Jump to content

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) at 04:02, 24 December 2016 (→‎Threaded discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shouldn't this be "alleged involvement"?

Since no evidence was provided for this particular conspiracy theory ? I also note that the article is highly biased towards one side here, without any criticism of lack of evidence to claims by supporters of this theory in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clearly cited and represented. There is evidence to support the statements and that is given.Casprings (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a theory; it's a conclusion. The CIA is not going to provide evidence to the general public. If you can find reliable sources that present another "side" (other than team Trump's apparently uninformed criticism of the government that he's about to lead), then feel free to add that content to the article.- MrX 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is an allegation made by the Washington Post based on an anonymous Obama administration official saying that was what the CIA told them in a briefing. That hardly makes it an objective fact. Marteau (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a conclusion made by government officials reported by The Washington Post. It's right there in the lede of the the highly-cited Washington Post article in case you would like to read it.- MrX 17:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sagecandor (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."
This this case, US officials have alleged or accused the Russian government of interference in the election. "Wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." This is the context that the words alleged and accused were created for. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that applies. And of course something being a "conclusion" doesn't prevent it also being an "allegation". It depends who's doing the concluding and what they're saying. The CIA is not a court of law. Nor indeed a body without its own agenda and own history of, let us say, interesting activities and propagation of outright falsehoods. N-HH talk/edits 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no (U.S. recognized) court of law that adjudicates whether one sovereign power attempted to influence another sovereign power's presidential election. The CIA is tasked with figuring out whether it happened, and Congress and the President are tasked with determining what to do with that information.- MrX 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX, Sagecandor, and N-HH: The CIA has many tasks, among them the overthrow of many governments in the last 65 years, and the propagation of disinformation to cover up these actions (as many CIA agents have later testified). The CIA is not a news organization or an encyclopedia, it's a clandestine intelligence service, and that's how we should approach it when noting any public statements it produces.

Furthermore, the existence or lack of existence of a neutral body to adjudicate allegations of election tampering from Russia cannot lead us to proceed from the wildly speculative assumption that any accusation should be considered true unless proven otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we go by reliable secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor and MrX: The title of this article and your comments here all strongly imply these allegations are not merely allegations, but that Russia has interfered in the U.S. election, and we need to relate that fact. This is not known as a fact. By insisting on the current title, "Russian influence," you are seriously misleading readers. There has been enough discussion about this that it's not longer appropriate to assume you don't know the implications of the title of the article. -Darouet (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was fine with the prior title, "Russian involvement". Either is fine. Sagecandor (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much doubt expressed by sources that Russia at least attempted, and were probably effective in influencing the election. It's not reasonable to demote the factual assertions made by our sources to "allegations or theories" in the title (see WP:WEASEL) to cast doubt on this. A simple Google search shows the widespread use of the word "influence" by sources, far more so than "involvement".- MrX 14:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the nature of an allegation. Something someone believes to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbering in thought (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about "US government allegations of Russian ...". That should be the title. All we know for fact is that various arms of the US government (and some computer security companies with close ties to US intelligence) are putting out allegations via public statements or "anonymous official" leaks to the US corporate MSM. Many of the sources cited are merely opinion, speculation and conspiracy theory. I see plenty of articles discussing the lack of evidence but they are not represented here. Perhaps we need a separate article entitled "Lack of evidence for US government allegations ..." . Keith McClary (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RSes aren't calling it "alleged" or "purported" or "supposed" or "claimed" or "accused". They're calling it interference/involvement. So that's what we do. Second guessing reliable sources based on our own analysis is blatant WP:OR. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of googling shows many do say "alleged" or "purported" or "claimed" or "accused". Calling it fact is the blatant OR. Keith McClary (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks to be merged ---> into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election

I propose that Democratic National Committee cyber attacks be merged into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election. I think that the content in the cyber attack article provides additional detail and can easily fit within the article on Russian influence. If there is too much content, I would suggest that the cyber attack article becomes a sub article of the Russian influence article. Casprings (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality, Casprings, and Sagecandor: I've long thought these articles should be combined into one comprehensive article. They don't make a lot of sense on their own. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, though I'm not sure how all these articles would mesh. FallingGravity 21:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MrX about merging all these into here at Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election and condensing some of the other ones. We don't need to discuss all the "content" of the leaks, etc. Agree with MrX that Guccifer 2.0 should remain its own article. The rest can all get merged into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election. Sagecandor (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against - I think the DNC cyberattack has a different scope to this article. The scope of this article is much wider - it includes things other than hacking. Additionally, the DNC page includes the contents of them, while this page would only be concerned with the Russian involvement. Stickee (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose (again), what's emerged on this thread is that this is a classic example of the propaganda model of assertions being parrotted and the parrotting being taken as evidence of notability. The exposure of DNC-Clinton Foundation corruption was an inside job because Craig Murray's assertion has the same standing of the CIA assertions. Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, please try to stick to the topic, refrain from off-topic rambling, and avoid calling other editors propagandists. And you already put your !vote above, commenting again further down, with a second bolded "oppose," makes it seem as if you're trying to "double vote." Neutralitytalk 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do apologise but it's getting harder to take this thread seriously. Thanks for the AGF and the sneer but I suggest that my comment was the most on-topic (sic) since the thread began. If you were paying attention, you would have realised that I was describing the process by which the CIA "revelations" are legitimised by the corporate media, rather than laughed off the front page with questions like "Evidence please?" I have no views about the other contributors, only the calibre of the comments (except for your unpleasant insinuation, that is). I didn't know that this was a vote and I don't care; I thought it was an expression of opinion and I had something to add. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2016

Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 (talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote."[1] The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. 11Eternity11 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/election

Why is the current title even what it is right now? It was moved by Sagecandor without any discussion I can find, and no move request. It's also a WP:POVTITLE because declares Russia's guilt, which has been stated by US officials and agencies, but is not known. Concision is the worst excuse for falsehood I've ever seen someone make for an article title. -Darouet (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "alleged," to remove the most glaring problem facing the article at present. -Darouet (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original title was "Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election". Which I'm fine with. But here's the part which I'm not fine with. You criticize Sagecandor for making a fairly innocous move to "interference" instead of "involvement" because it was done "without any discussion" but then you jump in and you yourself make a controversial move, in midst of an RfC, without any discussion, by adding the word "alleged", based on nothing but your own personal idiosyncratic WP:OR and WP:POV? How does that work?
And there's no "falsehood" here, just your imagination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to invoke my imagination, do you think that Russian interference in this election is known as an encyclopedic fact, or that the allegation is the fact? -Darouet (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources, it is. The Russian interference. And please don't try to get all epistemological on me and try to pretend that "we can never know for sure" is a good argument. Nixon tried to cover up Watergate. Is that an encyclopedic fact or is just the allegation that he did so an encyclopedic fact?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who renamed the page, but I am just fine with adding "alleged". I do suggest that we change "United States election" to "US presidential campaign". Russia isn't accused of rigging the vote, but of producing propaganda and hacking emails. 11Eternity11 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Alleged" is classic WP:WEASEL and not supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged" is not a WP:WEASEL word when it is used to describe an allegation. You write about this topic as if US statements are not statements, but facts, which is totally unacceptable. -Darouet (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the sources don't call it "alleged", it's WEASEL. And POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, reliable sources note that Russian involvement is alleged, not proven. Do you really want the Encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia to really claim to know the truth of who hacked the DNC and leaked emails to Wikileaks? This is really beyond the pale. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where and which ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not just "presidential" election in 2016. Multiple elections. Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title. Sagecandor (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This should not have "presidential" in the title. The scope of the Russian hacking, leaking, and social media campaigns targeted many US elections, not just the presidential. Both Republicans and Democrats up and down the ticket were targeted. See the DC Leaks article for some of the non-presidential races that were impacted; they leaked "300 emails from Republican targets, including the 2016 campaign staff of Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and 2012 presidential candidate and former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann." An article only focused on the presidential race will necessitate the creation of another article dealing with the non-presidential interference. gobonobo + c 22:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, back to Oppose. Per Gobonobo. This should NOT have "presidential" in the title. Just 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Has affected multiple other races, as explained by Gobonobo, immediately above. Sagecandor (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Volunteer Marek: the page was moved only a few hours ago to its present title, without discussion of any kind. It is a highly partisan title, and the previous version has also been criticized for the same reason: it declares something that is alleged to have occurred. It's a totally indefensible title and if we're going to propose a move, we should at least start from a place that isn't such a WP:POVTITLE vio. -Darouet (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved from "involvement" to "interference". Had you undid that move that'd be one thing. But you actually are using the whole "moved only a few hours ago" as a flimsy excuse to force through your own preferred POV title with the word "alleged" in it. We are starting with a neutral title right now. YOUR title is POV as it is utterly unsupported by sources and involves nothing but your own original research. And lacks consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVTITLE isn't an excuse, it's policy, and there is nothing in the entire article, or all the sources we cite, which make US allegations a fact, and not allegations. -Darouet (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is YOUR title that violates POVTITLE as it is based on nothing but your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current name looks pretty ambiguous as there were also elections for senate, house and governor in the same year, and the article only specifies it for president. And also, look at how many potential titles redirect here. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alright, at this situation, I've narrowed it down to four two titles, two for whether or not it was confirmed that Russia interfered, and two for whether or not Russia interfered in only the Presidential Election or if they interfered in any other ones. IMO the one in bold is the most likely candidate.
    • No. Sources don't say "alleged". That's straight up POV and OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I narrowed the suggestions down to 2, since that it's too early to confirm if Russia did interfere, we should just wait and see, this article was only created three days ago.
. .
Presidential only Russian interference in the United States presidential election, 2016
Other elections Russian interference in the United States elections, 2016

∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrible suggestion because it leaves out important info. Who carried out these cyber attacks? Fiji? Come on! That's not even trying to hide the POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the article's title needs to point out who did something is like having the article "Murder of Hae Min Lee" (à la Serial) titled "Murder of Hae Min Lee by Adnan Syed" because he was found guilty in a court of law. However, in this case there is no court decision, just conclusions from US intelligence agencies. FallingGravity 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not like that at all. For one thing, people who are looking for a murder victim's article are unlikely to search by "Adnan Syed". Here, it's pretty clear that people will be typing in R, U, S, S, I, A into that search box, along with "US election".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Perhaps this is a better example. Go to Category:Cyberattacks and find one article that identifies the culprit in an article on a cyberattack. An equivalent article would be 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia. Now you might be wondering why this article isn't titled "2007 Russian cyberattacks on Estonia". This is because of WP:POVTITLE. FallingGravity 07:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since that ... and ... usually denotes that we are comparing something such as American and British English spelling differences and Race and intelligence, and also using interference rather than cyberattack helps with ambiguity, and also, the only upside to the proposed title is that it doesn't state "Russia", as Donald Trump stated in this interview, "They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody," ... "It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea." ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the proposer of this title, I strongly debated between the words "and", "in", "during", etc. though I'm still not sure which is best. FallingGravity 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, look at the links you posted. All but one of them describe the allegations that Russia hacked the DNC. The only article that claims that Russia did hack the DNC is the first one, by the NY Times (which, remember, has an admitted history of gullibility when it comes to American intelligence claims). Your second link begins with the sentence,
"A bipartisan group of senators on Sunday urged Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, to create a new, select committee on cyberattacks to investigate possible Russian interference in the American election."
Notice the use of the phrase "possible Russian interference." Here, the NY Times is not claiming that Russia interfered. It's reporting on allegations, claims, the possibility that Russia interfered in the election.
Your third and fourth links discuss FBI and CIA assessments. In other words, they discuss claims by American intelligence about what happened. The articles do not state that these assessments are correct.
Your fifth link discusses "claims" by Harry Reid that the FBI covered up Russian hacking. Again, the article is discussing claims made about Russian hacking, but does not state that these claims are correct.
Your sixth link covers Russian denials of involvement in the DNC hack.
Your seventh link says that "U.S. intelligence officials now believe" Putin ordered the hack of the DNC personally. In other words, it's again discussing claims made by US intelligence.
So what you've shown is that reliable sources are reporting on claims, allegations (or whatever synonym you want to use) that American intelligence officials are making about Russian hacking. The way this article is titled, it gives the impression that these claims are fact. The problem is that we can't take American intelligence at its word, just as we can't take denials by Russian officials at face value. I think the fact that this article has a POV title is staring us in the face. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the very existence of the 2016 US election is only "claimed" or "alleged". As long as we attribute the "claim" to US intelligence services, we don't also put in "alleged" since that's just WP:WEASEL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 (talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016.

Please see Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_21_December_2016. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Linkage to Russia Sub page?

Should we develop a subpage that details the linkages to Russia of Trump's business, his campaign, and his upcoming administration? The new secutary of state has deep ties to Russia, Paul Manafort advocated Russian interests in the Ukraine, etc. Numourous secondary sources cite this and it seems to be pretty unique.Casprings (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an invitation for WP:CHERRY, at least at this point. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are folks making such connections [4] and we can describe these as a polemic, but we'll have to be careful to stick close to sourced material and not let everyone with a thought drop stuff in. I'm not convinced it needs a subpage at this point, and even a subsection might be hard to justify rather than merely a paragraph describing a few refs like that one above. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Sagecandor:'s reference list trumps anything I just said there, withdrawn! Keep up the good work. Wnt (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a multitude of sources discussing this separate topic:

  1. 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
  2. Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
  3. Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
  4. Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
  5. Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  6. "Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  7. Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  8. "Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  9. Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
  10. Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  11. 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
  12. Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
  13. Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
  14. Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  15. 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
  16. Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
  17. Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
  18. "Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  19. Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
  20. Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016

Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No,obviously per WP:CHERRY. Why not make an article about Trump's tweets? Or HRC's "connections" to various foreigners? Or the myriad of other partisan junk hashed and rehashed ad nauseam during every election campaign? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Becauae the Russian government to support Clinton and multiple sources point to the importance of that connection?Casprings (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are using Trump's vague "connections" to Russia to imply that he is doing Putin's bidding. Of course Clinton has no allegations of this kind lobbed against her... none at all. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these source seem to be speculating and I don't think that makes for a good foundation for a new article. The subject could probably be covered in summary form at Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump.- MrX 12:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is the amount of connections and the elections. If one reads this article, a logical thing to want to know is, what are the connections within his administrationCasprings (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray

Any reason why he's being left out? Here's a recent source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html -- just wondering, don't have time for an edit war. Matt714 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source originally cited was the Guardian, and there are other RS'. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links? Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's cited in this piece. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report -- Also any authoritative discussions regarding the Daily Mail being an unreliable source on Wiki? It's frequently cited elsewhere... it's one of the biggest UK newspapers. Matt714 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ Washington Times Matt714 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the info. There appears to be no justification for removal besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears involved admin Volunteer Marek deleted the Murray content simply because some other quote he liked got deleted and he wanted to make a WP:POINT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I deleted it because it was undue. Though I did also point out the double standards some editors try to employ. Also, Washington Times is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was the editor who removed the comment after it was reinserted. Tried to post the following earlier, but there seems to have been some glitch earlier which another editor kindly fixed. So here's the earlier text. There was already a discussion going here, so AFAIK the objectionable material cannot be reinserted before a consensus. I'm therefore removing it for the time being. Your argument appears to be "I think you're wrong", and the general consensus on the Daily Mail is that it's a tabloid that goes for the sensational and does not vet its sources, i.e., not a reliable source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no outright bar AFAIK on the Mail or Washington Times. There are certainly issues with both, and I'd certainly argue for usually avoiding the Mail (which, being from the UK, I'm more familiar with) but I'm not sure it's ever helpful to declare anything from any non-fringe source as automatically unusable without considering the nature of the content and the context. Also reliability is not really the issue here: Murray has undoubtedly made this point. All the sources concerned, and his blog, are reliable sources for the fact that he has said it. The issue is what weight to put on it. As for his comments versus those of the ex-CIA officer, one significant difference is that Murray's at least attempt to address the facts of the case and purport to add actual information; the Carle quote is just flowery polemic. I'd suggest Murray is probably a more notable individual as well (although still not that notable). N-HH talk/edits 08:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My edit got preempted by yours, apparently. Second attempt: I just read the Washington Times article (also not a reliable source). Their source isn't Murray, it's the Daily Mail article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I'm not sure blanket source bans are helpful, plus the issue is not sourcing as such, since we can be pretty sure Murray said this. However reliable the Mail and Washington Times are or not, they're not making this up out of thin air. That said, the above flags up another point, which is that the media recycle original sources and spend a lot of time basing their own reporting on what other media are saying, and/or are bascially reporting the same original announcement. Whether "multiple RSs are saying this" or not is often pretty meaningless. It attests to newsworthiness, but not much else. N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't believe that the Daily Mail is making the story up, but I have several problems with citing Murray's comments in an encyclopedia article: The story hasn't been considered newsworthy by RS/major news outlets, and he is an Assange surrogate, i.e., a primary source (which may be the reason why the story wasn't picked up). As an aside: Why the sudden and conspicuous change from "nobody knows who the source is" to "we know him/them and met his/their representative"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I just removed the Murray quote from 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak where it was given a very prominent position. Thought I'd add my comments on the other Talk page to this one, because the third time around my arguments were better prepared.) Murray is an Assange surrogate, i.e., a primary source. Anything he says needs to be looked at with a great amount of skepticism, especially this sudden and conspicuous about-face from "nobody knows who the source is" to "we know him/them and met his/their representative", suspiciously timed to come right on the heels of the CIA assessment on Russian involvement. I would have thought that any self-respecting reporter talking to him would have followed up this sensational development with questions. Yet, nothing, which is business-as-usual for the Daily Mail which is actually the source for the Washington Times. Also, "former ambassador" probably is supposed to make him sound like an expert; I don’t see how being ambassador to Uzbekistan makes him an expert on Russia or cyber attacks. Without any corroboration, his statement is given undue weight here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some solid additional sources can be found to show that this is a noteworthy view, I think it should be omitted. The Daily Mail is notorious for their sensationalistic reporting, and the Washington Times will routinely cover anything, no mater how obscure, that furthers their ideological agenda. There are dozens of other news outlets that have a more neutral stance and a reputation for fact checking. Show that a couple of those have cited Murray and I will support including this material.- MrX 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrX for the same reasons he expressed. Neutralitytalk 21:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the newspapers are the problem here, exactly. There are references from The Guardian, Daily Mail, and Washington Times all talking about what Craig Murray said, who was indeed a noted Assange supporter in 2012. Note that the Daily Mail was not aggregating content there (which they tend to do) but citing a communication directly between Murray and dailymail.com. I don't think it's plausible they're all lying and made up the story about how he got a packet of emails somewhere near Washington. I think it is plausible, but unlikely, that Murray made up the story, and I think it's plausible, even likely, that the person who delivered the papers to Murray -- "He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.", according to DM -- might have been in cahoots with the Russians or misled by someone in cahoots with the Russians. Getting a packet in Washington doesn't mean that the electronic mails started out in Washington; that's just a magician trick.
So our problem here is more to ask: is Murray relevant to the article, and is his claim relevant? A few papers think it is, and that bears weight, but how much? I'd lean toward including it because we shouldn't be gatekeepers, but make sure not to make too much of it. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt:Added with attribution to source, The Hill. Please see [5]. Sagecandor (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it, and I'm still laughing ("Assange said sternly" - one of Joe Uchill's finer moments). Also love the aerial photograph of the "wooded area near American University" in the Daily Mail link - maybe NASA can provide the fly-by satellite photo at the exact time of the handover, for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But seriously, this one article and Assange's confused and rambling statements on Hannity (great source for unreliable, biased, and fake news) is given too much coverage in this article; I'll try to reword. Looks like he is attempting to do damage control on his connections to Russia, whether alleged or real, now that US intelligence agencies may release "hard copy" of the evidence they have collected; furious backpedaling on "don't know sources", disassociating himself from Murray, etc. I propose to remove the Guccifer stuff altogether; Assange knows as much or as little about it as anyone who has followed the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to come to compromise agreements with multiple people that want that info left in there, that's why I was glad to come across a good secondary source, The Hill, that described it adequately. Sagecandor (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I am proposing:

The Hill reported on December 15, 2016, that Assange said during an appearance on the radio program Hannity on the same day that while the leaks of Democratic materials provided to journalists at The Hill and Gawker could have been from Russia, he was "confident the emails he received did not come from the same source". He stated that Wikileaks’s source was not the Russian government, a departure from "a longstanding WikiLeaks policy of not making any comment about sources", according to The Hill. Assange further said that Wikileaks had received material on the RNC but had not published them "because they had already been printed elsewhere".

Since he disavows Murray's claims and Murray himself, I don't think the article should bring them up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it reads better without Hannity. But I still say that Guccifer and Murray need to go and maybe be replaced by the RNC stuff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight for consortiumnews.com ?

This edit [6] appears to create WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for source consortiumnews.com, which I'm not even sure is a reliable source here.

In addition with regards to the group behind the memo, this description is not encouraging: "an activist group which both farms out opinions critical of mainstream Republicans and sometimes peddles in conspiracy".

If this development has not been covered by multiple other independent reliable secondary sources other than the primary source itself [7] -- it should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.Casprings (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While most of the text/diff was well sourced, the part sourced to consortiumnews.com should indeed be removed as based on a single primary source and essentially an opinion piece. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the kind of source we should use for this article when there are many, many much more reputable sources. - MrX 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Consortium News is basically a self-published blog specifically devoted to Robert Parry's conspiracy theories, such as the October Surprise conspiracy theory. Parry may have been a respected journalist once, but his credibility has all but evaporated—as several discussions at WP:RSN have affirmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above analysis by Casprings, My very best wishes, MrX, and TheTimesAreAChanging. Unfortunately, the poor sources were reverted back into the article at [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment gives undue credence to the AEI regarding Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Note that
  • the drafters of the VIPS memo have excellent reputations: William Binney, Mike Gravel, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Elizabeth Murray (Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)), and Kirk Wiebe (former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.))
  • AEI is well-known to be unreliably neoconservative, as noted by several sources including
    • The Nation: In 2009, AEI, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, received the contribution from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), Taiwan’s equivalent to an embassy. The think tank couches its hard-nosed advocacy of arms sales and trade agreements with Taiwan as a strategic necessity for the United States. “Withholding needed arms from Taiwan in the present makes a future conflict—and US intervention therein—more likely,” wrote AEI senior research associate Michael Mazza in an October 2011 article in The Diplomat. But AEI’s undisclosed source of foreign funding raises ethical and legal questions about AEI’s Taiwan-policy work.
    • Newsweek: It wasn't until the George W. Bush administration, when its strong neoconservative leanings lined up nicely with Bush's foreign policy agenda, that AEI again became prominent. But as Bush's neoconservative policies fell out of favor and a new administration took over, it was evident AEI still had not captured the insider-Beltway status that made Heritage so influential.
    • Slate: Outside of the [George W. Bush] administration, the chief fulcrum of neoconservatism is the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. The day after the Libby verdict, AEI held its annual black-tie gala at the Washington Hilton, and for some reason, they invited me. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances, it seemed possible that self-examination might be featured on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford's 1976 defeat, AEI took a right turn during the Reagan years and emerged under George W. Bush as a kind of Cheney-family think tank.
    • Vanity Fair: I had first met [Danielle] Pletka 12 years ago, when A.E.I., seen then as the intellectual command post of the neoconservative campaign for regime change in Iraq, welcomed another visitor from the East: Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, the purveyor of “intelligence” about Saddam Hussein that would later turn out to be bogus. The shift in emphasis seemed marked. It was always apparent that fulfilling Chalabi’s ambitions was likely to require a war.
AEI is not a "reliable secondary source," period. Tlroche (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are in consensus here on the talk page that consortiumnews.com fails WP:RELIABLE. Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this consensus came about in 1:37 flat?! I agree with OP, and have brought another reference to the report (Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies (Princeton), husband of Nation co-owner Katrina vanden Heuvel: [9] I see you took the user to AE for this reasonable addition to an encyclopedic entry on this issue du jour. Discussion of Robert Parry has no bearing on a text not signed by him. SashiRolls (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is on the user in question to obtain consensus, not the other way around. Sagecandor (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity is a reputable organization staffed by ex-CIA officers, so it certainly can be used if their letter is picked up by the mainstream press—Consortium News, however, doesn't cut it. I have no problem with the Business Standard source. Edit: The fine print says "This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed." So, no, that's still not good enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They might have been at one point but that's like 13 years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham: Russians hacked my campaign

Article title should NOT have "presidential" in it. NOT just "presidential" campaign, covert operations impacted multiple other U.S. elections. Sagecandor (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need much more source material for that suggestion. Also, if there was such a Wikipedia article on elections, the presidential part of it would require an article of its own anyhow with the same title that we presently have. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the current title is what you're suggesting. So I'm not sure what we're doing here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on propaganda and should be deleted.

Just like it says, this article is based on nothing. There is no credible evidence that supports any of these claims. They are all hearsay, and would not be admissible in a court of law. They should not be treated as credible. It is highly contentious, potentially libelous, and breaks many of WP's own rules. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is based on statements by the intelligence services. That is rather more then some other conspiracies right now being peddled.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious is not and should not be reason for deletion. Political controversies are inevitably contentious. Libelous is a different question - because there are some benighted realms where even truth is no defense against libel, you never know about that. But Wikipedia has operated according to the hope that if people cover what reliable sources say, and simply say what has been said, that is truth and not libel. And that's worked for Wikipedia. As for WP rules... I'm sure there are people who have filed complaints about this and that, and we can see how it sorts out. But there's no obvious reason why Wikipedia should not cover a major political issue simply because it is tentative. I mean, the U.S. has gone to war based on even weaker intelligence than this... often... so we shouldn't just ignore it. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media section

The whole media section should be deleted from this article. It reads like play-by-play color commentary from the press booth. It's a grab-bag if intramural press shop talk, propaganda, self-interested denials, and other recent, dubious, and cherry-picked opinion that does not relate to the substance of the events or their significance and veracity. I considered deleting the section, but decided to raise it here on talk first. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This at least convinces me I'm not entirely off the mark on this, so I will delete it and then if any of the content should be reintroduced, we can discuss and achieve consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Normally I would say keep this section, but I can see how it could have the unfortunate potential to become used as a vehicle for POV pushing from both sides. Therefore let's just keep the article to less commentary and more events. Just the facts. Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FBI backs assessment that Russia was trying to back Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.f874825d0df9

Article should be updated.Casprings (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Now we have an actual quote from a named-official. Sagecandor (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Wish I wasn't on my phone so I could help. However, we should also take our unsourced statements that they did not agree with assessment. If this is the best info from a named source, we should go that.Casprings (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Official named-sources, and especially higher-ranking ones like the Director of the CIA, overrule those other ones. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Quotefarm

This article is filling up with quotes and remarks that aren't of any real, lasting importance to the subject. I suggest that WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTNEWS be reviewed. The subject is notable beyond question but the article could probably be a lot shorter than it is. Try to think about we know now that some reader would find useful ten years from now, and that's what should stay. Also, generally try to avoid quotes entirely unless the meaning of a statement is ambiguous. That's an important difference between encyclopedic and journalistic writing styles. Since most of the sources are written in the latter, there's always that temptation to imitate it here. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, will do. Sagecandor (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree. Copy tends to improve once the information coming from sources starts to stabilize. I say that having just added a short quote to preserve the exact meaning in the source. The article can definitely benefit from more copy editing.- MrX 20:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed a lot of quotes. Sagecandor (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think quotes are very important, but their importance depends on how close the person is to the event. If we're writing a section about what a particular person did, I want him quoted at length because a quote is what it is - it can't be spun one way or the other. It nails down what we're talking about. But if you're quoting what the editorial of some random newspaper or a commentator on TV said about the event, then that's a lot more dubious, unless that editorial was so important somehow that other newspapers reported on it as a news item in itself.
Anyone considering WP:NOTNEWS should actually read that policy, because it is misapplied ten times for every once that people follow the meaning. The meaning is simply that we write about this the same we would if we were covering the events later on in time. We don't emphasize or deemphasize current news, but look at it like any other data available to us. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's significant to report what Obama, Trump, Ryan, McConnell, and some sundry intelligence people think. I'm less sure that it's significant what Susan Collins and Evan McMullin said about it. And once we get that, not everything they say on successive days has to be included. ______ said ______ on December ______ makes up a substantive proportion of the article, with the word "said" occurring 53 times. Of course this is a judgement call, to be determined by consensus. Geogene (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Collins sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Evan McMullin is both a former CIA officer and former presidential candidate. Sagecandor (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
McMullin is not significant. Lots of people ran for president last month, and lots more people work at the CIA. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Lots of people who ran for president last month are not, and lots more people who worked at the CIA are not. He is both. Sagecandor (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that he's (easily) notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. But that notability stems entirely from his having run for president last month, and little or none from his former career in intelligence. He more recently worked for Congress, but this does not necessarily make him a go-to expert for articles about Congress. Geogene (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it does as a go-to expert for articles about the CIA and intelligence. Sagecandor (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene: One of the weird pieces of advice given in books about writing is that you can never use "said" too often. They warn rookies not to get tied up in knots looking for a new synonym like "retorted", "barked", "responded", "declared", etc. every time - just tell the story. True, that's typically about fiction, but I think it serves here also. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ: "Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers"

"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion. ... The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn't necessarily conflict with the CIA's conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats. ... But the fact that they failed doesn't mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don't harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future." It's sure looking like this article is going to need a revamp real soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Casprings above, now that we have named-officials on the record, best to give preference to those over unnamed sources. Sagecandor (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have more than this one source? There are multiple sources which say that the RNC was also hacked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election. Hmmm, we very well might have to revamp it though perhaps not in the way you expect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of KGB experience ?

An intelligence official explained to Reuters that due to Putin's prior experience as an operative for the KGB, he maintained tighter control over Russian intelligence operations.

KGB experience of Vladimir Putin seems directly relevant to the covert operations. Was removed here [10], with edit summary: "as chief executive, it seems implicit that Putin would ultimately be responsible for all the Russian government's actions"

No, it would not have been "implicit", as some chief executives are micro-managers, and some are not.

Can this go back in the article? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely go back in. It's quite relevant information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Geogene (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?

With this edit [11] - is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?

Not seeing this info picked up by other sources ?

Can this be removed ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by Geogene at [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's back; per DS. But to answer your question on reliability: hell no. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Geogene, it should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Non-RS.Casprings (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have removed. The Newsmax piece was based on the same claim by Edward Klein that also circulated on TownHall and similar unreliable sites. As I wrote in a talk-page section earlier up the page, Klein is not a reliable source for factual statements like these. Neutralitytalk 00:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsmax article was written by Ed Klein. Note that Klein is a columnist not a reporter for Newsmax hence it fails reliable sources. Some editors have argued that this type of column is an exception because it is a "news column," not an "opinion column." Note too that although it is not clear at first, Klein uses the expression "according to sources." If we accept it as a reliable source then we would have to be clear about that. TFD (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax is only reliable for its own opinion on its own article. It's "full blown right wing conservative bias." They are extremely partisan and in the same class as Breitbart, Infowars, and the Drudge Report. Their content borders on fake news, but done deliberately through extreme media bias. They really believe this stuff, and it can cost lives. They use the language of legitimate media, but without any type of fact checking that any real fact checking source would find reasonable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, Media Bias/Fact Check does not appear to be a reliable source. It says by the way that Wikipedia is more reliable than the New York Times, which of course is the logical conclusion of their methodology: that the farther away from U.S. political orthodoxy one is, the less factually accurate one is. Media bias however differs from inaccuracy. It has to do with what issues one highlights and there is no such thing as unbiased media in that all media decide which stories to cover based on political interest. TFD (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree newsmax is not a reliable source, it is not because they are "conservative" or have a bias. A source's bias does not disqualify them, nor does the fact that a source may be partisan. Per WP:BIASED "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." That a source is "conservative" does not disqualify them, and your use of the term as a pejorative or as grounds to disqualify them only serves to reveal your bias. Marteau (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that they're working in a new feature "Factual Reporting" which better reflects our WP:RS. As for the site itself, the only legit coverage I've found is The Daily Dot, which just mentions its Chrome extension. The best place for further discussion is probably the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. FallingGravity 02:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Newsmax is not a reliable source, however the MBFC website is just as bad. For example, they list IFL science as an unbiased, thoroughly researched outlet that reflects scientific consensus. The truth is, IFL science is rather notorious for their credulous, speculative treatment of scientific discoveries, presented under wildly speculative headlines and often flatly wrong headlines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before yall rail against Newsmax for not asking for talking points from the DNC, they noticed the contradiction the next day. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/james-comey-james-clapper-russia-help/2016/12/16/id/764397/ Also it's possible Brennan is also spreading fake news.Lumbering in thought (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.N.C. and D.N.C. abbreviations?

We need consistency. Should it be R.N.C. or RNC? We're using both, and unless we're quoting, we can choose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just RNC and DNC. Will save space that way and make things uniform throughout the article. Good point, thanks for bringing this up. Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think political organizations generally lose the periods: NRA, ACT-UP, CIA, SLA, PLA, whatever. You generally define it in parentheses after spelling out the full name in the first usage/link, so the audience is directly instructed. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sagecandor (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD WIDE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW IS MISSING BUT WEASEL WORDS ARE PLENTIFUL

WP:Neutral point of view.

To be considered ethical then this article needs to reflect a world wide point of view. Not only does the article need expert opinions of American Intel agents to provide evidence, but per Wiki guidelines this needs to allow Russia and other countries to weigh in on the alleged phenomenon. Anything else is not in keeping with the standards that wikipedia has set.

Wikipedia also demands that weasel words be removed from all articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:F194:899C:1151:B7BE (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please present some sources that you believe we have overlooked that represent the world wide point of view that you believe is missing. Which of the article's 4656 words do you think are weasel words, and why?- MrX 13:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article title mis-frames the issue

Given that the election itself is the casting and tabulation of votes, the title is misleading. There's been no allegation and no proof that the tabulation of votes was interfered with Russian actors. Nor has there been any proof offered that voters themselves were coerced or bribed by Russian actors. Thus if there was interference, it was only in the destabilizing of the pro-Hillary MSM media narrative. And yes, that took place in large measure because of the WikiLeaks publications of the Podesta emails. But those email leaks have been attributed (by Julian Assange and other knowledgeable persons) to disgruntled Democrat persons. Thus, the entire premise of the contention that Russia "interfered" with the USA election is a MSM-driven fabrication aimed at helping Democrats recapture a media-driven framing of the materiality of what's what. That narrative broke down in 2016 via a combination of Red State voters flooding independently to social media, the effectiveness of Trump's tweets and rally(s) and also, the WikiLeaks revelations. And these points being true, it's not honest to say that Russia "interfered" with the election. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Election' is commonly understood to mean more than just vote tallying. It encompasses the entire process in which Russia tried to interfere by stealing and revealing information to shape public opinion against one side. To call it a fabrication of the main stream media is profoundly ignorant. In any case, articles are based on reliable sources, not the original research of editors.- MrX 13:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the True Believers of the 'Russia did it' narrative were to be intellectually honest (a prerequisite for choosing a valid portfolio of reliable source citations) they would have to admit that the word "interference" is being used by biased actors in the MSM and Beltway crowds to suggest that whatever may have taken place, a) it's worthy of a penalty and b) it achieved its intended effect illegitimately. But so far, the only things which have been alleged (with no release of fact-based government documents proving it - only surmises/contentions) is that Russia's assistance to certain "hackers" resulted in true information about the inner workings of the DNC's illicit activities and also, truth about the HRC campaign's additionally objectionable activities. So by calling it "interference", we are suggesting that the American voter is so stupid that they would otherwise have been led my the nose to vote Hillary, were it not for these leaks. Myself, I would call this article "Allegations of Russian-led improprieties during the 2016 USA presidential election cycle". But that's just me, being a stickler for accuracy. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cites?- MrX 13:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be mention of the recklessness of the DNC and Hillary Clinton that contributed to the hack taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.211.52 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if you can find sources to support that claim.- MrX 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone breaks into your house but does not do anything that is not interference with your doors?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the gmail security mechanisms were defeated by an invisible "hack" then there would be proof that Podesta's email was "hacked" into. But given that there's not any facts about that in the news reports - only off-the-record 'conclusions', semi-official generalizations and MSM finger pointing, then by the preponderance of the known actual facts, which are a) it's Podesta's actual email, b) it came from gmail and c) it was passed to WikiLeaks, unless we're drawing unfounded inferences or taking sides in a partisan battle; there's not enough actual information in the sources being cited for a reasonable person to conclude against the most authoritative source, which is Assange and WikiLeaks itself. And he says he knows where the leaked emails came from and it's not the Russians. Why are we not giving that fact enough weight here? Assange's assertion is a fact and he has very high credibility on this point - much more than any of the chattering class in the MSM or the Beltway operatives who are pushing the 'Russia did it' narrative. The single most authoritative source says that Russia did not do it. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact he says they did not pass him the information, it is not a fact they did not (only his claim). And the claim they did come from US intelligence agencies, and their quoted statements.Slatersteven (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the initial version of the "Russia did it" theory was that they had hacked in to voting machines and would switch votes from Clinton to Trump. TFD (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TFD - I think that was one of the initial concerns being bandied about by the press before November 8th election day. But as Pres. Obama said in his final press conference (Dec. 16), there is no evidence that voting machines were hacked or tampered with. So the later conclusion is there is no evidence to support compromised voting machines. I also agree that Assange's claims does not hold water when compared to statements by a large number of U.S. intelligence agencies, which is supported by reliable sources. Assange is not the single most authoritative source. Especially when his policy and WikiLeak's policy is to never reveal their actual sources. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what Assange says. The reality is that no one has seen the intelligence information, so there is no independent assessment of its reliability. It could be that they know Putin was behind the hacks because they have hacked into his email and are wiretapping his phone, which they did with Angela Merkel. TFD (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. Sagecandor (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this section started with an off-topic matter that needed to be addressed. And I am not seeing anything here that is off-topic that doesn't need to be discussed. These are concerns that are out there - some people don't believe the mainstream press concerning the intelligence reports, hacked or tampered with election equipment is a current concern being discussed in the current news cycle - including Obama's speech, and some think Assange's recent denial has credibility. This is all related to the 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Just because my view is - reliable sources accurately reflect the intelligence community's conclusions and that Julian Assange cannot credibly deny or confirm any source - this does not prevent other views from being presented. I haven't seen that happen since I have been on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get rid of the 2016 in the title?

I don't think know of any other interference. Why have the 2016 in the title. A title that simply read United States Election interference by Russia would be shorter and better. Casprings (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was (as far as we know) only in 2016, removing the date will imply it has happen ed before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep the year in the title, especially in light of similar events in other years like as per Reuters, "Russian hackers seized control of the Pentagon's unclassified email system in 2015", which could also deserve its own separate article now. Sagecandor (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping the date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is necessary to keep "2016" in the title to differentiate when this actually happened, as compared to other hacking events during other time periods. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obama seems to think it may have happened before. He has ordered a full review into hacking aimed at influencing US elections going back to 2008. Marteau (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a history, it seems like even a better title. Where else would that information belong? Casprings (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change 'election' to 'campaign' in the title?

It would be more precise to say 'campaign' rather than 'election'. The latter, even if it can be an umbrella for anything, necessarily evokes the actual casting and counting of votes, and given that this article is NOT about the claims of voting machine hacking that were made earlier, it would be logical to do everything possible to clear that up.79.169.98.40 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against this, as most sources refer to the fact that it was an intention to interfere in the election, referring generally to influencing public opinion through the information obtained by the espionage operation. Sagecandor (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable request to me.Slatersteven (talk)
I don't agree with changing the wording to "campaign". That appears to me to be inaccurate. It seems all the relevant coverage is about attempts to influence this last U.S. "election". I am not seeing how "campaign" can be interchanged with that. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, agree the use of 'campaign' would not quite be correct, but I think the use of 'election' is borderline-misleading (makes people think the voting-machines were tampered with), so my suggestion is to use "Russian interference with the 2016 election cycle in the United States" ... or to include the impact of quasi-NGOs such as WikiLeaks, and propaganda both covert and open in the form of endorsing candidates and such, the topic-area could be broadened to "International influences on the 2016 election cycle in the United States" using almost the same model as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (except that the reactions-article is about post-election stuff only whereas the use of '2016 election cycle' also permits talking about campaigns and pre-campaign influences). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a good case for changing to 'election cycle. If using only the word 'election' does in fact mislead people into thinking this is about tampering with voter machines - then this would be appropriate. Let me get back to you on the other stuff. Your comments do make sense. For myself, I am just trying to determine what the scope of this article is (or could be) in relation to your comments. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?

Navbox removed [13] with edit summary: (Article is not in navbox).

Article seems directly relevant to topic of the navbox.

Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I will say though that I have seen JFG remove links from nav boxes that, in my opinion, should not be removed. I don't think that's the case here though.- MrX 00:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem the navbox {{Donald Trump}} is directly relevant to this page and should be included. Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is it relevant to {{Hillary Clinton}} then? {{Democratic Party (United States)}}? {{Central Intelligence Agency}}? Can't put it everywhere… — JFG talk 01:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly if we include this one we can also include the first one you mentioned, yes. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, I like to keep navboxes cleanly organized and on point. I have no strong opinion whether this particular article should be in the {{Donald Trump}} navbox. I do think it should be in the {{United States presidential election, 2016}} navbox though, will add now. Not so sure about {{Hacking in the 2010s}} because the security breaches now attributed to Russia are already mentioned there (DNC and DCCC). — JFG talk 01:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant SYNTHESIS

Tump's transition team dismissed the CIA's conclusions, stating: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." @SPECIFICO: edited Wikipedia to read: "The statement falsely said that those at the CIA who concluded Russian interference in the election, were the same individuals who asserted in 2003 that Iraq leader Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction." As evidence, SPECIFICO cited this 2015 interview with Michael Morell, which has nothing to do with Trump or allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election but in which Morell acknowledges "the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence" on Iraq's WMD. SPECIFICO's edit is synthesis and original research of the crudest and most blatant variety, and needs to be reverted immediately. Note that SPECIFICO is not even good at this: Morell briefed President Bush on Iraq, and then became Director of Central Intelligence under Obama, so citing him only reminds us that the CIA hasn't changed much since 2003—while Morell's admission that the CIA intentionally lied in the past is only likely to reinforce Trump's claim that we should be skeptical of the Agency's conclusions. The thrust of Trump's argument relates to the CIA's long history of institutional intelligence failures—from the Iranian Revolution to 9/11—but if SPECIFICO wanted to nitpick the literal meaning of Trump's statement, then they should have cited Glenn Kessler: "Trump's complaint about this semi-ancient history is a bit odd because a) the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior; b) the intelligence collection for hacking in the United States by overseas powers would be different from assessing illicit weapons programs in the Middle East; and c) reforms were put in place after the Iraq War to make it harder for suspect intelligence to bubble up to the top ranks without careful scrutiny." (Because this type of editing is typical for SPECIFICO, SPECIFICO's actions need to be scrutinized much more closely than they have been—not because SPECIFICO is a POV-pusher, but because so many of their edits display such an obvious lack of basic competence).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the ad hominem here in comment above, can just stick to content without discussing individual contributors. However, we would need a secondary sources confirming "falsely", rather than doing our own research here. That part I agree on. Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::If SPECIFICO didn't have a long record of comparable behavior—all under the aegis of "clarify" or "conform to cited source"—I wouldn't raise the issue. At this point, however, it is certainly a very real concern that SPECIFICO cannot be trusted to accurately convey what sources say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for that. WP:NPA and ad hominem. Suggest you strike the comments relating to a particular editor with <s>strikeout code</s>. And focus on the content complaint, itself. Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to FallingGravity for fixing this, using Kessler instead. I'm glad this was resolved quickly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging:2nd time: Suggest you WP:REDACT the unneeded WP:NPA, above. Sagecandor (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging: Seconded. Retract the personal attacks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging: No need for this.Casprings (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO has previously alleged that I "lack ... emotional maturity," engage in "mansplaining," promote "paranoid conspiracy theories" (over an SPI, of all things!) and am "obsessed with animus and revenge"—and that's just the tip of the iceberg—all under the guise of examining my editorial conduct, and while emphatically denying that any personal attack occurred. I've kept it much more civil than that, but I think the same rationale applies. I'm warning SPECIFICO that from now on I will be making a list of these kinds of edits, and if the list gets long enough, I will be pushing for another topic ban to complement SPECIFICO's Mises Institute topic ban. That said, I have stricken the comments above—while still fully endorsing them—to keep this talk page focused on the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging:3rd time: This article's talk page is not the place for this. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you are called out for WP:NPA, please don't respond with yet even more ad hominem. This talk page is for suggesting ways to improve this article, without referring to individual contributors as the vast majority of the comments. Sagecandor (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one sucking us deeper into this quagmire; I just wanted to warn editors to be vigilant. I certainly shall not be responding here again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've now mentioned an individual contributor's name thirteen times, in a discussion that could have taken place without one. Sagecandor (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening change

Strongly disagree with this opening change [14].

The intro should be at least a good three or four paragraphs, judging by the length of the article.

It should concisely summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD.

This was way too drastic. Sagecandor (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool with that. I just think it is too long and you don't need a blow by blow of dates. What key facts do you think are missing now? Casprings (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could self-revert it back and we can trim it down from there? Sagecandor (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if we got one other editors thoughts? If they think it should go back, I would be happy to do so. Casprings (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with getting rid of the excessive number of dates and excessive blow-by-blow. But I do think the lead's reference to "interference" is a bit oblique; we should be explicit in saying that the mode of interference was primarily the cyberattack and leaks. I also think Putin's putative role is worth a short mention. So a version intermediate between the long and short versions would most appeal to me. Neutralitytalk 05:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edited intro, trimming dates and blow-by-blow, and keeping Putin role, as intermediate version. [15]. Better? Sagecandor (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks way better. Casprings, are you amenable to this? Neutralitytalk 18:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bipartisan letter issued on December 18 ?

This change says "bipartisan letter issued on December 18" ?

The letter was released on December 11, seen at http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election

Was there a 2nd, newer bipartisan letter ?

Or is The New York Times referring to the first one, and there was no 2nd one on December 18 ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see I am mistaken. New, 2nd letter: Schumer joins McCain in call for independent probe of Russian hacking. Trying to find an actual copy of the document itself on a .gov site. Sagecandor (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full text of the 2nd letter [16]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is a second follow-letter. Neutralitytalk 05:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah cool thanks no problem. Sagecandor (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title change proposal: Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election

I'd propose this article be renamed "Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election." The terms used, interference, intervention, influence, etc are too general and when used as umbrella terms they dilute what's documented by the WP:RS. - Scarpy (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though that is accurately what happened, a vast majority of the WP:RS sources use the words "election", and "interference", the most out of all the descriptors. Let's keep the title short and not large and burdensome. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title is not very concise, so I'd be reluctant to support such a change. The current title seems to suffice. Dustin (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both the proposed title and the current title are egregiously POV. We don't know who hacked the DNC.
Sagecandor, unless you have access to information that none of us in the public are privy to, you don't know if there was Russian interference in the US Presidential election. Reliable sources are reporting on claims made by American intelligence and government figures, and on denials by the Russian government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make insinuations or assumptions in reference to individual contributors, and instead keep the discussion focused on content. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sagecandor, I made no personal attacks or insinuations, and I don't see how you could possibly interpret the above as a personal attack. But now that we're on the subject of you, I am interested to know how a new editor is so familiar with Wikipedia policies, noticeboards, arbitration, article deletion procedures, etc. Forgive me, but something just doesn't click here. Maybe you can clear this up for everyone here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop the off-topic accusations and inquisitions, please, thanks. This article talk page is for talking about improving this article. Let's discuss that together, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just come out and ask you the obvious question: how do you know that Russia hacked the DNC? We don't have reliable source backing for that claim, despite the title of this article implying that we do. You took very quick offense at my above statement, that the origin of the hack is not publicly known, despite accusations that have been leveled by various American intelligence officials and politicians. It's just strange to me that you took such personal offense at a comment that wasn't a personal attack, and your touchiness reminded me of your curious editing history - so forgive my asking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title is too verbose in my view. WP:TITLE advises to use titles that are concise and natural.- MrX 18:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: Assuming I remember my English, it's a more common way of speaking to start the title with an adjective (Russian) rather than suffixing with an adverb and noun (by Russia). - Scarpy (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: I agree that starting the title with "Russian" would be an improvement. The part I object to is "espionage and disinformation targeting" which can be concisely written as "interference in (or 'with')".- MrX 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything, other than what I've read in secondary sources. We should go by what is documented in the majority of reliable sources about the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and those reliable sources report on claims made by American intelligence officials and politicians. So unless our policy is to trust claims made by the CIA and FBI as fact, this article's title is POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just "American intelligence officials and politicians", but ALL the "intelligence officials" in the entire intelligence community, 17 intelligence agencies, and now, including the FBI. [17]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that we should treat American intelligence agencies as reliable sources here on Wikipedia? To me, that would seem like an incredible change in policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. Please don't assume what I am thinking. I am saying it is not just a few "American intelligence officials and politicians". Sagecandor (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard not to come to conclusions when you strongly imply something. The important point is this: reliable sources are reporting on claims made by American intelligence officials and politicians. For the most part, reliable sources are not saying that these claims are true. That means that this article should not treat the claims as if they were true, and in particular, the title of the article should not suggest the claims to be true. Do you agree? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Wrong. As our new leader friend says. Wrong. Not claims. Conclusions. Not by random individual officials. By the entirety of the whole of all of the intelligence community. All 17 agencies, plus the Department of Homeland Security, plus the FBI, all coming together to agree on the same conclusion. Sagecandor (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would help this discussion to clarify the status of the information. Did any reliable source say that there was 2016 United States election interference by Russia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting dizzy going in circles here. Agree with Timothyjosephwood, below. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Sagecandor, now you're just confusing me. A second ago, when I asked you if American intelligence agencies count as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. But now that I ask you if reliable sources have stated as a fact that Russia carried out the DNC hack, you say that US intelligence has come to that conclusion. You seem to want to dance around this issue. American intelligence agencies (nor Russian intelligence agencies, or any other government spy agencies) do not count as reliable sources. You can't say you're not claiming they're reliable sources on the one hand, but on the other hand cite them as reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)From your response, it looks to me like the discussion is approaching the point that no reliable source has said that there was 2016 United States election interference by Russia. If that's the case, then the title is implying something that is not verifiable per WP:V. We might then consider changing the title to the less problematic and more concise form: 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a multitude of reliable sources saying this. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then quote an excerpt here from one of them and give a link to the reliable source that makes that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus the move discussion on the move discussion section, above, on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From your response, it looks to me that you don't know of any. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. But from this discussion, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and doesn't seem likely to progress to a constructive outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough of this for me. Too bad. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the two accounts above seem to be ignoring the multiple other independent entities that came to the exact same conclusions as the 17 intelligence agencies did, months beforehand. Sagecandor (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it doesn't take much effort to make obvious arguments. The title is already too long, and making it even longer isn't a solution. Above and beyond that, (and we really should have an essay on this), these extended arguments that always pop up on articles about unfolding and especially politically charged articles (and has already happened a few times here including a brief move war requiring protect) are nearly always a complete waste of time. Whatever title individuals happen to prefer at the moment, which is usually only a marginal improvement one way or the other, are just as likely to be obsolete in a month as anything else. So have this discussion in a month, when it will almost certainly be more clear what exactly it is we're talking about. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the title could be made more concise and address criticisms here by making the change to 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob K31416: That proposed title would be an improvement. @Timothyjosephwood: I imagine that you before all others would be the first to recognize that a concise but misleading title is far worse than a verbose and accurate one. -Darouet (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this in terms of verbosity and misleading...ness (words?). It is a compromise between verbosity and being WP:PRECISE. Additionally, being somewhat more vague does't actually make your title any less precise, so long as there are no other closely related topics that could be easily confused by your given title. 2016 United States election and Russia probably easily satisfies this. TimothyJosephWood 15:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far, it looks like me, Darouet, and Timothyjosephwood support a proposed change of the title to 2016 United States election and Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is terrible proposal. This article is not about the two subjects "'2016 United States election" and "Russia" as the conjunction would imply. The article is about Russia's interference with the election.- MrX 16:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using "and" is a routine way of making a connection between two subjects in a title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's just really bad writing. The connection between Russia and the US election is interference, not "and". - MrX 17:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinions but I don't see much backing them up. BTW, here's an example of a Wikipedia article that uses "and" to connect two subjects in the title, Constantine the Great and Christianity. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me there's not a big purple gorilla sitting in my bathtub right now. I'm not sure what hypothetical example source would be satisfactory at this point. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: Crowdstrike's statements are notable, but it is a hired firm with links to the American intelligence community. Treating its statements as a source of truth is a major breach of ordinary editorial policy. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's, at least, three different definitions of reliable source being conflated in this discussion. (1) A reliable source as a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (2) a person or organization that's reliable on a given topic (3) a source that provides the requested evidence of Russian intelligence agencies breaching the DNC for the purpose of answering the repeated requests for it on this talk page. I'm only providing (3) here because that's what was asked for in this discussion. If you want to insulate that very specific and detailed evidence that CrowdStrike provided in this report is a fabrication because they have "links to the American intelligence community" (which, by the way, you have completely failed to document) then I will use your argument against you. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Scarpy (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of any help in this discussion, note that for the purpose of writing a Wikpedia article, a reliable source is one that can be put into a citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, stated the leak of emails in the 2016 US elections was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Sagecandor (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goodin, Dan. ""Guccifer" leak of DNC Trump research has a Russian's fingerprints on it". arstechnica. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
  2. ^ Shieber, Jonathan; Conger, Kate. "Did Russian government hackers leak the DNC emails?". TechCrunch. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  3. ^ Rid, Thomas. "All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack". Motherboard. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  4. ^ "Wikileaks posts nearly 20,000 hacked DNC emails online". Providence Journal. July 22, 2016.
  5. ^ "DNC email leak: Sanders calls for new leader as Clinton camp blames Russia". The Guardian. July 24, 2016.
  6. ^ "DNC email leak: Russian hackers Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear behind breach". The Guardian. July 26, 2016.
I oppose a rename to the vague "2016 United States election and Russia" — that's unclear and not very descriptive, as others have noted, that isn't how the reliable sources have framed it. I oppose (mildly) a move to "Russian espionage and disinformation targeting the 2016 United States election" — this is, I think, unnecessarily lengthy. I support a move to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as it reads better. Neutralitytalk 17:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Neutrality, and oppose this vague title proposal change, and support move to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPOV , "*Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

Russian interference in the 2016 U. S. elections is a widespread view in U.S. intelligence agencies [and numerous cyber security firms], but it hasn't been stated as a fact in reliable sources or in the text of our article. So I think we should keep that in mind when considering an appropriate title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again left out NOT just U.S. intelligence agencies, but also numerous cyber security firms. Sagecandor (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll add it to my above comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can stop including U.S. intelligence agencies in any discussion of reliable sources. There's no reason to mention their statements in this context, because they're not reliable sources. Now, is someone here arguing that cyber security firms are reliable sources? I think we should stick to reputable media, and almost all reputable media stories on the subject describe "Russian hacking" as a claim that's been made by American intelligence agencies, rather than as a fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again ignores assessments of Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect. Sagecandor (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the intelligence agencies nor the cybersecurity firms have published any reports on this that can be cited, much less something that passes other Wikipedia criteria for a reliable published source. The published reliable sources have not stated the results of these organizations as fact. Also, in the text of our article the results of these organizations have not been stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. So I don't think we should imply in the title that it is a fact.
That will be the last thing I say in this discussion, so good luck to everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect -- have indeed been covered by numerous WP:RS secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sagecandor, you repeatedly confuse two different things: whether reliable sources state as a fact that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails (they do not, generally, state this), and whether reliable sources report on claims made by U.S. intelligence and certain cybersecurity firms (reliable sources do report on those claims). That distinction is very important, because the current title strongly suggests that Russian interference in the US election is a fact, when it is rather something that various organizations and people have claimed. Reliable sources report on those claims, which is very different from reliable sources stating unequivocally that those claims are correct. The current title, as well as your proposed title below, are therefore POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies and Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect -- this is not a single individual person who performed a crime. This was another sovereign nation state. We won't ever get an opinion from a court of law. The fact is it is the conclusion of all of these bodies and that is the single strongest conclusion we will get, most likely. This is not opinion or POV. This is concluded analysis. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sagecandor, you don't understand what WP:RS means. It's really as simple as that. There could be 100 intelligence agencies that all claimed the same thing, and 20 cybersecurity firms, but as long as reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) did not report those claims as fact, then we would not be able to treat them as fact here in Wikipedia. Unless you can show that reputable newspapers generally state that Russia conducted the hacks and leaked the documents, then we can't treat those claims as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the ignoring here the conclusions of the Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect. They are not the United States government. These are reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: this was covered in Wired: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/- Scarpy (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fact

Here's some background information on Ken Dilanian's—and Scott Shane's—past history of collaboration with the CIA. It's probably no coincidence that Dilanian helped break the news of Putin's alleged involvement for NBC—just as it's no coincidence that the CIA first leaked this story to its favorite newspaper (The Washington Post).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is synth, so not sure what you're getting at. We can't add it to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MjolnirPants. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dilanian himself is cited 8 times here. While it is unclear what edit should come out of this "fun fact", it is stuff like this that makes me wonder what the R in RS actually stands for. (RS seems like an unfortunate choice: it should always have been WP:STBS — "sources to be taken seriously (for whatever reason)" — or something close to that.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that since this reporter has published stories from the CIA which were found to be false, that it could be the Russian interference story may also be false. We of course cannot say that as it would be synthesis. However we should present the story the same way that news outlets do, i.e., beginning "according to...." No doubt we will know the truth in due course. There is no deadline. TFD (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2016

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – This 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. - MrX 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

  1. Support. Agree with the proposal exactly as written by MrX at [18]. The title Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is the most descriptive, concise, and succinct title for this page. It happened in 2016, it impacted multiple elections, not just one, and the word "interference" is the word most used in a majority of secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. More natural language, matches the sources out there; I agree that it is the most descriptive, concise, and succinct title. Neutralitytalk 19:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nomination. The current wording is awkwardly formed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support this great improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nomination. The current wording is awkward. Coattail effect (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This is more succinct and seems more likely to match users' search terms. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support This reads much more naturally. - Scarpy (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – Easier to read title with better form. Dustin (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 'Support Shorter and easier for the reader to find content.Casprings (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Attributing the hacks to Russia, as if that were a fact, is blatantly POV. We need a title that doesn't state accusations and claims made by unreliable sources (i.e., U.S. intelligence agencies) as if they were facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Title should simply be 'Interference in the 2016 United States elections' without any reference to alleged offending country until such time as evidence has been presented to be public to be scrutinized by all. Attack seemingly originating from IP address within Russia does not constitute government involvement. In December interview with Edward Snowden, he too questioned why no evidence has been put forward by U.S. Intelligence agencies to support Russian Government involvement but moreover brought up great comparison. When Sony was hacked, U.S. Intelligence agencies quickly came forward and produced evidence to support their findings that the North Korean Government was responsible for the hack. Here, we have no evidence other than a simple allegation. And, not to take pot shots at the U.S. Intelligence agencies, but these are the same people who lied to Congress for years, about bulk date collection, so credibility is an issue that should not be overlooked. Wikipedia should avoid repeating unfounded allegations and not put itself in the position of becoming another 'fake news' outlet. The title can certainly be changed at a later date once the allegations have been proven. -Parajuris —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – Both the current and proposed titles fail WP:POVTITLE. Either we call it Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or we call it Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I disagree with calling it just Interference in the 2016 United States elections because most sources do discuss Russia, either accusing its government or dismissing their involvement. — JFG talk 00:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per JFG.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per JFG. Assigning guilt in article's title violates WP:POVTITLE, especially since the Russian government has denied these allegations. We include these statements in the article, but the article's title tells the reader that these statements are wrong. While that might be true, that's not the job of the article's title. FallingGravity 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Wikipedia violation of policy exposed

Without verifiable content, information cannot be posted as factual according to Wikipedia policy.

Absolutely no factual references were used or cited to draw the conclusion the "2016 United States election interference by Russia" should be treated as a factual statement. At best, the intelligence agencies "believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts" that the leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." No actual evidence exists to implicate Russia and, to the contrary, the source of the leaks, Julian Assange, clearly stated that Russia was not involved. The fact remains that the DNC was hacked four months before the Republican Candidate was chosen. The Russians didn't even know that Trump would be the candidate when the "hacking" occurred, so it is highly illogical to assume that they intervened to benefit Mr. Trump when he had not been made the candidate and was actually expected not to be the republican candidate.

The Intelligence Technology employee of the Democratic National Committee, Delevan, openly admitted that he instructed the Podesta staffer to allow the unauthorized access to the documents to proceed and blamed it on a typographical error <1>. An equally plausible explanation would be that it was an intentional, inside job, performed by disgruntled democrats who were angry about the treatment of Bernie Sanders. Another Democratic National Committee staffer, similarly motivated, Seth Rich, was implicated as a source for leaked emails and was allegedly preparing to turn over Hillary Clinton's emails to the FBI when he ended up getting two bullets in his body,<2> "consistent with the methods and motivations of (Clinton)-directed efforts." With equal justification, it can be said that some "believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts" that Vince Foster's experience can serve as a role model for a Clinton implication.

Therefore, the title should be changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia."

67.161.43.34 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)William T. O'Connor[reply]

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ 1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/hillary-clinton-tech-staffer-typo-precipitated-joh/
  2. ^ 2) http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

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

At a December 23 press conference, Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election: "They [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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Osborn, Andrew; Soldatkin, Vladimir (2016-12-23). "Putin shrugs off Trump's nuclear plans, says Democrats sore losers". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-12-24.

Survey

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)[reply]
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Only in American Politics, folks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&oldid=756423758"