Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 6, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computer Security: Computing B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Espionage B‑class Top‑importance

	Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet B‑class High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism B‑class High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Intelligence / Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American B‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia B‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections / Government B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Alyssa Pereira (December 21, 2016). "These were the most edited Wikipedia pages of 2016". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved December 22, 2016. The 2016 Presidential election sure brought the world a lot of stress. It also brought the world a lot of misinformation. That could be one reason why so many of the most edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 were politically related. ... 2016 United States election interference by Russia (641)
Omer Benjakob (10 January 2017). "How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Wikipedia Articles [of 2017] Paint a Dark Picture". Haaretz. Retrieved May 20, 2018. Media outlets around the world recently compiled their annual stories on the most popular Wikipedia articles of the year. ... Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Reality Winner Document

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please add the document in question to the fourth paragraph of the "Intrusions into state voter-registration systems" subsection? Sandizer (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral fraud category

Does this article fit electoral fraud? I have heard that Russians did not interfere with votes themselves, although I could be wrong. GoutComplex (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NO, as (as far as I know) not actual proof of fraud has been shown. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-faulted-for-its-probe-of-russian-meddling-in-2016-campaign-32287018?mod=hp_lead_pos6

“We conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law,”

He said the bureau swiftly pursued a vague tip about potential contacts between a Trump campaign aide and Russia authorities in July 2016, even though, the report says, the bureau had no other information in its files to corroborate any such contact.

He concluded the FBI was more cautious and skeptical of allegations of foreign influence on the Clinton campaign than on the Trump campaign in 2016. According to the report, the bureau didn’t aggressively pursue evidence of two instances in which foreign governments were potentially planning to contribute to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to gain influence. The speed with which the FBI opened the investigation into the Trump campaign “based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached” those other allegations, it said. The FBI provided briefings to the Clinton campaign, the report said, an approach it said stood in contrast to the lack of such briefings provided to the Trump campaign.

He concluded that the FBI didn’t rigorously analyze information it received, especially from people and groups with political affiliation, prolonging the investigation and prompting the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Durham said the FBI was overly reliant on investigative leads from Mr. Trump’s political opponents. Strakajagr (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to add this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strakajagr, that's far too much and too vague information to add as is. Be more specific. Also, identify exactly where in this article you think this should be added. Context means a lot. Keep in mind that Durham's conclusions change nothing about the findings of myriad secretive contacts with actual Russian agents and how the Trump campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from Russian interference. Durham focused on two things that had little effect on the evidence for Russian election interference and how Trump benefited from Putin putting him in power. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎ 08:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoiting Durham Investigation Wikipedia, It seems both Clinton and Trump context for investigation were driven by FBI/DOJ political motive, FBI being snoopy in Politics and Beltway Next Administration Toady Credits. {sic}

Durham said the FBI was more deferential to Clinton than to Trump by opening a preliminary, rather than a full, investigation into Clinton. This 2016 preliminary investigation was opened based on information from the book Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer, a senior editor of the far-right media organization Breitbart News. The book made allegations that foreign powers were attempting to buy influence with Clinton. The FBI gave her a "defensive briefing" to alert her of such threats. Durham said the Trump full investigation was opened on the basis of "unvetted hearsay," which was in the form of an alert from Alexander Downer, a high-ranking Australian diplomat. Durham wrote Trump had not been given a defensive briefing before Crossfire Hurricane was opened, though he was briefed in late-July or August 2016, soon after winning the Republican nomination. By September 2020, Durham had broadened the scope of his investigation to include an examination of how the FBI investigated matters involving Clinton, such as the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One controversy and her email controversy. In January 2020 a US attorney appointed by attorney general Jeff Sessions, at the urging of Trump and congressional Republicans, quietly concluded a two-year examination of the matters, having found nothing warranting further investigation. 2601:248:C000:3F:CC18:1066:960B:887A (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Sources for Claim That Putin Was Personally Responsible for Hacks

The article clearly states that according to the U.S. intelligence community, Putin was "directly responsible" for the hacks, but the sources listed don't say that. They quote a joint report where they said that he "could" be responsible. Seems to me to be very inaccurate. 99.46.100.178 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JUs tone of the sources "“The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak". Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is way too long

Cut it in half. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ℛonherry☘ 05:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

I know that this is an encyclopedia - not a court, but encyclopedia has to be based on facts - not on speculations. The sentence "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States." might be a disinformation. This claim has to be first proved (as in court) with 1) proving both that there was an interference and 2) that if it was one that its goals were as stated in this sentence. Unless it is proven - this should be clearly presented as a hypothesis - not as a fact. Since it is really not proven, please correct the wording in the beginning of the article. Andra1ex (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it has to be sourced to people who say they have proven it who are wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me to understand it better?

Does it mean that there are people who are considered "wikipedia reliable sources", and if these people say that some information has been proven by them then it is enough to publish this information? Andra1ex (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not people but outlets. We write whatever the reliable sources say. see WP:RSP. It is not misinformation and will not be removed. Andre🚐 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We write whatever the reliable sources say" - it completely undermines the credibility. Previously I used only math/CS articles from Wikipedia, and they are pretty good, but yesterday I looked at political articles and they are awful: biased, incorrect, rumors, gossips. I hope it will change, but for now I will recommend everyone to stay away from Wikipedia articles (except of math/CS). Andra1ex (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:RGW Andre🚐 14:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS are sources (yes they maybe people, or organizations) that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and thus can be considered reliable for what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"have a reputation... and thus can be considered reliable" - it completely undermines the credibility. Previously I used only math/CS articles from Wikipedia, and they are pretty good, but yesterday I looked at political articles and they are awful: biased, incorrect, rumors, gossips. I hope it will change, but for now I will recommend everyone to stay away from Wikipedia articles (except of math/CS). Andra1ex (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the heck did Wikipedia go from ice cold facts to Woke Ideology? They're job isn't to push narratives it's to tell people what happened exactly as it happened or explain the dimensions, locations, attributes, etc etc of our world and the life and things in it. Cut it out please wikipedia and stop locking articles so they can't be adjusted John Scagleone (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andra1ex, you seem to have a strong opinion about what is not true here. (You haven't asserted what you believe to be true.) You must get that opinion from somewhere. What sources have informed your opinions? Please list URLs to articles on this subject from a few them so we can be better informed.

If we don't base our information on published RS, a method you have rejected above for unknown reasons, then what do you think would be a better way to create content here? Are you aware of who creates our content and their political POV? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a country has interfered in another countries elections is like saying that a person has committed a crime against another person. It is a very serious accusation. It can lead to a war. So, until it it is undeniably proved to the extent when the international community (not just some alliance) agrees with this as a fact, such accusation is very dangerous and impermissible. Hence, unless the goal is to increase the risk of humanity such affirmations have to be explicitly described as hypotheses/theories, but not claimed as facts.

My opinion is not important and no assertion from my side is necessary, since it is on the authors of the article to base it on facts only. Only the writer has the responsibility to base his text on facts only - the reader is free to base his opinion on whatever he wants (even on fairytales) since the reader is only reading, but not stating anything.

Lastly, I am not aware of who creates your content and their political POV. It is not needed. Reading an encyclopedia a reader is not looking for a POV (for this there are other resources) - the reader is looking for a collection of facts. If something is not a fact it either does not have a place in an article or needs to be explicitly presented as an opinion. Take a look at a good article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space. This is how an encyclopedia has to look like.

P.S. Since you were very interested, if you want to hear an assertion - here it is. There is no agreement and no proof that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections in the USA with a goal to help one of the candidates to win the elections. So far there is evidence that there was no collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia (Durham concluded that federal investigators did not have any actual evidence of collusion between Trump's 2016 campaign), and there is no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections in any other way (not via colluding with the Trump's 2016 campaign). 24.228.151.249 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. We say reliable sources say and they say that Russian agents did interfere, Trump campaign officials welcomed that interference and even communicated with Russian agents and with Wikileaks on multiple occasions. Andre🚐 00:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We say reliable sources say and they say that..." are you serios? I can answer that "I say reliable sources do not say that...". I hope you war joking when you wrote that sentence. Andra1ex (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

look up if any charges were filed for this. Because if someone did do this they would have obviously been charged. Innocent until proven guilty I believe is he motto. So since nowhere exists with any of this being proven then it's obviously not true. John Scagleone (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were they charged but convicted of several crimes. Andre🚐 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that multiple people were tried and convicted for their participation in the interference. All but the Russians and Trump's allies are convinced of this. They deny it.

It is also a fact that Dutch intelligence hacked into Russian systems and a video system from 2014-2016. They were able to record keystrokes and identify each hacker. They monitored the Russian activity and watched as they hacked into the White House, State Department, and Democratic National Committee. Hacking can be analyzed from both ends, and the above is the hacking end. The other end is the analysis of the results of that hacking, and that showed the Russians stole documents, and through the cutouts DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, leaked them to WikiLeaks.

I suggest you read the article. It is based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors. Myriad editors of all persuasions have worked together to produce this article, so it isn't one person's work or POV. It's based on teamwork. When you have examined its content and checked what the sources say, then you will be informed enough to criticize it. Until then, you are just spouting a rather weird opinion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was proved to be Disinformation long ago

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

I need a administrator to edit this page with either removal or a big Citation at the top stating that it was a theory. Then briefly below stating was admitted to being made up by the Hillary Clinton camp. If you need me to provide links just ask but I'm sure you all know about it by now. I'm just glad I noticed it because this false information has been around a while as debunked. Thank you and have a great day John Scagleone (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please provide links that say this was "made up by the Hillary Clinton camp", as other sources pretty conclusively state that there was interference. — Czello ^(music) 11:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know how much you all like this site.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/clinton-approved-trump-russia-leak-her-campaign-manager-says John Scagleone (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article talks about one specific thing, computer servers at Donald Trump’s company had a secret communications link with a Russian bank. It does not say there was no interference at all. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I

I just don't see any actual info to back this up except "people think". no evidence shows he did anything wrong so until there is some please change the topic to "opinion" or "thUnless you have some information or a conviction I missed, ory". Please I don't want to get intomentguement about this. John Scagleone (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html John Scagleone (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article already reflects what this news story says. — Czello ^(music) 11:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So no criminal conviction or proof of anything relating to this subject exists yet it is listed under a former Presidents name as if it's clear as day facts. Come on man it's basic common sense at this point that is like saying people are guilty because they have been accused of something. Even though Clintons party kinda ratted her out and everybody just moved on with their lives.

Also my apologies about the spelling errors in the last post. John Scagleone (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This subject exists because Russia did interfere in the election. Whether Trump was guilty of direct collusion with the Kremlin is a separate issue. If there are any specific sentences you think are wrong, please list them. — Czello ^(music) 11:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not being discused in the above thread? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House rejects effort to censure and fine Democrat Rep. Schiff over Trump-Russia investigations

Is this fact worthy of inclusion in the article? [1]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-rejects-effort-to-censure-and-fine-democrat-rep-schiff-over-trump-russia-investigations Desertphile (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]