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 DHeyward (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 17 February 2018 (→‎Indictment of 13 Russian operatives: per TPO. No evidence of socking.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citation repair request

In the "Social media and internet trolls" section, please replace the missing citation 

<ref name=Fox-WP />

with 

<ref>{{cite news|title=Facebook could tell us how Russia interfered in our elections. Why won’t it?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/facebook-could-tell-us-how-russia-interfered-in-our-elections-why-wont-it/2017/05/19/c061a606-3b21-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html|date=May 20, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|last1=Howard|first1=Philip N.|last2=Gorwa|first2=Robert}}</ref>

thanks, 209.6.209.51 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Geogene (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker sourced in the Russian reaction section

This particular locus being edited today [1], [2] is an example of fluff that's really only bloating the article. Not every anonymous member of the Duma is significant enough to be mentioned as an individual opinion, especially when it seems to be a typical one in Russia. What that source [3] would be useful for instead is summarizing what it says is a common perspective in Russia: they deny the hacking, while claiming moral justification for something they insist they didn't do. The fact that they perceive American conspiracies throughout their own recent politics would give more useful background as far as establishing motive. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee to Investigate Russia

This organization's website is a treasure trove of information and RS, and we can use those sources. The Advisory Board is quite distinguished:

Advisory Board

  • Max Boot Military Historian and Foreign Policy Analyst
  • James Clapper Former Director of National Intelligence
  • Evelyn Farkas, Ph.D. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia
  • General Michael Hayden Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency
  • Jeh Johnson Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
  • Michael Morell Former Acting Director of the CIA
  • Norman Ornstein American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar
  • Leon Panetta Former Secretary of Defense, Former Director of the CIA, and Former White House Chief of Staff
  • Rob Reiner Director, Actor, and Activist
  • Charles Sykes Conservative Commentator
  • Clint Watts Foreign Policy Research Institute Fellow and Former FBI Agent

Committee to Investigate Russia. Check it out. You may find useful content from the RS it mentions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the names on the board, looks very partisan: a gallery of certified anti-Trumpers. — JFG talk 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A very astute observation. It sorta makes sense. There are those who really know what's going on (Team America: several with top security clearance and experience, using RS), and those who are allied in their public denials because they are on the same team (Team Russia: Putin, Trump, GOP, using poor sources). The latter are under criminal investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Trumper" is just name-calling and debases the organization and its principals -- as if they had no civic motive in providing this platform for public access. More significantly, it's not a useful comment for WP editors to hang their hats on. An external link to this very useful website was suppressed shortly after the organization was formed and IMO should now -- with their track record of well-sourced content -- be restored to this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This website should at least be added to the list of external links. I'm not sure it could be used as a reliable source though.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding as an external link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to EL, and use the RS it uses as references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI interested editors RE: 2018 elections

Please see Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections and its AfD. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schiff: "Ample Evidence" of Collusion

Schiff: "Ample Evidence" of Collusion

NOTE. Do NOT use that as a RS, but look at the RS it uses. They are totally fair game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

|For what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Use the original sources: Guardian [4] and USA Today [5] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment of 13 Russian operatives

Outlined a few points:

  • No Americans were aware they were working for Russians.
  • Russians worked to undermine confidence in American election system and worked to sow discord by organizing rallies to both support and oppose Trump after the election including supporting both Pro and Anti Trump rallies in NYC.
  • No evidence that the influence altered the election.

--DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm reading in the (reliable) sources. I guess those would be good points for the defense?- MrX 🖋 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-->Hey, So? SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no allegation that ANY American had ANY knowledge of the Russian's intent of interfering with the elections, and no evidence that the Russian interference affected the OUTCOME of the election174.85.12.247 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The indictment charges, for instance, that Russians paid an American woman in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform, and paid another American to build a cage large enough to hold her."[6] I guess, technically, stupidity is not a crime.- MrX 🖋 19:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should focus on including information about what the indictment claims *did* happen, not on synthesis to make bold statements that things not included in the indictment did not happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The indictment is a formal instrument that fits a certain legal structure. There may be a lot of factual information disclosed during the course of the trials, but we as editors should confine our work to what's known and reported. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay from the indictment. Friday’s indictment filing – signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller – says the defendants organized a Nov. 12 “Trump is NOT my President” rally in New York. On that same day, according to indictment, they also organized a “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump" rally in New York. The indictment also revealed that the Russians organized a “Charlotte Against Trump” rally in North Carolina on Nov. 19. The indictment is the Occam's Razor of interference: Russians were aiming to disrupt and targeted the favorites and elects. They intended to sow discord. This is the piece missing and it's notable that as soon as Trump won they continued to sow discord and division with unwitting support. It seems many activists were duped from every side. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about interference in the election, not after it. Geogene (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope you'll join the rest of us in working on the article Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's covering Mueller investigation and even indictments unrelated to the election. Manafort's indictment is unrelated. Also, the election didn't complete until mid-December 2016 when the electoral college met. "Not My President" is featured prominently in the effort to convince electors to vote as part of the 2016 election.[7]. The Washington Post caption says Demonstrators protest against President-elect Donald Trump in front of Trump Tower on Nov. 12. Trump opponents are urging some electors to switch their votes and not back Trump when the electoral college meets on Dec. 19. and the Nov 12 anti-Trump rally in NYC is the one supported by Russian operatives according to the indictment. And "no allegation that ANY American had ANY knowledge of the Russian's intent of interfering with the elections, and no evidence that the Russian interference affected the OUTCOME of the election" and not sure what sock that was but the point is legitimate summary of parts of the indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&oldid=826077615"