notice, so long as the notices are sent without regard to opinion. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This has already been discussed and settled. The verifiability of the RS is very clear, and the intelligence community has, if anything, made even more clear that they stand by their evidence and published statements. That "agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging" does not indicate they are backing down or are any less certain. On the contrary. They have settled the matter, and they feel no need to continue kicking a dead horse, and that's exactly what this RfC is doing. It's absurd.
Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions, and without any good evidence.
This isn't a conspiracy theory (with conflicting opinions and no good evidence) where we have to couch the title in modifiers. This is a firmly settled matter, and until multiple RS find new evidence that totally upsets the apple cart, the current title is good enough. Editorial doubts should not be included in the title. That would violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions"

That is nonsense, see the commentary and reaction secton. William Binney is an exampleApollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions" ... So the Stanford University and NYU studies, Glenn Greenwald, Masha Gessen, The Nation, Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. - all of which reject the conclusions - must be part of this wild conspiracy you think exists? LOL. Also, screaming "Anti-American! Anti-American!" - while it may be an argument in a John Birch Society debate - is not an argument in a WP move discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of fact - the Stanford University and NYU studies did NOT "cast doubt" on any conclusions. You are just pretending that they did. And you are also making personal attacks by comparing commentators to Bircher's, or for that matter accusing them of "screaming". (For the other ones, Greenwald, Wikileaks and Russia itself certainly do qualify as "anti-American". And Gessen also doesn't quite say what you claim she says) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The mainstream view is that the Russian interference with the election happened. 'Alleged' is a WP:WEASEL word best avoided when there is no credible doubt as to the veracity of situation. I agree with BU Rob13 that editors who participated in the previous discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened.- Mr X 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The view of the U.S. secret police services does not = the mainstream view. The mainstream view is the consensus view of reputable and neutral parties. At present, there is not a consensus view, due to the fact that Stanford University and NYU studies have questioned the U.S. secret police conclusions, as have mainstream journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Masha Gessen, The Nation, Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. Your position is based on dismissing Stanford, NYU, The Intercept, Duke University, The Nation, Politico, etc. as "not credible." Your distrust of academia and the mainstream media may be shared by Coast to Coast AM or InfoWars, but not generally by experienced WP editors. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"U.S. secret police services"? Seriously? Neutrality^talk 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

BlueSalix, the U.S. does not have a "secret police". That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in moving discussion forward and tends to discredit your entire argument.- Mr X 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are "secret police conclusions" and why do you keep raving on about'em? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

According to RS including Democracy Now [4],ComputerWorld [5], Roger Nash Baldwin [6] and NBC News [7], the FBI is a "secret police" service. I know that kind of language doesn't jive with "Freedom! Apple Pie!" and so forth but please understand, not everyone who edits WP is a U.S. citizen committed to promoting the narrative of American utopianism like you and Neutrality seem to be.

We should be careful with articles that are sourced entirely to claims originating with secret police agencies like the FBI, KGB, State Security Ministry, and so forth. The perspectives of independent sources like mainstream media and academics, should be given discursive dominance. BlueSalix (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First, those cherry-picked articles do not support your ridiculous claim that U.S. secret police services exist. Nice try though. As concerns your personal attack, I am not a person known for "promoting the narrative of American utopianism". On the contrary; I'm openly critical and suspicious of my government.- Mr X 20:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Support For full disclosure - new editor, long-time reader of this article, so don't know if my opinion counts. However, the argument that "only anti-American forces" [sic] question the conclusions, therefore questions about the conclusions should be dismissed as fringe - meanwhile it's been shown, as above, that those who question the conclusions include peer-reviewed studies, mainstream media, and such - I have trouble assuming that those opposing this move are really doing so in good faith. BrandNewEditor2017 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Very new editor - a total of three edits from a brand new account. Welcome. Please tell exactly which "peer-reviewed study" concludes that Russian interference did not occur. Neutrality^talk 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Support While not being American, I do have to say that the sources provided give no definitive proof that Russia did anything physical to interfere with the election. Alleged would be much better as the current title gives a level of POV to the accusations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Most reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. The various allegations may or may not be true. "Alleged" is a neutral term to describe such a situation, and it's used by many reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That's just not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What's not true? That most reliable sources treat this as an allegation, or that "alleged" is a neutral term? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support We should not show greater certainty than mainstream media which routinely says that these are allegations with which American intelligence have a high degree of confidence. It is not in the same category as the findings of the 9/11 or Warren Commission where the authors expressed certainty which was reflected in mainstream reporting. So news media routinely say Oswald was a lone gunman or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 without qualification or mention of the commissions that made the determination. Anyway be patient. In due course if conclusive evidence is presented we can move the article back. TFD (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The intelligence community, which has access to sources that journalists and others don't have, is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election. For journalists to complain that they didn't show us their evidence - well, of course they didn't! Telling us the sources of their information could affect national security as well as endanger the lives of sources. Nominator cites the Stanford study, but it does not deny or disprove that the Russians attempted to interfere with the election - it only concludes that one small aspect of the interference, the "fake news", did not affect the outcome. But the intelligence sources never claimed that Russian interference affected the outcome of the election, and neither does this article. The hacking, and the carefully timed public releases, remain on the record. To weaken this title with an "alleged" would do a disservice to our readers. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you point to the policy which says we should weight should be based on unpublished U.S. intelligence sources rather than reliable secondary sources? BTW I just provided the example of 9/11 where intelligence provided evidence. They also provided evidence against Saddam Hussein if you remember, although some of it was held back. TFD (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Unless you've seen it or had it described to you, classified intelligence is simply not a source. Forget about "reliable", "primary", "secondary", "published" etc: it's not a source in any way shape or form. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Read what you wrote: The intelligence community […] is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election. This actually makes the case of move supporters, because US intelligence is convinced and other people (inside and outside the USA) are unconvinced. — JFG ^talk 11:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  - I am baffled by the argument from some here that we can't accept the assessment of the intelligence community (17 agencies in agreement as I recall) unless they show us their sources - presumably so that we can make our own (WP:OR?) assessment of whether we find the information credible or not. That is NOT how our Reliable Source guideline works. We define a source as Reliable if it is published and if the publisher/source has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". We accept reports from "reliable" media even though they virtually never show us their original sources (such as a transcript of the interview) and often use anonymous sources. We accept citations from a source like a news organization if the organization meets the RS standard - meaning it has a reputation, based on its overall track record, for checking facts and providing mostly accurate information. I contend that exact same standard applies to the intelligence agencies of the United States (and please don't belabor the point that they made a mistake a decade or two ago; even the NYT makes mistakes occasionally.) In addition to their classified briefings which we cannot see or cite, they have published an unclassified summary of what they have found and what they conclude. IMO that is a Reliable Source by Wikipedia's definition and should not be rejected on the grounds that they (for obvious reasons) don't tell us exactly what information they got from exactly what source. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    - The "unclassified summary" itself has had its validity questioned by RS media including The Intercept, The Nation and others. I understand, MelanieN, if you aren't aware of this fact. It was included in the article, however, Malek declared Glenn Greenwald (The Intercept) and others "Anti-American" and then deleted all the sources, therefore, a lot of people haven't seen these other RS. BlueSalix (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    - Statements—either declassified, leaked or public—by officials of any govt (yes, that includes US officials) are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:RS. This is POLICY. There is no ambiguity here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support per TFD. The vast majority of (non-opinion) reliable sources are simply relaying the claims of the US government, with a few saying point-blank that it's "alleged" (major outlets like CNN) and a few others insinuating it's more than alleged. Reportage can be construed as "endorsement", but doing so would constitute OR. Then there are opinion/analysis sources. The vast majority of these sources simply critique or otherwise evaluate existing claims, with a few going further and attempting to establish the truth positively (did Russia actually do it?). Of those that seek to establish the truth positively, most think it's likely that Russia did do it. But quality sources that seek to establish the truth positively are few in number. But even if that were not the case, saying something is credible or likely does not mean it's not "alleged" . Finally there's Crowdstrike, US intel, the Russian govt and Wikileaks. All of these are materially-involved WP:PRIMARY sources. What they say is completely irrelevant to this RfC. Until the preponderance of RS unequivocally state that Russia was responsible (as proven fact), Russian culpability will remain alleged, however credibly. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose 1. Already had serveral long discussions on this. 2. WP:RS do not use allege. 3. This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality. 4. I had a move request closed by User talk:JudgeRM because the discussion was too soon before pervious conversations. I am unsure why this does not follow suit.Casprings (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"WP:RS do not use allege.. That's simply false. "US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality." That's actually the definition of alleged. Please read WP:RS. Also remember that there is such a thing as a "credible allegation". Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality.": This is really the most disturbing aspect of this discussion - that a significant number of Wikipedia editors are declaring that public statements of US intelligence agencies must be treated as fact. I cannot imagine us even contemplating treating the spy agencies of any other country that way. What's next? Are we going to declare positions of the FSB as absolute truth? We go by reliable sources, and intelligence agencies are reliable sources only for their own opinions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The supposed WP:RS discovered via Google search link above has some issues:

[8] even the text of this Fox News report is consistent with other WP:RS such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico reporting on this issue.
[9] pertains to Russian hackers Evgeniy Bogachev and Aleksey Belan who were involved in schemes not related to this topic. In the entire article "alleged" is used once, but in-depth analysis (or reporting) about topic related US intelligence reports is not in this article. So, first, this is not significant coverage that supports placing "alleged" in this title. Second, we don't know the circumstances behind this reporter not reporting details about topic related Russian hacks.
[10] is saying this is "alleged Russian hacking" and "Trump has dismissed intelligence reports from both the CIA and FBI that claim Russia meddled in the election to help Trump defeat his opponent" -- but no WP:RS supports his opinion up to this date.
[11] This is a blog post.
[12] This also says "US intelligence officials have said that they are confident Russia was behind the US election hacks , which could have played a role in Trump’s defeat over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." Although the headline says "alleged" I don't see anything in this article that supports their use of this word in the title. I am guessing it is merely a headline grabber (click bate). It covers diplomat expulsions, sanctions, and so on.

It appears the sources recount US intelligence agencies and US security agencies findings - but are unable to show support for meager use of the word "alleged" - such as one instance in an article. I don't think this would equal significant coverage in a relevant discussion. Hopefully this is one of those relevant discussions. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This has been given ample recent consideration and it feels disruptive to ask editors to come back each time that the same thing is proposed for fear that it will appear to have consensus when the highly motivated editors on one side jump out of the woodwork for another go-round. The Russian interference is a fact that's been confirmed by every government agency that's reviewed all the evidence. And academic studies or polls of public opinion have nothing to do with WP sourcing the RS consensus as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

When you write "all the evidence," I presume you mean classified evidence as well. Is that correct? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the third !vote based on unspecified classified "evidence" (inherently unsourceable) and the conclusions of US intel (not RS). These !votes can't be considered valid because they are asking us to flagrantly violate WP:V. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This has been litigated to death and there is just no support in sources for this title. Furthermore, the issue has been discussed repeatedly and this is bordering on (intertemporal) WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Finally, the RfC itself violates guidelines as it is not properly formatted and it is not worded neutrally. Some editors just need to learn how to WP:DROPTHESTICK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(And did I ever mentioned that only six month old and older accounts should be allowed to !vote in controversial RfCs?)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this policy or just a recommendation? Also, bringing the same/similar issue on the same page is NOT WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. How many times do we have to go through this? A slightly different version ("Intelligence reports" of Russian interference instead of "Allegations") of the proposed title was proposed by JFG on December 29 and rejected. Another slightly different version ("Allegations of" instead of "Alleged") was proposed by JFG on January 7 and rejected. The article is not based solely "… on official [noun missing], U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period …", but also by and in numerous other sources long before US agencies ever issued any statements. None of any of them have been retracted, AFAIK. This dead horse has been flogged so many times it’s a pile of mush by the side of the road. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In the first few weeks of this story, there was a rather strong polarization in sources, some of them defending the agencies' assessment as unassailable, some of them expressing doubt on various grounds (technology, politics or secrecy), and both sides said "hey, proof will come out soon enough" as Obama ordered a report to settle any doubts. Since that report came out two shifts happened: the "pro" sources started to consistently qualify the allegations, and the "contra" sources became much more assertive in expressing their skepticism. Therefore, the balance of sources today has shifted universally towards calling those allegations what they are: allegations, accusations, innuendo, inferences, whatever you want to call it, they are not unattackable facts. A rename is ever more justified, and we can't accept the "dead horse" argument without looking at how coverage of the story has evolved. — JFG ^talk 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - If this is over, shall moratorium be proposed? George Ho (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, because it's possible that facts about the story may emerge, which allow to state it actually happened or was a hoax or error. TFD (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  - Are you saying the hacking was a hoax or error? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose reliable sources have been covering this for months until recently. In unison they report 17 intelligence agencies, the FBI, and Homeland Security say the hacking by Russians did occur. The agencies also ultimately say that there was a purpose behind these activities. The purpose or intent was to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. It is pretty clear this did occur and the Russians intended to influence the elections.

I think saying that US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are not to be believed appears to indicate some wide spread conspiracy is afoot - which cannot be credible - even on its face. I also think, saying US agencies are not believable is also a good excuse for discounting WP:RS, which is a foundation for WP:GNG and our content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V.

Also, for those who noticed it - please excuse my edit on the main space page. I didn't realize this RFC is exactly related to that edit, and probably not appropriate at this time, so I self-reverted. Don't need admins admonishing me due to my bad timing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:The RfC is only about moving the article (AGAIN), so I just removed one of the numerous mentions of "alleged". The hacking itself has been established to have taken place, I think, just not who's responsible, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I don't see how you read a personal attack into anything that I wrote. I addressed your argument, not your person. You actually did make a very good argument for including the word "alleged." It's simply that after laying out the reasons why "alleged" is appropriate, you came to the opposite conclusion. US intelligence agencies have alleged Russian hacking, as you laid out above. But you're now making the astounding argument that the FBI and CIA are reliable sources, which would be a really unbelievable position for Wikipedia to take. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Accusing another editor of a personal attack, when no such attack occurred, is itself a personal attack and a violation of DS. I suggest you either provide a diff for your allegation or strike it before you're blocked. BlueSalix (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 and BlueSalix OK. Let's drop this for now. I attribute it to a misunderstanding (or miscommunication). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: These "17 agencies" are neither independent nor WP:RS. We don't know what exactly their conclusions are based on, besides the findings already made public. Some of the public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts. Lots of these sources have been deleted recently, so you may need to check google or the page history to access them: but they are indeed numerous. As you say, the media has mainly been "covering" what US officials have been saying. This probably means that most sources agree that the allegations are newsworthy and credible, but coverage does not equal endorsement. Finally, it is a pretty orwellian to equate skepticism with conspiracism. A National Intelligence Estimate can be catastrophically wrong (note that this "bulletproof" evidence was also classified — now we see it for what it is), and no "conspirancy theory" is necesserary to account for this fact. PS: Your list of sources above is incomplete. It is indisputable that some RS (no, not TheBlaze) have used "alleged". But this is not the only point. The other points: is that it is WP:OR to interpret uncritical coverage ("officials say") with endorsement; governments (and even hired security firms) are WP:PRIMARY sources with conflicts of interest; "classified intelligence" is not a source. The same arguments could have been used in 2003 to pummel readers with how factual and not-at-all-alleged the WMD intelligence was. That's not to say that the intel community's conclusions are completely fabricated this time, just that proper attribution is at the very least warranted. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hatting side discussion about the Iraq war. Sorry, but this thread is already almost too long to follow. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Straw man. Red herring. Please review WP:RS. This is not a video game. The matter is settled until, as TFD says, Putin comes clean and admits it was all an elaborate hoax. Haha Good one. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha. La la. Boing boing. Tetris. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is clear, even from the source you cited, that Congress concluded the Bush administration overstated the value of that report. There was nothing wrong with the report - it stated facts (or assessments) garnered by intelligence agencies. I have to wonder if you read this yourself - because it does not support your argument? Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement - the Russians are behind the hacks intended to influence the 2016 US elections. Huh? What? O.K.

~~It would make sense~~ if there was a blunder ~~and that~~ some of these agencies would step forward and cry foul or disagree. But that hasn't happened. There are also some details that have been revealed such as the behavior patterns of these Russian military hackers, which are recognizable. We haven't been left totally left in the dark, as we were when the Bush surrogates were on all the political talk shows overstating the findings of the above mentioned report and other reports. Unfortunately they roped in General Powell who unwittingly presented their case to the UN.

Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games. Yes, it is true they are not independent for our sourcing purposes, but each agency makes independent assessments in the real world. How much verification do you suppose has happened between 17 agencies, Homeland Security, and the FBI? This could be a new world's record on verification and coming to the same conclusion.

Saying they are not are reliable sources is OK for Wikipedia purposes, as we tend to go for secondary sources. But there is no evidence to impugn the integrity of these numerous agencies - there is nothing to support it. So what we actually have is reliable sources reporting on information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies). In a manner of speaking we get two for the price of one - and that is a good deal.

Again, I don't know why you cited this source - it refutes what you are trying to claim. It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report. There was nothing wrong with the report - the Bush Administration misused in the public forum. Classified information is a source - although we don't use it on Wikipedia - we use secondary sources that summarize available formerly classified information, and this seems to be more word games.

Also, I would like to see which "public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts", even though you implore me to go on a Google quest. I appreciate the offer, but I have been covering this since the DNC was first reported hacked last year. I am not seeing heavy criticism within the mainstream and by experts" In fact, just the opposite.

Expert after expert and news article after news article has been saying "Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers...to infinitude" from then until now. I love it when editors make disagreeing sweeping claims, as if I don't know what I am talking about. Also, my assessment above is quite accurate, but I don't know why you discuss it here. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned Iraq as an aside, but if you insist...

"There was nothing wrong with the report" - "Apart from being influenced by policymakers' desires, there were several other reasons that the NIE was flawed," the RAND study concluded. "Evidence on mobile biological labs, uranium ore purchases from Niger, and unmanned-aerial-vehicle delivery systems for WMDs all proved to be false. It was produced in a hurry. Human intelligence was scarce and unreliable. While many pieces of evidence were questionable, the magnitude of the questionable evidence had the effect of making the NIE more convincing and ominous. The basic case that Saddam had WMDs seemed more plausible to analysts than the alternative case that he had destroyed them.". The report was titled "Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction."
"Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement" - Yes, all Intelligence Agencies would contribute to a single Intelligence Community Assessment, in varying degrees (I'm sure the DEA and the Coast Guard had a lot of input). Same deal with National Intelligence Estimate. The ODNI represents 17 agencies, not all of which participated in the drafting of the hacking "assessment" (looks like just the NSA, FBI and CIA did). 10 separate agencies participated in the drafting of the 2002 NIE. I'm not using the declassified 2002 NIE to "refute" the published 2017 ICA. I am using it to refute the strange arguments I'm seeing on this page.
"Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games" - It's an simple fact, not a "word game".
"Classified information is a source - ... for those who who've seen it. Neither you, me, NYT or anyone else without security clearance have seen it. We know absolutely nothing substantive about it, not even second, third or fourth hand. It's a void. Is this really so difficult to understand?
"information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies)" - Err... WP:RS. Not seeing anything about "reliable agencies". Are you serious?
"It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report." - That's one of the point I'm making: when officials say they have "classified evidence" tucked away that allegedly proves their public conclusions, they might be deluding themselves and/or the public.
"Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers" - It may sound like that, but it's commonly prefaced with "officials say". This is NOT a minor point.

OK, more than enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Also, I would like to see which "public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts" -- If you look at the material that was "challenged" by Marek you'll see exactly which public findings have been criticized by mainstream media and experts. Our article doesn't currently contain that content (The Nation, The Monitor, Stanford, etc.), though, as it was challenged by process of deletion. BlueSalix (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report. What I meant by "nothing wrong with the report" is that it was what it was and not more than that. It gave an accurate assessment whatever was there. It didn't overstate any conclusions - it didn't overstate lack of human intelligence, it didn't say Iraq was directly responsible for the Anthrax attack, it didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes, it didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction, it didn't give a definitive conclusion there was an Iraqi and Al Queda connection.

They reported what was in front of them. Of course they felt rushed - they needed to quickly assess what the "enemy" had. You are not even mentioning that. It is not black and white, cut and dried. The NIE report was flawed in the sense there wasn't enough time and flawed in the sense there were gaps in the intelligence - but through no fault of the agents on the ground.

It was not flawed in reporting the information they actually had in hand. That is the difference here. The main point is the Bush Administration used an accurate assessment at the time, with all its gaps and shortcomings, and spun it like this was "bulletproof". The NIE report in no way claimed to be bulletproof or have bulletproof conclusions. It was not a misleading report. This is what I meant about "nothing wrong with the report".

I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it. There will never be any time or any day when all the possible information there is to know about a situation is in hand - because time did not allow it. If the agents on the ground had 25 years or 100 years to gather all possible information then maybe it would no longer be "flawed". But then it would be of no use, because the circumstances, incidents, or war footing for which the information was required are long past.

As an aside, these times are not like that. How many cybersecurity experts and espionage agents were and are working on this problem within 17 intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and private entities or contractors? I would guess thousands, because it seems to have that kind of priority. I have to say they probably have put together a complete enough and accurate enough picture - enough to kick Russian diplomats out of the country and apply more sanctions.

And journalists have sources that are accessible to them, especially veteran journalists. They have done a good job of ferreting out the truth for quite a long time and very capable of it. If the mainstream press detected BS they would say so. They have had no problem detecting and reporting inconsistencies over these past two weeks and a half weeks. So, I think the same principles apply to this topic. The press is consistent in their reporting. Why would this topic be any different? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed at the audacity of a public figure trying to pass-off that report of 15 years ago, when they had much less technology, much less monitoring capability, and didn't have the all-seeing all-knowing all-plugged-in-NSA that we have today --- and equate that with this report garnered by 17 state of the art intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and private entities. This is worse than comparing apples to oranges. There is no there, there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk about "audacity"....

"The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report." Yes that's true, and? "The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research also disagreed with the intelligence community's assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. The CIA's 25-page unclassified summary' of the NIE released in 2002 did not contain the State or Energy Departments' dissent."1 That's an argument for trusting officials when they say they have "slam dunk" intelligence but won't show a significant part of it?
"it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes" Yeah, it said he was making NUKES out of them: "Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors—as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools—provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program." NIE pg6 The rockets theory was a dissenting word of caution from the DoE (who still agreed Saddam was building nukes)! (this was a serious report for internal use, so naturally there was a dissenting opinion from the DoE. Contrast with unclassified ODNI assessment on hacking, which is brochure, much like the CIA/DCI's summary of the 2002 NIE. Brochures don't contain significant dissenting opinions.
"it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction" You appear to have not read the title and the first paragraph of the NIE. This is a shockingly ignorant statement.
"I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it.". Take it up with the RAND Corporation—I've "tried" nothing. Or you can try this this summary from the Council on Foreign Relations instead: "most of the key judgments have since been debunked as inaccurate, false, or misleading". Why are you guessing anything? Again, pretty shocking.
"17 intelligence agencies" (blamed Russia for hacking) Is 17 a magic number or something? The 2002 classsified NSE on Iraq's WMD was prepared by 10 different agencies. though that report was classified. The unclassified summary version of the same report was released by the Director of Central Intelligence (also head of CIA before 2005), who oversaw in the intel community as a whole.
"The press is consistent in their reporting." Are you completely unaware of the nature of media coverage in runup to the Iraq war? Yes, the national press consistently report what the nation's "officials say" with little criticism, creating a kind of "truthiness". But at least the press properly attributes the claims.

The real difference between '02 and today is that in 2002 there was a pressing need to manufacture a causus belli for an imminent war. There is no equally compelling reason for the CIA, the administration etc to lie about the hacks. While that still does not make spies reliable sources, this would have at least been a persuasive argument. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Is 17 a magic number or something?" The ODNI represents 16 members of the intelligence community (IC). 17 may be a typo or someone added the ODNI as representing itself, as well. Does anyone know? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The ODNI report actually carries the seals of 3 agencies: CIA, NSA, FBI (or "not all participated" as Time puts it) The ICA represents/oversees 17 agencies.] By contrast, 10 agencies participated in the drafting of the 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, OK, now I get your argument: Since not all members represented by the DNI were involved in the drafting of the document, it carries less weight than the one drafted in 2002 (as long as we're nitpicking, that was a Reuters news report picked up by Time and others). When you're contemplating military action in Iraq, you would probably want input from all branches of the Armed Forces as well as from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the DIA in addition to "just" the CIA, NSA, FBI, so there's your 10 (just guessing, didn't look this up). When you are investigating specific cyber attacks or disinformation campaigns, what kind of information could you expect from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or Marine Corps Intelligence, for example? (Rhetorical question.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I brought up the same point earlier, though in the context of an incorrect statement, now corrected. I was just tired of hearing that this time we have a whopping 17 agencies (world record!?) so it must be true. The number does not matter, and 17 is a ridiculous exaggeration in any case. What does matter is that a 94 page National Security Estimate—written for internal use and containing dissenting opinions—was an infinitely more serious document than the ODNI's 14 page "assessment" brochure. This is the point Seymour Hersh made in his interview. The only thing the brochure has going for it is that there's not that much to be gained from falsely incriminating the GRU in the hacking. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub There was one caveat that I avoided saying and that you correctly brought up. The pre-Iraq invasion press coverage was disgraceful. I think all U.S. mainstream news outlets just echoed what they were fed by any officials connected to the Bush Administration. I think during the early war years, the coverage was equally deplorable, still echoing the Administration's view.

The press has done a huge mea culpa since that time. So, most of the time the press does indeed act like the fourth estate. But historically, during times of war, they put a muzzle on their investigative reporting and critical assessments of Government entities. This has occurred during war time, at least since WWI. I don't know about before that.

As an aside, I'll try to verify if intelligence agencies were actually saying the aluminum tubes were intended for building nukes for myself. I was sure their use was inconclusive pertaining to intelligence assessments. Anyway, we should probably drop discussing this in this thread any longer - it seems off topic at this point. But I might visit your talk page to continue this discussion (evil laugh!), because this is very interesting - if that is OK with you. Steve Quinn (talk)

Oppose. Based on coverage in WP:RS, the correct title is 2016 United States election interference by Russia. This is not something that is "alleged", and a title containing the word "alleged" would be just as blatantly POV as a title claiming climate change is "alleged". --Tataral (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Support High-quality sources attribute the claim to the US government or government agencies, we should follow their lead. Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia is a reasonable approximation of '"US Government alleges Russian interference in 2016 US election." Allegations by non-government agents (without access to the full intelligence) are speculation and should be treated as speculation – good enough for attributed opinion, not for article titles. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose like last time - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Support CNN, The Straits Times, and Fox News write alleged Russian interference. Wiki policy is to follow the reliable sources, not to inject our personal opinions on the subject. ^Falling_Gravity 04:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The headline of the CNN article says ,"Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns", i.e., the article is about alleged links between Russia and Trump campaign staffers. The article starts off with "The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election ...". Nothing alleged there. PS.: Is your vote in support of the requested Feb 4 move or the hatted request to postpone the move? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

riiight ... here's a quote from that CNN source: "joint statement that the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.". Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And another quote: "Burr and Warner said the committee will hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity ..." Aaand we've arrived back at the discussion in the first and second move RfC about whether the title is more neutral with or without "alleged"/"allegation" in it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The quote I gave shows that CNN did indeed describe the interference as "alleged", contrary to what you claimed CNN said. What exactly does your quote show? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe his/her point is that anyone can use your method and find the exact opposite. Here is another example from the CNN article you linked: "review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election will include a look at any intelligence..." There is no "alleged". Your approached is really very superficial and can't be applied in any definitive sense. EyeTruth (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor said "alleged interference" was not used by CNN, and I corrected them. Their alternative quote basically demonstrates that CNN did not want to overuse "alleged" in reporting on various govt investigations whose stated goal is to probe real (not alleged russian meddling). Interjecting with "allegedly" too much may look like interrupting the sources or putting words into their mouth. I don't think it proves the negative, since the attribution to the committee is still there: there is no declaration by CNN that Russians did it, quite the opposite. You can debate exactly how much weight should be given to this finding, but it's clearly greater than zero. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: If editors think "allegations of" is too negative somehow (I don't), we could use "claims of". What we shouldn't do is substitute a kind of truthiness for a careful reading of the sources. It may appear to editors on an EL wiki that, regardless of topic, it is inherently mainstream, neutral and respectable to sympathize with the US government while criticizing its enemies (to a greater or lesser degree). It is in fact reasonable to expect that reliable sources—particularly the major news outlets we are dealing with here—will tend to conform to this rule. If most RS' sounded like Democracy Now, the current US govt would obviously cease to exist (every state requires consent). BUT this expectation/prejudice, however reasonable, has nothing to with the policies of this site. The correct approach in every individual case is to read off the bare facts and opinions from sources line by line and not go one inch beyond that by synthesizing or postulating a metanarrative. Here, this approach plainly leads to the conclusion that the sources are overwhelmingly reporting—with clear and abundant attribution—the fact that two WP:PRIMARY sources (Crowdstrike contractor and the government, by virtue of being involved parties very close to the underlying action) are saying that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking. It may be argued that the largely uncritical reporting of these claims by the news media constitutes an implicit endorsement, but this is plainly an unverifiable OR/SYNTH conclusion. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:V to drop the attribution and state the claims about Russian culpability in wikipedia's voice. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with geography. You could live in an igloo in Siberia, for all that matters -- the world knows that there was Russian interference. Who doesn't know that? Everybody knows that. How do we know everyone knows? Because they say so. Of course the Russians know, and they're not English language. Everybody knows -- that's what RS say 96.5%. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Everybody knows that. No. Show me one person who believes this and I'll show you two won don't. This assertion is WP:OR at best, hallucination at worst. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where do you get off making presumptions about what most Russians believe? Ever been there, read the local papers or talked to Russians? I'm guessing answer's "no" to all three, for all intents and purposes. When the Russian media pronounce judgement, they usually say either that the allegations are baseless or that there is a propaganda and intelligence war being waged against Russia. Most Russians agree with their media on this point to a greater or lesser degree, to the extent they know at all about it or care. They are not that different from the Americans, or anyone else. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Dead horses are dead and it's way too soon to try to get Dr. Frankenstein to jolt this one back to life. Very disrespectful that this discussion has been opened again so soon. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Move to Suspend Move Discussion and Restart Later

This suggestion didn't go anywhere. Hatting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The article in its current form - after 6,000 bytes of sources and material from Stanford University, Duke University, The Nation, etc. were deleted - doesn't support a move. As it is, all new !votes are !votes on the article in its current form, not the article in the form in which it existed when the move request was opened. I recommend, as OP, suspending the discussion until such time as the purged sources can be restored and the article rebuilt. BlueSalix (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support If I were !voting on the article in its current form I, too, would vote "Oppose". BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try, but I believe the majority here would consider any attempt to beat the dead horse by starting yet another move discussion to be highly disruptive, and that the correct course of action would be to immediately close such a discussion based on the consensus on this talk page and the previous discussions we had. This issue has been settled after extensive debate, and we cannot rehash the same debate over and over and over again, every week, just because some editors won't accept the consensus. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Tataral. This is pretty obvious gamesmanship. The consensus has been settled, after extensive debate. We cannot and should not have a neverendum" here. That would be a huge waste of everybody's time. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with the difference between "consensus" and "majority voting". There is no consensus in this Move - which is amazing considering the article was completely restructured to purge 9 different sources after the Move was opened. In its current form even I - the OP - can't support the move. There's gamesmanship going on but it's not from me. BlueSalix (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed 'Baltimore Sun' reference

I removed this reference [13] because it does not seem to be reliable, or in any way tries to engage in facts. If interested see my comments in the above section. Although the "Baltimore Sun" newspaper is considered a reliable source, this particular reference should not be considered as such. It appears to be a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it seems filled with supposition. Comments? --Steve Quinn (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh great, so now their statement stands unsourced, so I suppose the next step is to delete it entirely? Sure, these are biased statements, and they are attributed accordingly. Quoting biased statements is fine, provided they are attributed and representative of a serious minority viewpoint. See WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

You may argue to exclude this source per WP:FRINGE but I'm not convinced: Clapper's integrity has been criticized by dozens and dozens of sources. — JFG ^talk 17:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been said, bias is not a reason for exclusion (if you think it should be take it to the RSN noticeboard).Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: The Baltimore Sun opinion piece was included under the "Commentary and Reactions" section of the article. It's not being used to source statements of fact, but to relay opinions. Many of the opinions in the "Commentary and Reactions" section are agenda-driven and totally biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't merit inclusion in this article. As long as they're noteworthy, properly attributed, and given appropriate weight, then their inclusion is fine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." Since we are using the commentary to source its authors opinions, it is wholly reliable. WP:FRINGE does not say that minority views should be excluded, just that they be presented as minority views. Ray McGovern and William Binney have gone against orthodox views in the past: Binney questioned whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or whether torture is a good practice, while Binney questioned the merits of the NSA monitoring communications of ordinary Americans. But crazy as their ideas may be, they are frequently mentioned in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:UNDUE to place an opinion in this article that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person. I agree with excluding this. Casprings (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an "opinion"? Well duh. The section deals with reactions from the former spies. Per WP:BLP, nobody can dispute a US official's testimony unless said official has been convicted of a felony? It must be true, otherwise the official would be in jail, right? Give.me.a.break. Obviously only officials of certain nationalities are eligible for this absurd "safe space" treatment (officials from bad countries can qualify for "you're a thief/killer/thug" treatment, no court docs required). You think Binney and McGovern are "unreliable"? You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff. Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic (this applies to SPEC too). Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about being convicted of a felony or what bearing that has on anything. I'm not bringing that into this argument. This piece is pure speculation, bereft of facts. This has nothing to do with any US official's testimony. Well, except for the fact that Binney and McGovern are trying to bring that into the conversation. Just because Clapper was involved with the Iraq fiascos has no bearing on what is happening now.

This has to do with speculation supported by by a U.S. official's former behavior, and the behavior of the NSA. And so what about the intel report on Iraq. I was relying on memory, had never seen that report before, and I was overall accurate except for the Intel report. There were no WMD's discovered when the troops went in, and the Bush administration was admonished in the press for it.

Big deal about about an Intel report from 15 years ago. Also, I really don't need you trying to impugn my capabilities just because you won one argument. So what. Big deal. Have cigar or whatever you do. As far as leaving this out, I would like to hear more input from other editors. Also, I am studying the links to policies and guidelines that people have posted in this thread. Thanks.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub If you think this piece is reliable then I am really surprised. I don't know about Binney and McGovern in general - but this editorial is really lacking. --Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"I was overall accurate except for the Intel report" No, just no. Drinking Jack Daniels and having some Snus, fwiw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub Is this the best you can do - personal insults and disrespectful behavior? Well, I guess this means I was overall accurate. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Casprings thinks that it is WP:UNDUE to report an opinion that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person in an article that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person - hacking computer systems and influencing an election. UNDUE btw says that articles should present the opinions that are presented in reliable sources not that allegations of bad behavior should not be mentioned. The Baltimore Sun is one of the most repected newspapers in the U.S. They've been publishing opinions that basically allege felony crimes by living persons since 1837, including by David Simon, whose stories were the basis of "Homicide: Life on the Street" and "The Wire." They know more about what is legimate to publish than we do. TFD (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

One is the intelligence conclusions by the US and reported in numerous WP:RS and officially released by the government. The other is an OP piece in a paper. A decent paper, but still an OP piece in a paper. Not nearly the same thing. Casprings (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you are an esteemed member of the community here, but I am struck by the vapid Straw Man argument and false analogy here. WRT the first, suffice it to say it sounds as if you're putting words in Casprings mouth. WRT the second, the Baltimore Sun is publishing primary and secondary documents whereas we here are in the third tier, where the sourcing is much more limited. But I think you knew both those points, actually. Maybe they escaped others who might read them. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My comments in preceding section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What is that "Interference" ?

discussion not about article improvement

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

I read the article. It is a summary of speeches and reports of some people and some organisations. OK. Some people say there is interference. OK. Some organisations report interference. But what is that interference? What did Russians actually do while they are interfering? What were the actions taken by Russians? I don't think Wikileaks is a "Russian interference."--95.12.121.231 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article content not for asking political questions about Russians or stating first-person editor opinions about Wikileaks. I archived this becuase it is a talk page violation. I could have deleted it, but archiving is a milder way to clear this off the page. This stuff needs to be taken off the talk page, whenever it happens. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. The robot will take care of archiving in due course.

@95.12.121.231: Your questions are interesting but a Wikipedia talk page is not a forum for general discussion about the article subject. Rather, it serves to discuss suggestions of improvements to the article. Accordingly, if you can suggest specific changes to the article text, please submit them here and they will be considered on their merits. Remember to conform to the neutral point of view policy and to back your proposed changes by published reliable sources. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?

By breadth of support, there were 14 editors who supported inclusion of Putin's response and 4 who opposed inclusion. Argumentation saw equally valid presentations on both sides, however, the significant breadth of support in favor of inclusion helps to establish a clear consensus. That said, there was widespread agreement, on both sides, that inclusion should not come in the form of a verbatim quote but a summary or paraphrase of the essential elements of the statement. The consensus is that Vladimir Putin's December 23 response should be included in this article in an abbreviated, summarized, or paraphrased form, but not as a direct quote. DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

At a December 23 press conference, Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election: "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."^[1] Does Putin's response belong in the article? (I am doing this as an RfC because the existing discretionary sanctions on American Politics effectively give anyone veto power over any material merely by deleting it, regardless of how flimsy the rationale for deletion may be—although in practice this is constantly abused and inconsistently enforced.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Filipov, David (2016-12-23). "Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-12-26.

Survey – Putin response

Support adding Putin's response. This material was deleted as "wp:undue" by User:Volunteer Marek, but it's hard for me to imagine how WP:UNDUE could apply to Putin's own response to allegations that he personally interfered in the U.S. election.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Support This direct quote by Putin directly pertaining to the issue (in an article devoid of quotes by Putin) certainly is appropriate under the "Commentary and Reaction" section, the "Russian Government" sub-section, as originally entered by TheTimesAreAChanging. There currently is no direct quote by the man directly implicated in these actions and this one is notable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this is a distraction. Obviously, Russia denies this and is trying to make this about the election and not about the violations committed by their intelligence and disinformation agencies. - Scarpy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You have cited a political, but not an encyclopedic, reason for excluding the statement of an alleged perpetrator of the action the article is devoted to. Your guess as to what Putin's motives are is irrelevant. The direct statement of the alleged perpetrator of the activity the article is devoted to is 100% completely relevant and 100% deserving of inclusion in the "Reaction and Commentary" sub-section. Marteau (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously US politicians and officials never do this. That's what makes their opinions so reliable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to respond here. I will remind you to assume good faith, and to pay close attention to comments before responding. If you'd like to have a two-sided conversation, I'm all for it. If you want to go off on tangents, there are other contributors to this article what will likely indulge you. - Scarpy (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. It is clearly one of the more notable statements in the "Commentary and Reaction" section. It has received more than enough enough coverage in the non-Russian press. This despite the fact that (a) it's very recent (b) national media coverage is necessarily skewed toward reporting on statements made by domestic politicians (i.e. not Putin), something which has to be taken into account per wp:systemicbias. If it were up to me, the "reaction" section would be down to a paragraph, and a lot of the less-than-informative commentary (including this taunting by Putin) would go. since that does not appear to be in the cards, Putin's statement from his major annual press conference must be kept per WP:DUE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - I think we have to include a brief mention of this based on the widespread coverage in reliable sources, even though it's empty posturing and diversionary.- Mr X 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by "brief"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We can simply summarize what he said. For example, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat". Quoting him directly is just lazy writing.- Mr X 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, especially since we weren't quoting him directly but rather giving a translation of what he said in Russian. (There's a different translation with essentially the same or similar meaning on the President of Russia webcite.[14]) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Support – Statement is obviously relevant, and widely cited in RS, Volunteer Marek's POV notwithstanding. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ – It wasn't specified what "all fronts" meant. For example, one of those fronts could be the war in Syria. Putin's comments about the elections accusations came a little later in the reliable source.

" Putin dismissed suggestions Moscow had helped Trump to victory in any way however.

'It's not like that,' he said. 'All of this (the accusations) speaks of the current administration's systemic problems.' "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: You should really withdraw your oppose, as it is based on false pretenses. "One of those fronts could be the war in Syria." No, Russia actually is involved in the war in Syria. In context, Putin was quite clearly referring to the U.S. elections: "Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere. They need to learn to lose with dignity. The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress. ... Is that also my work?" (Or use Russia's official translation: "The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? ... This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues.") More importantly, none of our reliable sources thought to misinterpret Putin's words in the highly creative manner you suggest, as I will document below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote you just gave, together with his point elsewhere about the the substance of the leaks being more important than the identity of the leakers, is IMO more substantive and measured than the stuff about politicians not being "graceful." The latter is too close to the shrill rants from ex-spies about the "hideousness" of Trump's treatment of their courageous colleagues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with your RfC proposal because the given source doesn't clearly indicate that the quote is about the elections. The fact that you had to go to other sources, seems to admit that your given source is inadequate. You might try making a proposal that is correctly sourced by using material from the sources in your recent message above and we'll see if it works. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea that the one source I gave could be so misconstrued, or that we were going to be this pedantic. I have replaced Reuters with the Washington Post of the same day, which uses the same Putin quote but is even more unequivocal regarding its meaning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose While it would be appropriate to include a well-sourced statement that Putin denies Russian involvement in the hacking, that is not what this RfC would provide. This RfC promotes the clearly UNDUE and irrelevant fact that Putin denigrates the Democrats. Per my statement and others in the discussion section below, editors should oppose this WP:POINTy RfC and we should instead follow policy to include appropriate accounts of Putin's denial. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose to including as direct quotation. This should be mentioned, but only briefly summarized as the fact that Putin denied the claim. I do not see any reason for including direct quotation here. He is not a Cicero, and the statements adds nothing to the simple fact of denial beyond disparaging other people. The only reason to include quotation is to disparage democrats, which is not the purpose of WP.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also not the purpose of Wikipedia to exclude quotes just because they disparage Democrats. If the quote is notable enough, it should be included, either in direct or paraphrased form. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

So, why exactly anyone would consider this quotation notable? This is just a slander that provides zero information. Saying that, I realize that certain slander can be notable (e.g. "shoot the rabid dogs!" by Andrey Vyshinsky or "kill them in an toilet" by Putin) as described in numerous books. However, I do not see why that particular slander would be notable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If the Russian President makes a public statement on alleged Russian hacking, then it's inherently notable. The evidence for that notability is the wide press coverage Putin's remarks have received. It doesn't matter if you consider the content of those remarks to be "slander that provides zero information." A lot of people think President Obama's statements on the issue, and the statements of his intelligence agencies, are also slander that provide zero information. But they're notable, as evidenced by the press coverage they've received. The only possible reason to exclude this information, that I can see, is political. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the claim (the denial) is notable or at least deserve to be noted on the page. However, the quotation is not notable. It might became notable in a year from now (just as in two my examples above) if it will be mentioned in books on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: These statements have been widely reported, and they deal directly with the content of this article. I think it's obvious they belong in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose including the quotation, which is undue. Of course Putin's denial of involvement, properly sourced, should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Could you please help me understand your reasoning behind invoking WP:UNDUE on this? "UNDUE" is of course very broadly writter, and it is not clear to me what aspect of the "undue" policy you think including this quote violates. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. This isn't an article about "Putin's opinions about the Democratic Party of the United States". Which makes inclusion of this quote POVFORKish. Like I said, his denial of Russian involvement is of course DUE, but his opinions about the Dems, is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: If this is "undue" for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek et al., so is roughly 90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state. Editors are being highly selective--per wp:systemicbias--in what they consider "undue." Putin's other point was that it's not who stole the emails, but what's in them. Remember that Putin himself tried push the same "our enemies did it" line as the Democrats when the Panama papers came out, to distract from the contents of the docs. Would pointing that out also be "undue"? Remember that this article is about Russian "interference in the election", not Russia's "interference in the DNC's IT infrastructure." Therefore the broader political issues can't be dismissed, and in fact are not dismissed by RS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ummmmmm.... that's actually not true at all. Blatantly not true. Can you *specifically* which parts of the "Reactions" section have "little to do" with the Russian interference in the US election? Because when I read it, it looks like all of is precisely about that. (And seriously, trying to distinguish between "Russian interference in US election" and "Russian interference in DNC structure" is just silly) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Former CIA director Michael Morell said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat and called it the "political equivalent" of the September 11 attacks". Let's see: an ex-spy saying "its 911!" is wp:due and relevant; a sitting president saying that the Democrats have used the "Russian interference" angle as a distraction from their political mistakes and from the content of the emails is off-topic. Did I get that about right? Finally there is nothing silly about the distinction: Russian "interference in the election" encompasses everything from hacking to fundamentally compromising the electoral process. Some others (rough irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 60% baseline): Trump on WMD (60%); Trump on China (100%); ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (100%); ex-CIA Harlow on Trump's "hideousness" (100%); Clinton on Putin's personal vendetta (50%); McElvaine calling for intervention by the electoral college (50%) because it's the worst scandal ever (a year ago, the worst was "Benghazi-gate", if memory serves); probably a few others I was too lazy to cite. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You said, quote, "90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state". You haven't actually managed to substantiate that at all, just made up some numbers. Here, let me respond (irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 87.456% baseline):

Ex-CIA director (3.455%), Trump on WMD (8.334%), Trump on China (actually barely mentioned) (100*(sqr(2)/5.7)%), ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (actually disrespecting CIA assessment of the hack) (2x+y=2.8, x=y, .01*x%), ex-CIA Harlow (actually not Trump's hideousness, but that the dispute is hideousness, please read that correctly) (.01*(e^2)/2*e^1.1%), Clinton on Putin's vendetta (.01*lim (x--> inf) (5*(x^4)+6)/(6*(x^4)+3*(x^3)+2x)... %), McElvaine calling for intervention (4.9494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949439494949494%).

See how that works? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, it doesn't look like the two of you are discussing your issue in terms of the policy WP:UNDUE, which begins with,

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Support including mention of this. However the 'quote' is not a quote, but a translation, so it doesn't really seem to belong. I think we can describe his statements as blaming and criticizing the Democrats and denying the Russia's involvement (as opposed to simply saying that he denied Russian involvement), but any English version of what he said cannot, by definition be a quote. We shouldn't try to present it as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, MrX suggested above, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

* Support including the citation as proposed by TheTimesAreAChanging. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to whether Putin personally or not directed the hacks. He has responded to these accusations, which makes it relevant, and he has been quoted by a number of WP:RS. It's a no-brainer.XavierItzm (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Support but shorten. I agree with Volunteer Marek about WP:UNDUE. Half of this quote isn't really about Russia's involvement in the U.S. election but a snarky comment about Democrats' dignity. And the remaining part can probably be adequately summarized without quotation. Putin denied Russia's involvement and criticized the Democrats for casting blame. That should do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Since we have an entire article devoted to an unproven allegation against Putin, it is due weight to include the few sentences where he responds. TFD (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Support As Trump and Putin are the two main accused, any statement by them is relevant. JS (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Support but shorten (significantly). I agree with Dr. Fleischman & Volunteer Marek re: UNDUE. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Support but paraphrase per MrX suggestion above (Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat). Pincrete (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Support (summoned by bot) as an aspect of the incident that has been widely reported, but ideally with the quote shortened or paraphrased. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

References

WP:DUEWEIGHT has nothing to do with who made the response, and everything to do with the extent of coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to convince other editor that this material should be added to the article, you might start by showing that other reliable sources are treating it as important and that it helps readers understand the subject.- MrX 03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay—I gave you Reuters—here's Huffington Post, Slate, Business Insider, CNN, Fox News, and USA Today. A Google search for "Putin sore losers" gets 263,000 hits. And this story just broke a few hours ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- ... Washington Post, Daily Mail, Politico, CNBC Marteau (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm changing the RfC title from the highly argumentative "Is Putin's own response UNDUE?" to "Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?" PEr Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the question presented in an RfC should be brief, neutral, and specific. The original title was none of these. And TheTimesAreAChanging, you should put your argument/perspective under "survey" or "threaded discussion" — not under the question presented. These are pretty simple and important rules for RfCs.

Separately but relatedly, it's also incorrect to frame the issue of whether "Putin's own response should be included" — his response already is included, under "Reactions: Russian government," we clearly and specifically note what Putin's representatives have said (denied that Russia participated, termed accusation "nonsense") and additional quote Russian foreign minister Lavrov as well. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be preferable to cite only "Putin's representatives," but not the man himself—especially when a CIA-connected journalist told ABC Putin was "personally involved"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In light of the malformed presentation, I suggest somebody archive this and that if OP wishes to pursue the RfC a properly stated and formatted version be presented. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Only in American Politics, folks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If you move your argumentation out of the question section (to the comments or threaded discussion section), that would in my view fix the problem. This is a pretty simple thing to do to follow pretty simple RfC rules. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We're only going to have a problem a month from now if this RfC is not properly set forth. I am going to post on AN asking for assistance. The cherrypicked statement by Putin on the 23rd is not about the hacking, it's another in his denigrations of the Democrats and by implication Sec'y Clinton, for whom he has longstanding animosity. There are RS accounts of Putin denying Russian involvement in the hacking and it's appropriate to say Russia denied the conclusions of the US Gov't, but this RfC is misstated and cites Putin's off-topic dissembling on a different subject. This needs to be closed and a proper RfC or edit -- on the topic of this article -- added to the talk page or article. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The premise of the RfC that "Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election" with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source. Presentation of Putin's response to accusations came a little later in the reliable source, as indicated in my comment in the survey section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why this RfC is a hot mess. Even if the putative outcome were "support" it would not relate to the relevant matter, namely that Putin has denied involvement. So any supporting !votes here are supporting an undue off-topic and irrelevant statement. That's why we need to shut this down and mount a properly stated RfC, although frankly, as others have stated, the posting of this RfC seems like an argumentative and WP:POINTy reaction to @Volunteer Marek:'s appropriate reversion of the off-topic content. Is there an Admin in the house? Please can't we get this straight? OP has been asked to edit, but at this point we have responses and it is too late for OP to correct this. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if admins intervene in this type of situation. In the meantime, you might consider adding your opinion to the survey section and hope that more will see the problem with this RfC and oppose it --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you, but I will also challenge any close that purports to endorse off-topic article content due to the disruptive malformed statement of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As documented below, Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are playing with fantasies rather than facts, and SPECIFICO is the only one being disruptive (while threatening further disruption). Putin's remarks are apparently so damaging to the narrative these editors seek to promote that they find it easier to assimilate them into their worldview by assiduously denying that Putin said what everyone else heard him say (Russia's official transcript be damned!).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of alternate universe Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are living in when they claim "The premise of the RfC that 'Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election' with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source." Here is Russia's official transcript of the press conference:

Yevgeny Primakov: Our western colleagues often tell us that you have the power to manipulate the world, designate presidents, and interfere in elections here and there. How does it feel to be the most powerful person on Earth? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the "vestiges of a 17th century chapel," but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting. ... The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

And here is how this was reported in reliable sources:

"Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it," The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has a message for the White House and Democratic leaders who accuse him of stealing their candidate’s victory: Don't be sore losers. That was how Putin answered a question Friday at his nationally televised annual news conference about whether Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. The Democrats 'are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame,' he told the nearly 1,400 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall for the nearly four-hour event. 'In my view, this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity.'"
"Putin says Democrats are being sore losers: 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully'," Business Insider, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that top Democrats are being sore losers by, in part, looking to blame Hillary Clinton's stunning election loss on hacks said to have been orchestrated by the Kremlin. 'They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame,' Putin said. 'I think that this is an affront to their own dignity.' 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully,' he added, suggesting Clinton's loss was a result of a 'gap between the elite's vision of what is good and bad' and the 'broad popular masses.'"
"Putin reaches out to Trump, while thumping Dems," Fox News, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin followed up a warm letter to Donald Trump with a more terse message for U.S. Democrats Friday: Don't blame me for your November drubbing. ... 'Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere,' he said. 'They need to learn to lose with dignity.' 'The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress. ... Is that also my work?' he said. He went on to ridicule Democrats for never-say-die efforts to overturn the Nov. 8 presidential election, first by calling for recounts, then trying to get electors to flip. 'The fact that the current ruling party called Democratic has blatantly forgotten the original definition of its name is evident if one takes into consideration unscrupulous use of administrative resource and appeals to electors not to concede to voters' choice,' Putin said, according to the Russian news agency Tass."

Do I really need to go on? There is no serious argument that this material has nothing to do with "claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election"; as both the official transcript and the cited RS make clear, Putin chose to respond to the question about interfering in the election by emphasizing the Democrats's need for an external scapegoat. The real argument is simply that some editors don't like how Putin chose to respond, citing WP:NOCRITICISMOFTHEDEMOCRATICPARTYCANEVER,EVER,EVERBEALLOWED—red link very much intended.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. Maybe my recent message responding to you in the Survey section might clarify that. [15] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is this content off-topic? Putin discussed the hacking scandal - isn't that directly relevant to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marteau:It was not the Democrats accusing the Russians of this or that. It was the official intelligence assessment of the US Government, accepted by both parties in Congress and just about everywhere else except the Trump team, who endorsed and requested Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It is not our task to judge the correctness, or incorrectness, of Putin's statement. It is his opinion and his reply to the accusations he has faced, and it belongs in the "Reaction and Commentary" section. But besides that, the Democrats certainly DID accuse the Russians "of this or that". They actually made quite a big to-do about it, as I recall. Marteau (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But my point is that his "accusers" are not the Democrats, it is the US Government. Only the Trump campaign and associates deny this. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Obama administration accuses Russian government of election-year hacking" Marteau (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to your statement above that Putin's derogation of the Democrats is on topic for this article because it was the Democratic Party that accused/determined that the Russians hacked. But it was not the Democratic Party, it was the US Government -- the Obama Administration for the executive branch based on the National Intelligence Assessment, and a broad bi-partisan array of US members of Congress. So Putin's snarky put-down presumably of the campaign of Sec'y Clinton, whom he despises, is not relevant to this article. It might be relevant to an article about Secretary Clinton's campaign, since it is a meme that various talking heads on the cable networks have also presented. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Marteau (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please specify the disagreement. Do you doubt that mainstream RS all report that it was the US Gov't intelligence assessment that Russia hacked? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Russian interference in the election. Democrats, using US intelligence as a basis, have in fact accused Russia of interference. Putin has addressed Democratic criticism. I feel that these issues are worthy of inclusion in an article about Russian interference in the election. I think it has foundation and rationale for inclusion based on policy and guidelines. Thats my stance, you disagree. Now, I'll resume agreeing to disagree if you don't mind :) Marteau (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If we treated the U.S. government like any other government—for example, the former Soviet regime—we would be far more skeptical of official U.S. government statistics on GDP, inflation, or anything else—and we would be particularly cautious when reporting on classified CIA intelligence analyses anonymously leaked to CIA-connected journalists working for CIA-connected newspapers with no supporting evidence. If we were capable of looking at the U.S. government objectively, we would recognize that it has the same feuding power centers and careerist incentives to the tow the line as any other state—that the CIA is perfectly capable of fabricating intelligence to suit the needs of the incumbent administration—indeed, that the CIA has a long history of doing exactly that. Recall, for example, Richard Helms's bowing to pressure from LBJ to reduce the CIA's estimate of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troop strength: "At one point the CIA analysts estimated enemy strength at 500,000, while the military insisted it was only 270,000. No amount of discussion could resolve the difference. Eventually, in September 1967, the CIA under Helms went along with the military's lower number for the combat strength of the Vietnamese Communist forces." (That illusion was, of course, shattered in spectacular fashion next January.) (SPECIFICO even recently cited "George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD 'intelligence' was a lie"—but I'm sure that could never happen today!) The publicly available facts are as follows:

As of October 31, 2016—just days before the election (and at a time when pundits were still postulating a 90-98% chance that Clinton would win)—the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that "even the hacking into Democratic emails ... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Donald Trump." This assessment was radically altered following Trump's surprise victory (and shortly before the Electoral College voted), but—so far as is known—the intelligence community has not acquired any new information on Russia's actions or intentions since October 31.
On December 9—the same day that President Obama ordered a full investigation into Russia's alleged role in the election—the CIA leaked its apparently predetermined conclusion that Russia intentionally helped Trump to its favorite newspaper—The Washington Post.
After leaking these shocking new claims to the press, the intelligence community refused to share any of the underlying evidence with Congress—citing the ongoing review ordered by Obama! In another hate fact purged from this article, Representative Peter T. King called the intelligence community's conduct "absolutely disgraceful," adding: "It's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States." (The CIA has violated its charter to manipulate U.S. public opinion many times in the past—and has a history of rigging democratic elections across the globe, from Italy to Chile.)
Whatever the current official U.S. government position, the U.S. "free press" unquestioningly towed the government line in a coordinated and Orwellian manner, resulting in headlines such as the following: "No, the presidential election can't be hacked," CNN, October 19, 2016. cf. "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?," CNN, December 10, 2016.
Finally, on December 23, Putin pointed out the obvious: Claims that "Russia hacked the election" look suspiciously like a trumped-up (pardon the pun) attempt to obfuscate the Democrats's stunning repudiation by invoking a sinister foreign bogeyman as the scapegoat. This is consistent with the above facts, as well as the broader psychological phenomenon of the Western Left incessantly blaming "the Russians!" for its continual series of defeats. (See, e.g., "Russian hackers 'probably swayed Brexit vote', says Ben Bradshaw MP," Sky News, December 14, 2016; "Russia Pushing Migrant Rapes': Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim," The Sun, December 14, 2016.)

Because Putin's remarks are so profoundly damaging to the current official U.S. government position (itself likely to suddenly, inexplicably change yet again after January 20, 2017), editors are pretending that Putin didn't really say what the official transcript says he said, or couldn't possibly have meant it—and, in any case, doubting the accuracy and integrity of the CIA is inherently WP:UNDUE, or something.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The last point too accurate to be said out loud. I can't wait to see what will be considered "due" and "reliable" for this article after January 20th, 2017. US officials say... Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I frankly can't believe that we're arguing over whether a widely covered statement by the Russian President on the hacking scandal and election is relevant to this article. Even more than that, I can't believe that there are people who are arguing that it isn't related to "2016 United States election interference by Russia." I feel like I've stepped into an alternate reality. Really, can we just step back and try to approach this article with less blatant POV battling? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The thrashing and wailing accompanying the proposed inclusion of a quote by the man directly accused of involvement in this issue, in the "Commentary and Reactions - Russian Government" subsection is becoming ludicrous and at this point I have to believe POV pushing is involved. The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement; it ascribes a purported motive and is something anyone who hopes to fully understand the dynamics of this issue should be exposed to. His words also capture the tenor of the issue and the animosity present beyond which what a sterile paraphrase can capture. That this statement is Putin's POV is clear, and any bemoaning about how it casts Democrats in a bad light insults the intelligence of the reader... the source and his bias is obvious and the reader needs no protection from such a quote in a "Commentary" subsection. Marteau (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Re "The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement" – If you read it carefully, it does not deny Russian involvement. Here it is for reference, "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."

Also note that it is not a quote of what he said, which was in Russian, but rather a translation. It differs from the translation given on the President of Russia webcite, although it essentially has the same or similar meaning. Here it is for reference, "They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully."[16]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Putin's comment could be more properly considered a comment, or reaction. Which actually makes it perfectly appropriate material for the "Commentary and Reaction" section, which is of course what this RfC is about. Marteau (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (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.

Pierre Sprey

I deleted the sentence on Pierre Sprey: An analyst of military budgets and programs way before the end of the Cold War? ("Breaking news: Earthquake in Japan. Here’s our reporter on the scene in India, reporting from the same hemisphere.") Spray was an aeronautical engineer working for the Pentagon until 1986 who then went into the business of recording music. Ah yes, 1986. Good times: The Macintosh Plus and only another year to wait for Microsoft Works for DOS and Star Trek TNG. "Of course," he added with a laugh, "the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era." They exaggerated the size of Russia’s guns back then, so they’re lying about Russia's interference now? Sheesh. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't have any attachment to Sprey as an individual, but they are being quoted by Andrew Cockburn - a frequent, notable commentator on international affairs - in Harper's Magazine. Sprey is effectively cited to describe the notion of "threat inflation." While I don't mind eliminating Sprey's name in the article, I think we should somehow reference the idea, either by quoting Cockburn, or Sprey. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with threat inflation, the projections of Cheney's WMD to the contrary notwithstanding. This article is about what happened. Not drumming up hysteria to bomb a country to smithereens. Old opinions on the subject -- more than a week old now, with fresh revelations -- are worth very little. I suggest we find fresh commentary to the extent commentary is needed for this encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That wholly misses the point: Cockburn is writing about the possibility that allegations of election interference are a form of threat inflation. Do you not get that from the article? It states, "...we couldn’t stop their threat-inflating, and their nonworking weapons continued to be produced in huge quantities. Of course," he added with a laugh, “the art of creating threats has advanced tremendously since that primitive era." Sprey was referring to the current belief that the Russians had hacked into the communications of the Democratic National Committee... Or is it that you personally disagree with Sprey and Cockburn, and do not want their view in the article? -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Cockburn's article deals with the alleged Russian hacking directly, and ties Sprey's remarks direclty to that issue. I'll just repeat what I've written above: not every editor will agree with every opinion cited in the article, or find every opinion plausible, but the metric we should go by is notability of the opinions. Sprey does have expertise in intelligence matters, and Cockburn is a well known political commentator in America, writing in a prestigious magazine. -Thucydides411 (talk)

My friend, it has been explained by several editors on various occasions that "notability" is not the test as to whether article content is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was speaking a bit loosely. I didn't mean that WP:NOTE applies to sources, but I read WP:DUE and WP:BALASP as requiring some sort of notability of the commentary. My point is that whether or not particular editors agree with the arguments the commentators make is not the metric we use to determine whether those commentaries should be included in the article. I'm not going to argue against Space4Time3Continuum2x's opinion of Pierre Sprey's commentary, because that's not the point. The point is that he was quoted by Alexander Cockburn in Harper's. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I for one don't care whether Sprey's opinion is included or not, but I'm getting really tired of reading your relentless opposition to include anything you personally disagree with. As a veteran Wikipedian, your fellow editors expect a tad more neutrality from you, less badgering and fewer aspersions. — JFG ^talk 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attacks have got to stop. Now. That stuff is WP:UNDUE. Stuff can be verified, published in RS and be undue for an article on a specific topic. Please comment on content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am criticizing your comments, not your person. And you have made plenty of personal attacks before receiving the slightest admonition, so please don't go there. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I advised you to "comment on content". SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that Sprey is undue. Not cleat on what the fact he said something to Cockburn has to do with it - the text isn't about Cockburn so that's completely beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: They exaggerated the size of Russia’s guns back then, so they’re lying about Russia's interference now? Sheesh. Yeah, we will definitely delete the judgement of a former defence analyst, cited in Harpers by a prominent journalist and author of "Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins", "Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy" and " Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein", now that a wikipedia editor has dismissed it with a devastating "sheesh". The intel community also "exaggerated" (i.e. made up) the size of Iraq's WMDs, fueling a war of aggression which killed many thousands of US troops and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. "Sheesh" indeed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to correct myself: Sprey left the Pentagon in 1970, before there even was an Internet! He was a weapons system analyst on the staff of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis) (OASD/SA)~~, obviously an equally effective way to avoid getting drafted as heel spurs~~. Gives a whole new meaning to the "primitive era" quote in the Harper's article. Summing up: He was never a member of the intelligence community, he's not an expert on cyber-anything, and the Harper's article is off-topic. I don't believe there's any Wikipedia rule that protects long-standing content from removal for good reason. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Sprey did nothing bad to you besides being in the article. Now he's even being libelled as draft dodger. The kitchen sink... But ok, I admire the tenacity: if he not former intel, then whatever the merit of the source, it can be removed from the section. 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"the Harper's article is off-topic". The Harper's article says, "Sprey was referring to the current belief that the Russians had hacked into the communications of the Democratic National Committee, election-related computer systems in Arizona and Illinois, and the private emails of influential individuals, notably Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — and then malignly leaked the contents onto the internet." That's clearly the topic of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. The Harper's article also explains that Sprey was an analyst in the Defense Department, and he's quoted in the article talking about estimates of Soviet military strength. He was clearly involved in the "intelligence community," and in the Harper's article, he's applying his experience there to the Russian hacking allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The United States Intelligence Community has a technical meaning: if you are not a employed by any of the member agencies, you are probably not a member of the "community". Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, either in my definition of "member", or in my assumption about Sprey's employment. Sprey is obviously remains relevant to the article, but he simply can't be labeled something he is not. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Member: I agree. Relevance: Disagree. Sprey was involved in infighting at the Pentagon during the Vietnam era over which fighter plane to buy; his faction lost, and he seems to have continued shadow-fighting ever since then. How is this relevant to who's behind the hacking/publication, expecially since he was mentioned in only one article in one publication? He's in a business where any publicity is good publicity, and he’s probably on a few journalists "always good for an amusing quote" list. Thucydides shouldn't have restored the contentious material to the article as long as there is a discussion going on, but because of 1RR I can't remove it at the moment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The comment on threat inflation is relevant, and a pretty mainstream opinion. A former defence analyst is perfectly capable of assessing whether threat inflation is going on. No degree in cyber-security is necessary in this case; an understanding of politics and government bureaucracy is what's needed, and Sprey probably is qualified enough in that regard. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's cherry-picked. Find an unimpeachable reference if you think this is an important point that relates to the subject of this article -- which is questionable, btw. And BLP is clear wrt smear. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that's possible. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Impossible to find a valid reference? Then it's prima facie UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not trying to "impeach" the people cited by various commentators here. A well known commentator on American politics, writing in Harper's, cited a former defense department analyst on something that analyst has experience with: "threat inflation." But I do agree with Guccisamsclub that if the Office of Systems Analysis at the Pentagon was not formally part of the "intelligence community," then we can move this opinion to a better subheading. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of unimpeachible, which I clearly used to refer to the "reference" and not to any person. I am quite surprised if you did not understand that. Please have another look at the dialogue above. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, is it Pierre Sprey you have a problem with, or is it Harper's? Harper's is the magazine, Pierre Sprey is the guy they cited. From the above thread, it looks like you're arguing that Sprey is somehow unfit to be cited. But Alexander Cockburn, writing in Harper's, considered Pierre Sprey's opinion on "threat inflation" informative and relevant to the alleged Russian hacking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just cuz someone published it don't mean it belongs in this WP article. @Volunteer Marek: has already explained this principle with pithy pointed precision elsewhere on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Sprey, Cockburn, or Harper's. Since we have consensus that Sprey is not a former member of the Intelligence Committee, I've removed the sentence from the section. If you can come up with a suitable section/subheading, we can continue the discussion there. The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Sprey (or Binney/McGovern, for that matter) at all, i.e., not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

This is an important story. Trump's campaign contacts with Russia need to be added. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=

Let's wait until the transcripts are released in the next week or so. I don't believe that this communication is publicly reported to be about the Russian interference yet. SPECIFICO talk 05:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning. If we were to wait until something was proven before writing about it, this article would not exist. [Here's http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/donald-trump-aides-russians-campaign/index.html] a link to the story in CNN. TFD (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder when Wikipedians will stop reacting to the news du jour as if the integrity of the project depended on up-to-the-minute insertion of whatever hits the news cycle. Contrary to the press, there is no deadline, we don't have pressure to sell paper, views or clicks and we don't need to rabidly reprint every controversial or sensationalist thing floating around the media (look: Melania did some racy pictures 15 years ago! and she's suing for libel!! and she intended to use her notoriety for personal profit!!! Oh the humanity!!!!) But fine. At least if you're going to include this, please add Trump's denial at his press conference yesterday. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your POV is that this is like Melania wearing this or that kind of suit... ??? It was reported in RS almost a month ago. I see that @Capsrings: has added it to the article, and I advise you to articulate a well-considered, policy-based justification if you choose to revert it. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia ties of Trump campaign staff and advisors

Trump campaign manager Manafort - consultant to Russian-backed, former Ukrainian president Yanukovitch
Trump advisor Page - Gazprom and other investments in Russia/Russian energy sector
Flynn - on December 10, 2015, Flynn gave a paid interview to RT at RT 10-yr. anniversary gala attended by Putin.

As for Trump himself, I’m pretty sure everyone has watched him (if not, see here and here) request Russia to release 30,000 missing emails , hacked not from the DNC server but from Clinton's private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State (which, to everyone's best knowledge, wasn't hacked). Of course he was just kidding, the ole gadfly, or was he? Trump has ties to Russia/Russian financing going back years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources to support linkage to Russia

The sources are clear and the linkages are similar. It is important to the article.

Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum (June 17, 2016), "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin", The Washington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
"Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
"Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
Wasserman, Harvey (December 12, 2016), "Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated", The Huffington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs (November 1, 2016), "Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank", The Guardian, retrieved December 14, 2016
Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
"Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016
Kim, Lucian (December 14, 2016), "Trump's Men In Moscow: Trump Disciples Suddenly Showing Up In Russia", National Public Radio, retrieved December 14, 2016
Chance, Matthew (December 15, 2016), "Why are Trump loyalists showing up in Moscow?", CNN, retrieved December 15, 2016

19:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is extremely well sourced and covered for months. I would ask that User:Guccisamsclub revert this edit. The rationale given does not match the reality of the sourcing and the coverage. Casprings (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with election interference? What are those "ties" exactly and how did they affect the election, according to these sources? Without a clear answer to this question, the material remains a bunch WP:COAT+WP:SYNTH smoke without fire. Since it involves a living person, it is also a vacuous BLP-smear. Guccisamsclub (talk)

No it is supportable by the sources, but I will wait for comment by other editors. Casprings (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What is supportable by sources? Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That this is important context for the reader (and covered by multiple WP:RS) and that this belongs in the background section. You can't use WP:SYCH, when WP:RS have made the connection multiple times and commented on in for context. Casprings (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to be explicit about what that has to do with election interference, which is the topic of the article.

Also, that server crap is a conpiracy theory (promoted by HRC on twitter) that's been debunked and debunked and debunked. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And this was in the background section. Trump's connections to Russia are important background and commented on by multiple WP:RS. I do not believe the server was in the text previously. Casprings (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The server claim is bullshit. The rest of this seems well-supported, but it's synth to say it's related to this article (I haven't checked every one of those sources, just a few, so I may be wrong about this). I think this belongs in Donald Trump, not here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Again, multiple WP:RS use these linkages for context for the election interference. A quick Google search will confirm that. If WP:RS think it is important for context, it should be in the background section here.Casprings (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  - Again, this is mushy as hell and you can't incriminate a living person with a bunch of smoke. The onus is on you to explain what this has to do with the election, using your "numerous sources". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It remains a distinct possibility that Trump has compromising ties to Russia, and even to Russian Intelligence, yet at the same time the Russian efforts to influence the election were taken on his behalf without there being any connection between them. I (preemptively) agree that it's extremely unlikely, but we live in a big world with lot's of people, so unlikely things happen quite frequently.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It actually is likely that this is much ado about nothing. Russia liked Trump for several reasons: he was destabilizing, he was not Clinton, and said nice things about Putin. The Kremlin did not have to ask Trump for permission to hack the DNC or to praise Trump. Likewise Trump and his supporters did not have to meet with Russian spies to iron out the finer points of his delirious campaign rhetoric. Direct collaboration between these two parties would have seriously compromised both of them (resulting in imprisonment, retaliation etc.) and would have accomplished nothing palpable. This would have been the dumbest and most masochistic conspiracy ever devised. Reality is much more prosaic: Trump liked Putin because the latter was a strong leader who was bombing uppity Muslims and "upholding traditional Christian values" (popular ideas with Trump's base). Putin liked Trump for reasons already described, though it this love is already wilting. (IMHO all these vague "links", "ties" and "associations" would be at home on Glenn Beck's chalkboard—which is as American as apple pie). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If the Russians decided to support Trump because of or as a result of (note the dichotomy there) his connections to Russia, (which is highly likely but again, not certain) but kept Trump in the dark about this support, they would still be related. The (slim) possibility I pointed out was the chance that one branch of Russian Intelligence said "We like this Trump candidate, let's propose we interfere to help him win," without being aware of Trumps existing ties to Russia, or even another branch of Russian Intelligence, then they would not be related. That I find to be highly unlikely, but it's certainly possible.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The (slim) possibility I pointed out was the chance that one branch of Russian Intelligence said "We like this Trump candidate, let's propose we interfere to help him win," without being aware of Trumps existing ties to Russia, or even another branch of Russian Intelligence, then they would not be related. They were certainly aware of the "links" (which seem mostly innocuous—I have "links" to Russia as well), but those "links" aren't really needed to explain their support for Trump—in fact they don't explain much of anything. Clinton had "dealings" with Russia too. That's my point. Also note the vacuousness of the language that was used to justify the edit: "links", "ties", "associations", "backround", "multiple sources". Those words don't explain anything. An "explanation" would be something along the lines of what I wrote earlier. Naturally, people are free to challenge my "theory", but we need to work with explanations rather than associations. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

See "Synthesis": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case it is implied synthesis, that you think there is a connection between his Russian ties and the alleged interference in the election. James Kirchick's article was published 27 April 2016 before any of the allegations had been made. Also, since the interference is an allegation, not a fact, you cannot just say this is the background but say that writers have identified this background as relevant to the story. TFD (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

At a more basic level: Relevant how? At this point it's little more than hand waving (But but Russia? But but emails? --OK, what about them?). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, if the writers say it's background but don't justify it, so long as we use source voice to say it's background, we're covered. But again, I don't think "some writers said this makes good background info on this story" is sufficient justification to include it here. The articles Donald Trump, Russia, USSR, FSB, Hacking and countless others are good background info on this story, but we're sure as hell not transcribing them all here.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. However, if Casprings could provide an explanation (preferably one that RS agree upon) as to why the Kremlin appeared to welcome Trump and vice versa, we could include that. I have a feeling the explanation is pretty banal: they agreed on some issues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere as how Mr. Trump used a public address to call upon Vladimir Putin to hack Sec'y Clinton or the Democrats' emails? That would seem to close the triangle. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Trump was sending a message to GRU via basic cable. That was campaign rhetoric/sarcasm.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your OR. RS do not share your "opinion" Sensitive messages are often embedded in public speech, which is a mode of communication that could be colored not to violate the Logan Act. Here:s some discussion with WP:RS citations:

In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email of Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 Presidential Election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act.^[1]^[2] Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, also commented on the incident saying, "Trump's "jokes" inviting an adversary to wage cyberwar against the U.S. appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason."^[3]

^ Lesniewski, Niels (2016-07-28). "Reid Says Trump Should Get Fake Intel Briefings". United States: Roll Call. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
^ Noble, Jason (2016-07-28). "Trump's Russia comments could be a felony, Vilsack charges". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved 2017-02-12.
^ Kelly, Caroline (2016-07-28). "Former Obama mentor: Trump's Russian hack 'jokes' could 'constitute treason'". Politico. Retrieved 2017-02-12.

SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Devastating. Add this content to the article immediately. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just cause your POV was refuted, nobody considers you "devastated" I take it you agree to inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The stuff you just cited purports to show how Trump and Russia were actively colluding. Clearly, it is relevant to the article: straightforward and to point. As I've already said, I have no problem with your proposed content—ADD IT RIGHT NOW. What I am emphatically against is including a section on Trump's "ties" without any explanation of what they mean or what impact they've had on the election. Is that clear enough? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto what Gucci said, only I want to change "-ADD IT RIGHT NOW." to "-ADD IT! ADD IT NOW!"

And to be clear, it should be read in a distinctive Austrian accent.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Gucci, please review the sources. And do your own adding. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The connections between D. Trump team and Russian government were widely published and highly relevant for this page. How much of this background information should be provided is debatable, but something must be said about it from the very beginning of the section. And let's respect 1RR rule on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For those interested in a moratorium

Please see this discussion at AN regarding a possible moratorium on page moves for this page. Thank you. SkyWarrior 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Detritus

There's still a ton of UNDUE, out of context, poorly sourced and cherry-picked text in this article. I just removed and fixed some of it. Others are encouraged to do the same. This is an example of why "longstanding content" should only be applied to content where explicit consensus or extensive discussion was evident on Talk. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO also lack of independent reliable (secondary) sourcing is what it is. Marginal opinions and commentary that is actually at the point of obscurity, do to lack of RS, really should not be in this article. We are supposed edit in agreement with content policies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, there have been several instances wherein secondary details, that were only incidental to the RS' topics or views, were helicoptered out and placed in a different context as if to support a narrative not contained within the source. I've just fixed one of those regarding the statements in an Ars Technica article. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

@JFG: Your edits of a few hours ago suggest that you are.

Cybersecurity analysis. "Consequently" is editor’s POV, and I’m pretty sure that you are familiar with the Commentary and reactions section, subsection Hillary Clinton.
Cybersecurity analysis. Your edit: "Some dissenting security experts questioned the connection between the hacks and the leaks, stating that a "sloppy" email leak would not match the sophistication of Russian spy agencies." One cherry-picked, slightly rewritten sentence from the article (date July 26, 2016, not exactly breaking news). The original reads: "But other security experts say that a sloppy email leak, filled with evidence of Russian involvement, would be uncharacteristic for the country’s sophisticated spy agencies." Editorializing aside: Also flawed reasoning - I may have the most highly sophisticated spying tools in the world, but if a simple proven method like spearphishing is successful, I’d go with it. And if I was a twenty-something getting paid to do what I love to do, i.e., hacking and trolling, why wouldn’t I figuratively thumb my nose at my victims by using the Cheka guys name (nyah nyah - catch me, if you can) where it will be seen?
I haven’t figured out yet what your "consolidation of duplicate sources and keeping of those most relevant to text" involved. Why are the ones you removed less relevant to the topic? You added the two overcites at 02:00, 2 February 2017, waited a couple of weeks and then "cleaned up". Please, self-revert the edit and discuss first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x, I'm happy to explain my edits. The section "Cybersecurity analysis" had suffered from overcite for several months, as I noted on February 2. Besides, it was hard to read, looking like extra citations had been thrown there without paying attention to what was already reported. Seeing that none of the original contributors stepped up to improve the status quo, I decided to tackle it. My approach was first to read every cited article and determine which of them were simply duplicating others. On that basis I removed a few cites that did not bring more information. Then I saw several cited sources which spoke about other stuff, and had to decide what to do with them:

an article mentioned Fancy Bear in relation with the Olympics doping scandal, so I added a sentence to summarize it, although it could be considered off-topic and removed;
an article talked about the Clinton campaign blaming Russia following the hacking reports, so I added that; I agree that there's already a section for this, so we don't need to repeat it here;
an article simply reported the Wikileaks of 20,000 DNC emails; I removed it as this issue was already mentioned elsewhere on the page;
an article presented several opinions of security experts, both supporting and questioning the connection between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence, so I added the contra opinion for balance (that's the reason for part of my edit summary "add counter-opinions already cited in sources");
an article speculated about potential hacking of future German elections; I removed it as off-topic and crystalline;
an article talked about DCLeaks and hacks of NATO General Breedlove and Soros' foundations but there was no text, so I added some; this could be considered off-topic and removed.

After sorting through the sources as explained, I formatted the remaining citations properly, performed some general copyediting and re-ordered things chronologically; I also grouped the pro and contra arguments to reduce confusion about who said what. Note that I inserted or preserved text on both sides of the "it's the Russians" debate, so I deny pushing a POV here; I'm just trying to make the article clearer for readers. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:You claimed on your talk page that this was just "clean-up" but it should now be clear to you that I am not the only one who views this as a significant revert. Please undo your 1RR violation, so that we do not need to ask Admins to adjudicate this. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the paragraph extensively as explained in detail here. How is this a revert? You then expurged some parts of the section, and I haven't reverted you there. — JFG ^talk 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed stuff reinstated w/o consensus

I removed Ritter, which content had no consensus to restore, despite an edit war that resulted in it being reinstated w/o consensus - per now archived talk thread. Also trimmed Binney bit, including his straw man about the "goal" of the unclassified report being to give "proof". Do not reinsert without demonstrating consensus on talk. And don't claim "longstanding" 00 which would not stand scrutiny at AE given documented lack of consensus. The only reason it was the existing version is because those favoring it edit-warred, while those opposing stepped back. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael T. Flynn

Without commenting on what content or how much weight to be added, I'm pretty baffled that this article has 0 mentions about Michael T. Flynn. I feel like his resignation being indirectly connected to this should be mentioned at least somewhere. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen RS that links Flynn's inappropriate contact with the Russians specifically to the Russian hacking or attempts to promote Trump's chances in the election. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much that, than interference by the Russians resulted in the conversation that Flynn had with the Russians. He contacted them the same day the Obama administration said there would be retaliatory measures for the interference. I just think Flynn's contact and resignation afterwards could be mentioned here since it seems to be a direct result. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the most constructive way to approach this would be for you to propose specific article text and source citations. You may have found useful material that others have not seen. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Any source you provide must make the connection. TFD (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's what I gather, in the section about Flynn's downfall from his position. Here is an article I found about his contact with Kislyak (it should be pretty easy to find others):

Dec. 29: Flynn places five phone calls to Kislyak. These calls were apparently on unsecured lines, and monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the same day, Obama announces measures meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election.

It is this contact that resulted in the investigation for inappropriately having communications with the Russians (Kislyak) and resulted in his resignation. I would imagine the text added to the article be something along the lines of (under #Sanctions_imposed_on_Russia) Flynn had made contact with Kislyak on Dec. 29 on the day Obama announced sanctions against Russia, which after an investigation, later resulted in his resignation as National Security Advisor. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How did "interference by the Russians result[] in the conversation that Flynn had with the Russians?" TFD (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Masha Gessen

JFG has violated 1RR with this revert [17] concerning Masha Gessen's view of the Russian Hacking. The content he removed is clearly verified by the text of the article, which states that she does not dispute the Russians hacked the election. Gessen went on to say other things that don't relate to this article, namely that it's pointless to speculate that the Russian hacking was the decisive factor in the outcome of the election, and she then goes on to discuss the similarities between Trump and Putin in style and substance. In his edit comment, JFG misrepresented her statements about Trump/Putin similarities, mis-attributing Gessen's remark about "conspiracy theories" to the hacking, when in fact Gessen used that term to refer to speculation that Trump is a Putin "puppet" with a direct connection to Putin. I'm going to assume good faith and just think that JFG did not read the article carefully enough, but at any rate the text he reverted is straightforward and verified, and it is content that should be in the article if it is to present her view at all. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a single revert, not a DS violation, and I maintain that the gist of Masha Gessen's statement was misrepresented by SPECIFICO. The whole report quoted by SPECIFICO summarizes a lecture by Gessen where she makes the case that Trump has, in her opinion, no connection with Putin, and that American media and IC are engaged in "conspiracy thinking" (her words). As an aside, the commentator notes that she doesn't deny that the DNC was hacked, but adding this to our short summary of her stance is cherry-picking to push a POV. The most interesting part of her lecture for me is this:

“Putin watches ‘Putin TV.’ He tells a lie one night, watches himself on ‘Putin TV’ the next morning, and believes himself all the more. Trump has — amazingly — reproduced that same effect without state TV. They both live in a reality of their own making,

But that's of course totally off-topic for this particular article.

— JFG ^talk 17:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Having explained this in detail on JFG's talk page, it's hard to view this as anything other than misrepresentation of the source. The source text is as follows:

"While Gessen spoke on a variety of subjects Thursday night, the primary focus of her lecture was the similarities she sees between Putin and Trump.
She prefaced this portion of her remarks by saying that she thinks Putin and Trump are “very, very different people.”
Gessen was also dismissive of the idea that Trump is Putin’s “puppet,” or that there is any substantive connection between the Trump administration and Moscow.
She called such claims an, “exercise in conspiracy thinking, which can sometimes be comforting.”
While Gessen did not dispute that the hacking of the Democratic National Committee was perpetrated by Russians, she said that the idea that Russia decided the U.S. election requires a  “big leap in logic.” She said she doesn’t find dwelling on the hacks to be “particularly useful,” and pointed out that blaming Russia and claiming that Trump “wasn’t elected by the people  of this country is easier to take.”

The article text that JFG reverted is as follows: "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC."

That text is serves to contextualize the other text attributed to Ms. Gessen, in which she was addressing the report but which WP readers could misunderstand to think that she is stating the Russians were not the hackers. Either this text needs to go back into the article or we could remove Ms. Gessen's comments altogether since, after all, she is not a cybergeek computer expert. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting a long excerpt of the source, which vindicates my stance that her "not denying" that Russians hacked the DNC is just an aside, therefore misrepresenting her stance. And no, she is not a random cybergeek, she is a well-respected critic of Putin, which makes her dismissal of anti-Russian hysteria on this issue particularly significant and noteworthy. — JFG ^talk 18:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG and SPECIFICO I didn't realize a discussion of this edit was taking place. I added what I think is something more balanced, that is meant to satisfy both sides of this dispute. Also, I think this is a new edit that never existed before. Does this seem acceptable? Again sorry, I did not realize a discussion was taking place. I can self-revert if that is what people want. Also, take into consideration, to me Gessen seems useful due to her coverage in reliable sources. I am surprised at her stance, which seems to validate both sides of this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the "exercise in conspiracy thinking" seems not directly related to hacks that influence the 2016 election. It refers to Trump being Putin's puppet, which Gessen sees as an "exercise in conspiracy thinking". Here is a two line quote that supports this:' "Gessen was also dismissive of the idea that Trump is Putin’s 'puppet,' or that there is any substantive connection between the Trump administration and Moscow. She called such claims an, "exercise in conspiracy thinking, which can sometimes be comforting."" Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The source puts it in context, while the edit does not. It concludes the passage by saying "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC." That's like explaining how a NASA scientist debunked UFO conspiracy theories, then concluding by saying that he or she did not did not rule out that aliens had ever visited Earth. It's hard to prove a negative. TFD (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could put the referenced bits in reverse order, that would be fine. Surely you recognize the difference between the fact that the Russians hacked and the unprovable conclusion that the hacking was solely responsible for Trump's win. She is affirming the former and denying the latter. As should we all. It's very straightforward, but JFG has fabricated something entirely different and misrepresented her clear statement. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The passage in the source does not conclude with "Gessen does not dispute that Russians hacked the DNC". I am sorry, but JFG's statement does not seem credible. I accurately chose the passage that statement belongs with. Apparently this is a push to include other unrelated stuff or synthesis. I am amazed. As SPECIFICO said, it is very straightforward. In fact, he aptly summed up the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I don't understand what you mean by a push to include other unrelated stuff or synthesis. All I did was revert SPECIFICO's addition, I did not push to add any unrelated stuff. Now your edit provides more context but I find it overly lengthy. Could we perhaps just say "Gessen opined that the DNC hacks did not strongly influence the election.", which I would see as a reasonable summary of her position? — JFG ^talk 13:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got a cherrypicked snippet from Ms. Gessen that criticizes the report. It's used in the article to suggest she doubts that the Russian interference occurred, rather than to doubt that the unclassified information gives conclusive proof. Quinn has corrected that misimpression. There is not consensus for the bare version that misrepresented her view of the Russians' interference. We can either leave his version as it stands or we can delete the Gessen bit entirely. She is neither a cybersecurity expert nor a political scientist. The whole bit is close to being UNDUE. It's grasping at straws for snippets that can cast doubt on the Russian interference, when there is no such doubt among mainstream journalists and accredited experts. No doubt. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Specifico, you are looking at this backwards. You introduced a new source about Gessen, I didn't. You cherry-picked a statement in there that is an aside, to insert in the article text. I simply reverted this as a misrepresentation of the source that you yourself introduced, then you started complaining and you are now accusing me of cherrypicking and introducing biased stuff. OK, you may argue with my edit summary, not with my pointing out your cherrypicking. — JFG ^talk 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the Gessen bit belongs in this article, for the reasons I stated above. If you agree, feel free to remove it and we can all move on. Also, kindly don't make any more snarky edit summary comments. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As a prominent Russian-American journalist known for her strong criticism of Vladimir Putin, Masha Gessen's somewhat contrarian view of this affair is eminently relevant, in a section about media commentary. It doesn't matter whether random Wikipedia editors such as you or me agree or disagree with her. — JFG ^talk 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to warn you to stop making personal remarks insinuating that other editors are pursuing their POV or "I don't like it" or otherwise ignoring policy. I stated that her opinion is UNDUE because she is neither a cybersecurity expert nor a political scientist. Those are facts not personal opinions. Putin is not the subject of this article. She is an expert notable commentator on Putin, Russian government and politics and other subjects, but not on electrical engineering, software, networking, email security, etc. This is cherrypicked because she happened to say something about the report -- not about the hacking -- that you inserted and you alone are adamant about keeping. It doesn't belong in the article. If you choose to reply, please stick to policy and content, and do not comment on, or further denigrate, other editors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG I wasn't talking about the reversion of SPECIFICO's edit. And it is true that you did add anything else in its place. It seems SPECIFICO can do either with or without the new edit as it is. However, they are against altering this edit. I am also against altering this edit. I didn't realize it might be UNDUE, so I will look at this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: We have a section called "Media commentary" and Gessen is a renowned journalist, eminently qualified to discuss US–Russia relations, that's a fact too. I don't see any consensus to restrict DUE comments to cybersecurity experts or political scientists; if that was the case we would remove an awful lot of contents from this article, which consists mostly of comments and reactions by various parties about the Russian interference hypothesis. About personal remarks, have you ever heard of the pot and the kettle?

@Steve Quinn: Your comment is noted, thanks for the clarification. I am still of the opinion that the second Gessen source is off-topic, as she speaks mostly about similarities between Trump and Putin in that lecture. The first Gessen source, on the other hand, directly addresses the election interference report, so it should stay in. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This argument is pure sophistry and is absurd on its face. Al Roker is media. Tim McCarver is media. Jimmy Fallon is media. Do you advocate putting their views in the article? Think "necessary but not sufficient." SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted - by removing the text and the reference per UNDUE (first identified by Specifico) and this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. — JFG ^talk 06:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But the rest of the Gessen bit should also be removed. It takes her comment about one report and makes it sound as if she is doubting that the Russians hacked and intervened. That's unverified by the source it's UNDUE and she is not a notable expert in the area of the subject of this article. Her comments on the Russians and other topics are important for other articles and subjects. Any mention of her view here must accurately convey her view. She has been touring the lecture circuit with her statement that there's no doubt the Russians hacked... It is not an off the cuff, incidental, or misinterpreted remark. It's reported in the press reports of her speaking appearances. So either that fact needs to preface her discussion of the report or the whole Gessen bit needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies REVOKED at this page

I applied active arbitration remedies (the {{2016 US Election AE}} template) to this page on 13 December 2016. I regret it; I think they're more trouble than they're worth, and very difficult to understand. I've removed them. The page is no longer under 1RR, and there's no rule about consensus being required to reinstate any edit that has been challenged. I hope people will get on well with normal constructive editing and talkpage use. Of course any discussion which involves these now moved goalpoasts will have to be treated with a lot of AGF and common sense; any problem that arises in mid-stream will be my fault, I'm afraid. I've put a note on WP:AN, because I'm not aware of these remedies ever being revoked before. Of course that may lead to another admin reinstating the remedies pretty soon, or, we can hope, to a constructive discussion that leads to the template being improved, and less mysterious for the future. Sorry everybody. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

I would suggest a simpler remedy, but the truth is that the simpler the rules, the more complicated the act of interpreting them can get. So for now, fingers crossed and and I'm still staying out of the discussions until I see something that really needs a response and hasn't gotten one yet.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

17:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bishonen: thanks for your note. Is it possible to still keep the page under 1RR? That would at least slow down any conflict. I appreciate your lifting the DS however, given the confusion over what they mean exactly. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I've lost heart and have strewn ashes on my head. Let another admin do it. I've posted on AN, so there should be some admin attention. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: haha OK. I have some date palm branches if you need to replenish your supply, though truthfully, the simple act of applying the remedies here doesn't merit repentance, I think. -Darouet (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider this article under the normal WP:1RR restriction. I will add appropriate notices shortly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017

Moved and closed early per near-unanimous consensus. Sandstein 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections –

1. The original move request was closed as "Not moved. There is no consensus for this move, and there are several editors who expressed concern that both names violate WP:NPOV." The important element here is the no consensus. The vote for was 13 and the vote against was 11. As discussed in the move review, the opposing votes did not advance any arguments why the proposed name is worse than the current name. This is why I want to revisit this discussion.

2. Given that the title that many who opposed this move also could not gain consensus for a move they favored, with a vote of 17 to 24, I wish to return to this discussion. I believe a move request should weigh the two options against itself. I do not believe that one should oppose this by saying simply that both are Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE. One should make a logical argument why the proposed title would increase the problems with the title.

3. With that, I still believe the original rationale for the move are sound. Namely, the title conforms to the five criteria of WP:TITLE more than any other proposal that I've seen. It lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage in reliable sources, and is is written in a such that a reader could easily find it via search and have an immediate understanding of what the article is about.

4. I last attempted to have this discussion here. The discussion was closed quickly and I was told to wait 30 days and try again. In that time, another attempt was made to move the page to Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia. That again failed to gain consensus. With that move again failing to get consensus, I think the rationale for this move is stronger. I understand editors who believe that the current title and the proposed title of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are both WP:POVTITLE. However, if they are both POV, they are equal in that offense. If they are both WP:POVTITLE, the two suggestions should be compared based on other attributes. In that case, the proposed title is still better in that it lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage, and is written in a way that the reader can easily find the article. Casprings (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Close and block serial nominator Last time the user nominated this (immediately after a move review), I suggested a moratorium of two months- not only has it not been that, but the last RM (proposed by another editor) was closed less than one week ago. This article can't be at RM every day for as long as Wikipedia is online, and we need to take firmer action against this constant disruption. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Too bad because I wanted to discuss how it's a grammatically-awkward title to which Russian interference [etc.] is superior, and now I won't get to. (Wait, what?) El_C 08:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbet32 I proposed this one month ago. When I did so, the closer suggested that I wait one month. I did so. Also, I think the logic is sound as to why this proprosal makes sense. I would ask you to strike your comment.Casprings (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support – I agree that the proposed title has better grammar than the current one. This purely grammatical !vote is no endorsement of the title itself, which still fails WP:POVTITLE by stating as fact in wikivoice an accusation which is still being widely disputed after several months of controversy. The article contents do reflect the nature of the allegations with numerous well-sourced claims and counter-claims, hence the title does not accurately represent what is stated in the article. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Support as making more sense and simply sounding better, I don't agree that the title is POV – it is simply how this recent chain of events is referred to. Laurdecl ^talk 13:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Support The meaning is unchanged, and it gets rid of the abominable and detestable passive voice. Passive voice is just not good style, almost anywhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Support per Specifico. Miniapolis 22:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - Suggested new location is more logical Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Agree with Beyond My Ken - it is more logical according to "proper" English usage. It is also eschews the passive voice in the current title. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Active voice is preferable to passive. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Titles should be clear and immediately comprehensible, not in passive voice or back-formation English. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - reads much more naturally and gets rid of hideous passive voice. Neutrality^talk 07:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Support for the sake of readability. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. The original request should have been closed as successful, because nobody opposed the proposal as such. All the opposition came from those who believed that our title should not unquestioningly say that Russia had interfered; because the current title and the proposed new title were identical as far as that was concerned, they should have been ignored. I can't see why someone would prefer this proposal over the current title. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 22 February 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.

Openly courted

The lead states (last sentence), in WP:s voice, that Trump openly courted Russia's help in order to win the election. Should it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No it does not say that it says "It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power".Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so, "we" say that some earlier candidate might have dunnit but Trump definitely did it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We do not say he did it, we say people think he did it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have looked more closely before my "yes" above. Has any RS suggested that a previous candidate openly courted a foreign power? Maybe we need to make the statement more straightforward. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It´s a thought. Just so I´m sure I understand, this is the courting, correct? "“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." [18]. Perhaps the quote should be added to the article? My train of thought is that this is an extraordinary claim/extraordinary sources thing, and the sources in the lead didn´t seem that extraordinary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying it is not widely believed he did this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "claim" -- it was witnessed by hundreds of millions of humans and its noteworthiness has been established by verification in hundreds of reliable sources. Even Suddeutsche Zeitung! SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To channel another politician, it depends what the definition of "widely" is. I don´t think it´s supported by the three sources used for that sentence, Salon says "Despite mounting evidence suggesting that Trump’s administration has been compromised by Russia, his public continues to back him." Maybe that means "widely" but I´d prefer something less interpret-y.
There we disagree - I do think "It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power in order to win an election" is a claim, and an extraordinary one, WP:BLP and all that noise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I will fix the article text to remove the "believed to be ... " What part of this is extraordinary? It's a pretty simple evident fact. Don't you watch the telly? SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably not the same channels you do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added the factual reports that give context to the "first time" bit. I'm not sure what "first time" adds to the lede. Perhaps the "first time" statement should be elsewhere or nowhere in the article. The fact as to Trump's exhortation, however, is uncontested, widely reported, and incontrovertible. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I take it you haven´t seen Kellyanne Conway on your telly?[19] ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, unfortunately we don't get satellite reception here :) Did my additional text and references address your concern about the article text? SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the addition, like you said, it should be somewhere in the article. It seems the last block of text in the lead should be a summary of Allegations of collusion between Trump and Putin section, and that text is much shorter, so migrating text from lead or expanding that bit might be a good idea.

Pain in the ass time, I still have a problem with the last lead-sentence, source-wise.

"It is generally believed to be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate has openly courted the aid of a foreign power in order to win an election, a potentially treasonous offense, which has led many to call for Trump's impeachment.^[1] ^[2]^[3]"

The first source supports "potentially treasonous offense", nothing else. Two democrats give their opinion.
The second source says "making it unlikely in the extreme the accusations that Trump and his aides conspired against America will go anywhere beyond the purview of late-night comedians and the president’s hardest-core detractors." But it also supports "potentially treasonous offense".
The third source states "Trump has repeatedly shown that he is a fascist authoritarian" so I don´t think we should use that source.

References

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Articles must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions. In this case, the sources cite opponents who present their opinion, but the sources themselves do not claim these opinions are true. Also it is unnecessary to have more than one source. In my experience, multiple sources generally indicate that none of the sources adequately support the statement. TFD (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: This is "well sourced and relevant" as they say. There's a ton of sources and you can't argue with all of them here — let it stay. Enough bickering folks. Please review the talk page to see why discussions like this one are neither substantive nor productive. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced that many of his opponents said Obama was born in Kenya. That doesn't make it true. TFD (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The belief that Trump stumbled into treason and that Russian meddling played a crucial role in in the election (undermining the "very fabric of...") is far more "respectable" than birtherism. Furthermore, birtherism is falsifiable in ways that the content you're objecting to is not. Don't waste your time. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep per Slatersteven. As written, we do not tell that opinion was true. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI I have deleted the part that started with "It is generally believed …" as this inflammatory material was inserted recently by a serial block evader from IP 63.143.240.38. — JFG ^talk 05:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove whole paragraph from lead. It is terribly written, and just one long insinuation that the president of the United States, whatever you think of him, is a Manchurian Candidate for "the enemy." There is no reason why this kind of inflammatory commentary should be in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly caution you against blanking that whole paragraph. There are two parts to it - the second part about "believed to be..." and the first part, which is factual, clearly NPOV, DUE WEIGHT, and well written. If you wish to improve the diction or style, propose your changes, but blanking well-sourced content is disruptive. And please don't use inflammatory language comparing current events to a work of fiction -- Manchurian Candidate. That's makes no clear, specific, or intelligible contribution to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are in fact several reliable sources that call Trump a Manchurian Candidate. So that's "well sourced" too. Serious question: can I add the fact that Trump has been called this to the article? Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's off topic and UNDUE for this article. If you have many RS citations, which I have not seen, I think that would go in his biography or an article about his campaign or political views. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly ON topic. The Kremlin interfered (and vice versa) because it saw Trump as a tool to advance its agenda. And Trump played along. In that sense, Trump was a Manchurian Candidate. Since we already have a section on "collusion" (and could add Trump's "dealings" for good measure), it would hardly be off topic or undue to wrap it up with a discussion of the "manchurian candidate." Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Russian trolls' support for Trump" Section Biased

In this section, articles only from the Guardian and Daily Beast are cited. Both are well-known to be "progressive, liberal" sources of news, and to make things worse, the sources are unreliable. For example, source 44. Go there and read its claims that "RT" and "Sputnik" promoted "fake news" about an incident in Turkey. Now ACTUALLY GO READ THOSE ARTICLES ON RT AND SPUTNIK (they are still there), and the articles DO NOT claim that there was a 2nd coup attempt, but only say that there is speculation that a 2nd coup attempt may have occurred, and they specifically report that they asked a Turkish official what happened and that he denied a 2nd coup, and said it was just a security check. The article on RT DOES mention the protest, as well, in conjunction with what U.S. Government sources claim occurred, no one claims another coup occurred, only that there was speculation about it because of the 7,000 police forces that surrounded the base, and there is an open and on-going dispute about whether those police forces were there or not. The U.S. says "no", RT says "Yes", and the Turkish official appears to side with RT, claiming they were there but only doing a "security check". The numbers are also in dispute, whether it was 7,000 or fewer, but the problem here is that The Guardian and Daily Beast stories, used as "credible references" in this Wiki, are not credible because those particular stories claim that the RT article is one-sided and claims there was another coup atttempt, when it does not. It merely speculates that might have happened, but reports that Turkish officials deny it. The Guardian and Daily Beast also claim that, because the Pentagon said it didn't happen, then it factually did not happen. There are a number of high-profile cases of the Pentagon claiming something did not happen, or making statements that allude to something not having happened, when in fact it did happen. The Guardian and Daily Beast should be reporting that the Pentagon claims it was just a protest and did not happen, while Turkey and RT both are reporting the police did show up, and the facts are disputed. Just because you are a U.S. newspaper doesn't mean the U.S. Government always tells the truth (Iraq WMDs, claims that Iran and not Iraq gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq w/100% certaintly during Reagan's tenure, then flip-flopping and claiming it was Saddam w/100% certainty during W.'s tenure, etc., etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.32.123 (talk) 6 January 2017‎ 20:17 UTC

Bizarre title

The article title implies the facts are established even though the allegations are presented without any evidence! Only on Wiki.....Sarah777

Petition for SCOTUS to nullify the elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well lets see what sources we can find [20], primary. So far this (apart form a Daily Kos article, and the ones already here) this is about it source wise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the petition itself might be worth covering, with a sentence, if enough RS is generated. This Snopes article could be one reference, the secondary source provided by Callmemirela could be another reference [22], here is one from the Daily Kos [23] and here is one from "Occupy Democrats" [24]. The primary source provided by Callmemirela could also be used. It is mentioned on SCOUTUS blog (scroll down) [25]. Here is the PDF of the Writ of Mandamus - a primary source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cybersecurity revert

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

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

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

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

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

Lead third paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recommend that you self-revert here [27]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [28]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So-called "long standing" is not a supportable rationale for keeping material that contravenes WP:NPOV and WP:V (content policies), nor is consensus:
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies...This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus...While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
Also JFG has not established a consensus for reinstating the material. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Filipov, David (2016-12-23). "Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-12-26.

[2] Lesniewski, Niels (2016-07-28). "Reid Says Trump Should Get Fake Intel Briefings". United States: Roll Call. Retrieved 2017-02-12.

[3] Noble, Jason (2016-07-28). "Trump's Russia comments could be a felony, Vilsack charges". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved 2017-02-12.

[4] Kelly, Caroline (2016-07-28). "Former Obama mentor: Trump's Russian hack 'jokes' could 'constitute treason'". Politico. Retrieved 2017-02-12.

[5] ttps://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/15/democratic-rep-seth-moulton-says-trump-russia-allegations-are-the-definition-of-treason/21714726/

[6] ttp://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russia-treason-20170220-story.html

[7] ttp://www.salon.com/2017/02/16/none-dare-call-it-treason-in-the-wake-of-the-flynn-scandal-what-more-proof-do-we-need-that-donald-trump-is-a-traitor/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]