Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

RfC: Proposed lead section

Should the proposed lead section replace the current version? If not, what must be changed to make progress? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

While the discussion above has evolved into a source battle over depicting Russian interference as fact or allegation, I'd like to submit the updated lead section as amended by myself and several editors before yesterday's revert by MrX. This version does not call the intervention alleged, although several editors have failed to acknowledge this simple fact. Besides the "alleged" controversy, some editors have expressed concrete concerns about awkwardness of the first two lead sentences and general "poor writing style". I say the first two sentences can be improved, and the writing style was even poorer before. Now, here's my proposal, with an amended first paragraph to address the discernable concerns. Please comment in the survey and discussion below.

The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks. In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia also meddled in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media.

Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear associated with Russian intelligence. In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face "serious consequences". Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.

In December 2016, Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. President-elect Donald Trump initially rejected the intelligence reports, dismissing claims of foreign interference and saying that Democrats were reacting to their election loss. Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.

Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Six federal agencies have been investigating possible links and financial ties with the Kremlin, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals. Russia did not retaliate.

List of citations has not changed; they will appear correctly in the article, as most of them are culled from the article body.
References

Survey

Please indicate your support or opposition to this version of the lead section, with a short rationale.

• Support paragraphs 1 and 3 only - "US" should be changed to the more conventional "U.S". Important material about investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page have been omitted from the second paragraph."Provided" should be "leaked". "Cut it out" should be change to "warned". The sentence: "Clapper said that as of January 2017 the agencies he supervised had found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." is not lead worthy.- MrX 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I switched to "U.S." per MOS:US, except in the citation of the report, which spells it "US". Investigations of Stone, Kushner, Manafort and Page are mentioned twice in paragraph 4, just not named individually: Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates. The Clapper statement is the only "status report" about those collusion investigations so far, hence relevant to the lead. "Provided" vs "leaked" was to avoid saying "leaked to Wikileaks" which looks awkward; what's wrong with "provided"? "Cut it out" is a direct citation of Obama's language, which gives some personal tone to the statement; we could instead paraphrase, e.g. "warned Putin to stop", but that's a bit dull. — JFG ^talk 15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

1. I believe the individuals being investigated should be named, but the rest of the sentence is fine.
2. "... and provided their contents to WikiLeaks." is a little vague. Perhaps we could say: "... and gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks."
3. "Cut it out" is not a quotation of what was said on the call; it's a quotation of Obama's reflections of what what said. Do you really believe that he spoke to Putin in idiomatic slang? How about this as a more faithful account: "In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop such cyberattacks or face serious consequences."? Mentioning the red phone is fairly trivial.
4. I can live with the Clapper statement if others can.- MrX 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks; I have incorporated all your suggestions except Kushner who is not named in the cited sources, and the word "stolen" which is redundant with "hacked"; replaced "provided" with "forwarded"; used "stop interfering" per source, to avoid repeating "cyberattacks". Hope this addresses your objections so you can move to a full Support !vote. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I'd like to know if you now approve the full text with the latest amendments. Your voice is particularly significant as you were first to revert the proposed lead changes. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Everything except the first sentence looks acceptable to me. Articles such as this should be written from a historical perspective. The use of present tense in the first sentence is jarring and sounds like breaking news. I also strongly prefer "officially concluded" or "concluded" over "highly confident".- MrX 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done OK, amended again with "has concluded with high confidence" directly in the first sentence, so there's no need to repeat it in the second one. Good? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. Thank you.- MrX 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support para 1 with the following edit — with due credit to Geogene. Afaics no one else has suggested using the phrase in the Oct 2016 joint statement that is the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? The progression from "is confident that" in the 1st sentence citing the Oct 2016 statement to "expressed 'high confidence' that” in the 2nd sentence citing the Jan 2017 report uses simple phrasings, allows all sides to move on peaceably, and can be further appended in a timely manner with -results- of the next official work product. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support other paras as long as para 1 comports with either my suggestion above or your further mod below in Discussion. 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Do you agree with the latest amendment to the lead sentence saying "has concluded with high confidence", per discussion with MrX above? If we get consensus between the two of you on this part too, that would be immense progress… — JFG ^talk 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes -- and with that in the lead sentence, I'm ok with the non-qualified (and ergo more certain) "stated … that x" in the 2nd sentence and "stated that y" in 2nd para 1st sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The current lede is much better than this version - The version above removes the "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015" fact from the first paragraph. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: That's only because this phrase was added to the lead after the RfC was opened; we could certainly incorporate it in the proposed new lead, perhaps in a more logical spot, I'll think about it. What do you think of the rest of the text? — JFG ^talk 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added the European intercepts to the paragraph about inquiries on Trump campaign associates. @Gouncbeatduke, Humanengr, and MrX: Please take a look. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We should use the same wording as discussed and agreed upon a few days ago: "Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015". Pinging SusanLesch who led that discussion.- MrX 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had to edit it slightly to fit the placement in the paragraph discussing inquiries on links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Just now tweaked the wording to be closer to Susan's version: Starting in late 2015, European spy agencies intercepted communications between suspected Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Fine? — JFG ^talk 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with.- MrX 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A bit long maybe, but if this is what it takes to get consensus fine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support This revised lede is clearer and more focused (e.g. "red phone") than the existing lede. Good collaborative effort. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The most significant part of this is that the FBI has an open investigation that "included looking at whether associates of Mr. Trump were in contact with Russian officials, and whether they colluded with them."(Comey) The paragraph needs to directly state that, not mention "ties" nor mention 4 individuals, which makes it appear that the investigation only includes them. I also agree with MrX's comments above.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal for improvement to take your concerns into account? — JFG ^talk 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a disaster of wiki-process, to launch another RfC on this topic and then short-circuit it by continuing to change the article. The result has been that one of the two RfC options no longer exists. Given this situation, we should close this RfC. There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question. Then, we can then either revert to the pre-RfC version or we can work to improve the current article version, which is no longer what the RfC proposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of your comment. We shouldn't open an RfC without waiting for consensus first??? Assessing consensus is precisely the goal of opening an RfC. I don't see why this one should be procedurally flawed. I also don't see your specific objection to the proposed text, which has been evolving to take into account other editors' remarks. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Simpler statement: It's disruptive to make changes to one of the alternatives while the RfC is ostensibly comparing its now-defunct text to a proposed alternative. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would support the changes, but suggest amending the first sentence per N-HH and TFD's comments below, as follows: The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Using the phrase "has stated" is the most truthful way of presenting this information. I would also propose adding Russia's denial at the end of the first paragraph, and expanding upon Russia's position somewhat later in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

<<"has stated" is the most truthful>> doesn't seem to relate to the issue at hand. Please rephrase your point about "has stated" and "most truthful" in terms of WP policy and RS treatments of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Given the outcome of the other RfC "concluded vs accused", I believe we should stick with "concluded with high confidence" at this point. About Russia's denial, I'm not sure how to incorporate your suggestion without going into excessive detail. Perhaps simply add "Russia dismissed the allegations." with one of the relevant citations. Do you have a better suggestion? — JFG ^talk 20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I don't see any big red flags but I see some major improvements. I would add that the "intercepted communications" (fifth paragraph) were "suspicious" – because that's what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Thanks. Not sure "suspicious" adds much value to this particular sentence. It's not even in the current lead or full article. I think communications between Trump-related people and Russian operatives are suspicious by definition. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this must be decided in this RFC but the relevant discussion was archived before I had a change to raise this point. My opinion is that "suspicious" is somewhat important because every Russian having discussions with Americans is potentially a spy. Politrukki (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Can be debated after the RfC, if the new text is approved. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current lead paragraph is clearly messed up, but this RFC started a long time ago and therefore omits recent developments in the news. The current lead starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that conclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence; why not run an RFC like that? Then we could discuss what, if anything, ought to be added to the lead paragraph, and/or cut from the rest of the lead. Two items that seem appropriate in the lead paragraph's overview might be that Russia is not believed to have interfered in vote tallying, and/or no evidence has yet emerged regarding collusion between Russia and Trump or his campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section discussion

Please place suggested amendments or longer discussions here.

The lede as of this version was much better. While a few editors have said they don't like the version I've linked, I don't think they've articulated any clear reason why, beyond disagreement with the word "alleged." The first sentence states the subject of the article:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election.

The second sentence gives a very short summary of the events that led to the scandal:

Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.

The third sentence paraphrases what US intelligence has claimed about Russian interference:

An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".

What's the problem with this opening paragraph, beyond the word "alleged"? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that "alleged" is a big deal. Other than that it's ok as far as the first three sentences go. The major problem with your version is that it then proceeds to conceal/remove a bunch of pertinent info that follows those three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Same for JFG's version actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is "concealed or removed"? 213.55.184.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If "alleged" is such a big deal, then why do many major news sources use it? -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop beating the dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That's not an answer. Do you have an actual answer? If you don't, then you should withdraw your objection to the use of the word "alleged." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's not an answer, it's a freakin' plea for you to stop wasting everybody's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've presented several major news sources (BBC, Financial Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde) that use "alleged" or equivalent language. If you don't have any answer to that, then you should withdraw your objection to that language. Right now, you're simply blockading without any reasonable rationale. You've cited WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at me several times now, and it's highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And this all has already been discussed. So... stop beating the dead horse. It's dead. It's not getting up. It's pre-glue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The objection before was that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact. That's not true, as the sources I've cited show. So now that you've been presented with evidence, has your opinion changed? If not, why not? You can't just ignore the evidence and continue citing policies. Reliable sources say "alleged." That's what the article should say, unless you have a substantive objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some sources will add the word alleged for safety as per their policy, and if you look hard enough you will find them. But, the beat-of-hooves is but a memory. Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Their policy of not saying things they don't know to be true. "Some sources" includes the BBC, the Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, the largest papers in Germany and France, and NBC News. If they're not willing to say that "Russian interference" is a fact, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. We're having this discussion because MrX reverted changes to the lede that several editors had hashed out together in one of the few productive discussions I've ever seen on this talk page. If you're going to declare this a dead horse, then you should do the honors and restore the reformulated lede yourself. One can't revert and then refuse to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You can stop pinging me Thucydides411. I'm actively watching this page. You conveniently neglect to mention that several of these same news agencies do treat the Russia interference as fact. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'm going to join in the chorus of others asking you to let this go. This incessant REHASH has become disruptive and could result in you being topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned.- MrX 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I hate to jump into this discussion, but I'm afraid the sources you just cited are reinforcing Thucydides411's case: Le Monde 1 says "allegations of Russian interference" and "Russia was accused by US intelligence services or interfering in the presidential election", Le Monde 2 says "Hacking attributed to Russia" and "The report by intelligence agencies affirms that the Russian president influenced the American election campaign.", Reuters 1 says nothing (just quotes Senators about requesting sanctions over "attempts to influence" the election), Reuters 2 mentions "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election" within a list of issues addressed by Tillerson (doesn't say it's a fact or an allegation, it just names the issue), NBC 1 says "allegedly meddling in the election", NBC 2 says "alleged ties between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government", AP 1 talks about "the House probe into Russian interference" (doesn't call it a fact, just says there's a probe), AP 2 talks about "an investigation into Russian meddling" (same thing). So out of 8 sources, that's 4 explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged", 1 saying nothing of substance, 1 just naming it as an issue among other things, and 2 talking about the existence of investigations. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with JFG's assessment of the sources. MrX, when you say that a source treats Russian interference as a fact, you should say in what way you can tell it treats Russian interference as fact. Reading through your links, I don't see the news agencies making any assertions that Russia interfered in US elections.

You and the chorus of people asking me to let this go should instead be asking yourselves why you're holding onto your position in the face of mounting evidence. You guys haven't been able to quote a major newspaper saying directly that Russia interfered in US elections, and there have now been dozens of articles posted on this talk page where major newspapers explicitly call "Russian interference" an allegation. So rather than threatening to try to topic ban me (for what - doing research on what reliable sources say and then posting it here?), why don't you actually consider the evidence here, and possibly change your mind? If you don't change your mind, you at least need to express some rationale that passes a basic plausibility test. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And the dispute is not new either: here's FallingGravity pointing to plenty of RS explicitly calling the allegations "allegations" in January 2017.[9] The reply from the "it's an undisputed fact, DEADHORSE" chorus? Crickets… — JFG ^talk 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your analysis of my sources is flawed across the board. For example in Le Monde 1, the word "allégations" is from a quote from an unnamed third party, not the voice of the newspaper. "Hacking attributed to Russia" means "the hacking that Russia did", not "the hacking that Russia is alleged to have done". My reading of the body of sources makes it very clear that sources overwhelmingly treat the Russia interference as fact.- MrX 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT.jpg

Barbershop Chorus by www.TwistedMustache.com New Jersey- New York - Georgia- Delaware -CT

Anyway, a chorus Trumps a quartet, and there is a countably infinite number of RS that say "russian interference" in the editors' voices.[10] SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a basically illiterate understanding of what "attributed to" means. See: [11].

verb (used with object), attributed, attributing.

1.to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually followed by to)

2. to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated

3. to consider as made by the one indicated, especially with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof

4. to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign

Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't care any longer whether Russian interference is called "alleged" in Wikipedia's voice, but I can't just remain silent when you guys keep straight denying that a very large fraction of RS articles either express no opinion on the U.S. intelligence officials' accusations against Russia or call them explicitly "allegations". (I knew I shouldn't have jumped into the source battle, but now I'm there…) Back to Le Monde, the first article quotes a Washington official using the word "allegations", that's even stronger than the journalist's neutral voice; the second article merely says that the attribution of hacks to Russia "has become the official position of the American administration". And the title word "imputé" does convey an attribution, effectively saying "somebody (US intelligence) is accusing somebody else (Russia) of something". Best translation would be "Hacking blamed on Russia". Don't take my word for it, just check the numerous examples in a French analytical dictionary. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, examining NBC2 as per your example: Meddling is used twice, once with, once without alleged; interference/interfere is used four times (Russia’s election interference, Russian interference in the election, Putin … became personally involved in the campaign to interfere, Moscow’s interference). So by your reckoning this source is "explicitly qualifying the interference as "alleged""? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Given the excerpts you cite, you must be talking about NBC1. So let's look at the context around the words (emphasis mine): "Sen. Ben Cardin […] called for an independent commission into election meddling", "sanctions imposed by the Obama administration against Russia for allegedly meddling in the election", "a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election", "U.S. intelligence officials believe [that] Putin became personally involved in the campaign to interfere in the election", "Trump frequently denied the claims about Moscow's interference", so yes by my reckoning this source is not taking an affirmative position about the nature, scope or impact of the interference, it correctly attributes the claims of interference to US intelligence services, it mentions calls for investigations and it does call the meddling alleged in the journalist's voice. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK good, cause even the non-RS say that Russian Interference is a fact [12] With JFG no longer contesting the fact, next step would be to deep six (American Nixonism) the latest lede RfC. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---

I found 5 pages hits for the term "alleged" in a Google news search for the last hour.[13] It seems to be a fairly common and evenhanded term used when police or others have made accusations against living people that have not been proved in a court or other tribunal. Here's ABC an article called, "Charleston Shooting: A Closer Look at Alleged Gunman Dylann Roof". That did not cast doubt on whether Dylann Roof was the gunman. That's just how serious sources report things. TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Strawman type C-16. That dude is an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution. Next. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If the title is so difficult to understand that it needs to be explained in the lead, then maybe we should change it, to something like "Alleged Russian …"? No, wait, been there, not done that. Replacing hacking & providing to WL with "release of emails", "leaks" - did the DNC and Podesta turn them over to WL? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, SPECIFICO, but I don't know what C16 means. I don't have a copy of the DNC talking points glossary. FYI, people who commit crimes against the United States or its citizens are subject to prosecution in the U.S. Osama bin Laden for example was on the FBI ten most wanted list despite having never entered the U.S. and attempts were made to by the U.S. government to apprehend him. Closer to the topic, Julian Assange, who released the DNC and Podesta emails, is currently under criminal investigation in the U.S. for possible violation of the Espionage Act. Guccifer, a computer hacker living in Romania, has been indicted on multiple counts in the U.S. and is facing extradition. TFD (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean the alleged Osama! Assange takes credit for "wikileaks" Guccifer is as real as "SPECIFICO", not a person. Next... SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible to reply to my statements without going off on a tangent? Guccifer is a name for Marcel Lazăr Lehel, "an individual accused of a crime subject to pending US prosecution." Whether or not Assange takes credit for wikileaks, he does not take credit for conspiring with the Russian government to subvert democracy in the United States.Any person regardless of nationality or current whereabouts may be prosecuted by U.S. authorities if they were involved in hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails. So just concede you were mistaken about your strawman argument accusation and move on. TFD (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK we'll get serious cause folks don't know you're just flirting with me. The tangent is bringing up examples of OTHERSTUFF instead of sticking to whether mainstream RS overwhelmingly accept the fact that Russia took various actions to interfere with the US elections. So let's reboot and you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is not that Russia tried to interfere. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that they consistently qualify the claims with terms such as "alleged." And they will continue to do that until evidence is presented and experts provide their opinions. That does not mean they question the intelligence any more than they questioned WMDs in Iraq or that accused criminals are guilty. And that's how this article should be written according to policy. TFD (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the intelligence community actually claimed that Iraq had WMDs as claimed by the executive branch? Objective3000 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We're going round and round here. There were a couple of threads on this earlier (such as the hatted discussion about Iraq in this RfC). The TL;DR is that both the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies were complicit in aggressively overselling intelligence about supposed Iraqi WMD. In the years afterwards, we in the public found out that the internal, classified conclusions of the intelligence agencies were much weaker than had been publicly stated. We had been told they were certain about things that they weren't actually certain about. That's a cautionary note for everyone to take to heart. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On that note, Thyc, I urge you to step away from this fruitless pit. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are required when assessing the reliablity of sources. U.S. intelligence has consistently provided conveniently misleading information and therefore is not a reliable source. Whether or not specific claims are accurate is something we determine based on what reliable sources, such as mainstream news media and academic research, say. TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now we have your opinion, and then we have U.S. intelligence declarations published in RS. Hmmmm...which should we choose, your opinion and OR about their reliability, or the RS? Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an ongoing investigation, and as more has leaked out, we have discovered that any seeming dissembling by them was because they had to protect the investigation, and what has been revealed is that the seriousness of the interference is far more than anyone of us realized, and that the likelihood of collusion seems stronger as well. The latest revelations about Carter Page, and his denials (which draw quite the revealing picture) are very interesting. His denials are like dots scattered on the floor, with an area with no dots, and that area is a picture, exactly the one described on page 30 of the dossier. Without being accused, he "doesn't" mention it several times in several different interviews. How odd. It's as if he knows something. Stay tuned.

My point is that your OR seems more based on personal POV than upon the revelations coming from RS, so I suggest we just go with them, and time will tell. Otherwise, this is the talk page, and this is an interesting discussion, but we can't put yours or my speculations in the article....fortunately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's your personal OR. However, having an opinion quoted in a reliable source does not make that opinion a fact, unless the reliable source says it is. And reliable sources policy does not mention U.S. Intelligence agencies as reliable sources. Anyway you know that, I know that you know that etc. TFD (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You really hit on the heart of the problem. The fact that a reliable source quotes person A does not mean we should treat that person A's statement as true. Putin has been quoted by reliable sources as saying that Russia did not interfere in US elections. That doesn't make Putin's statement true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does the lead sentence cite the Oct 2016 report instead of the January 2017 report? Humanengr (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed text cites the Nakashima article about the January 2017 report; we could cite an extra source mentioning the October 2016 report; their conclusions are essentially the same. As you recently pointed out, mentioning an exact date was superfluous in the lead sentence itself. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We are not relying on "US Intelligence" - we are simply reflecting what RS say. Mainstream RS could report on a confident idiot in a cage and we would need to cite that. It has nothing to do with our opinion of the opinion, let alone our opinion as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Is your cmt here mis-pinged, mis-placed?? Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Re "their conclusions are essentially the same": Yes, contra the 1st sentence, neither report said "concluded that".

The Oct report said "x was confident that y". The Jan report said "x had high confidence that y" -- as noted in the 2nd sentence after the title and 1st sentence have set the tone for the entire article; too late. (Good to link 'high confidence' though few will follow that; the damage has been done.)

The certainty of the title and 1st sentence are reinforced elsewhere in the lead paras.

Any RS's that reports that the USIC "concluded that" are lying about the degree of certainty and should be disqualified as RS; their error-checking is meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, but feel free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think you can get other editors to concur with that reasoning.- MrX 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: So, in your view, "x concluded that y" = "x was confident that y" or "x had high confidence that y"? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You do understand that different sources may use different words to convey the same information, right? I don't understand why anyone has difficulty understanding why journalists would interpret "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises..." to mean "USIC concluded that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises...". See also WIKT: conclusion: "A decision reached after careful thought."- MrX 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Re "use different words to convey the same information": so you think those statements are equivalent? Humanengr (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In the context used, those two statements are semantically equivalent. I thought that was obvious from my previous response.- MrX 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for responding, but I don't see them as semantically equivalent. Follow-on: Do you think the DNI does? Humanengr (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have precious little time to help improve this article, and this discussion is not helping to fulfill that goal. Cheers.- MrX 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the DNI does not see those statements as semantically equivalent, is there any improvement you could make that is more substantive than to use their language in the lead sentence? Why propagate a misrepresentation? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: And yes, I can understand some "journalists would interpret …". They inhabit a common culture with common biases that distort. The DNI report is clear and succinctly indicates degree of certainty., There is no excuse except our own biases not to use DNI language in the very first sentence. Humanengr (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Report said "determined" which was in the article briefly but reverted by one of the POV fringe edits. It's really important everyone review the history of the article and the talk discussions, because the more we reopen rehash and relitigate settled discussions, the less participation we're going to have here and the worse the article will be served. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Determined" is not in Jan 2017 report. Cite ?? Humanengr (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[14]. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Why did you post that link? That is not a report. What are you trying to say? Humanengr (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I kept "concluded" because any other word is going to be fiercely contested, and because there's an open RfC about using this exact word vs "accused". I once suggested "affirmed", which sounds more neutral and factual to me, hoping we could get consensus on that… Opinions? — JFG ^talk 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I appreciate your efforts. 'Affirmed' seems both nebulous (affirmed what?) and too certain (the 'that x' part). Here’s a thought that afaics no one else has expressed: How about using the phrase in the Oct 2016 report that is in the PS cited by the RS cited in the lead sentence: "The United States Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”? As much as I don’t think it helps to continue to refer to the older report now that the newer one is available, it does allow for a short accurate summary statement. Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: On the chance that Geogene agrees (see discussion above), given the time constraint, would it make sense to incorporate this into this RfC, start another or ?? Humanengr (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I would support this alternate wording; please add it to the survey section, similarly to MrX's amendments "Support, conditional on suggestion XYZ", so that other editors can follow the draft evolution without going through walls of text. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As the second sentence already says "high confidence", we would have to rephrase it slightly. I would suggest:

The United States Intelligence Community is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully others will agree. Humanengr (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK as I understand the situation the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were highly confident the Russians had been behind the hacks. What about the rest of the US intelligence community? The FBI see to have said the Russians did do it. GRIZZLY STEPPE accuses the Russians. So the lead must reflect the fact that much of the US intelligence community has said the Russians did it.

"Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, much of the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks.[1] However an assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton..."

Seems to reflect the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It seems we are converging. My focus is almost (but not completely) on the 1st sentence. Re your proposed 1st sentence, 'alleged' works for me but not for many here as we have seen. Re your cmt at Teahouse re 'high confidence': JPG's mod (immediately above at 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)) shifts that from 2nd sentence to 1st. IMO, that accomplishes much. I can explain further and comment on the rest, but wanted to get your reaction to that. Humanengr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're "converging" with one editor? That's not converging. That's diverging. Your proposed words are much worse than what's currently there, and your negotiations among the scant minority of editors who will even bother responding to you are fruitless. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think we mostly agree on the first paragraph. The only change I'd make to your proposal would be to remove the word "However," because the statement that follows "However" doesn't really contradict the preceding sentence. This proposal is very close to what a number of editors worked out together earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"A number of editors worked out" What number do you claim? I count about 4 out of 30-40 editors who've collaborated to produce the current consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SPECIFICO here. I still fail to see an argument against the current consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: Arbitrary break

• General comment -- I'm finding this RFC to be hard to follow. I'm not even sure what we are supposed to !vote on. Generally, I'd like to convey that the use of "alleged interference" is not some nefarious way of casting doubt on the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Essentially, Wikipedia is reporting on a current event (investigation of said interference) and it's good journalistic practice to qualify the incident in question as "probable" / "likely" / "evidence of", etc, and not as a statement of fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that we are not journalists and this and the alleged RfC can be ignored. Various parts of the article actually need work right now. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Should I read "alleged RfC" as a manifestation of your sense of humour or as a personal attack? I find it really insulting that you would disparage my efforts to build consensus, especially as I've been following your own advice! — JFG ^talk 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another scarecrow. I said to take it to a Sandbox page and work out something that has a snowbowel's chance of being accepted. I suggest you withdraw it and do that now before more time is wasted on this. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to reply here, rather then above as this discussion is far too long and rambling.

It is clear that whilst one arm of the US intelligence services has used ore diplomatic language to make the claim much of the rest (and it seems to be the majority) have not caveated their comments and have asserted that Russia did it. Our lead must reflect that, any thing else is weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I should have limited my response to your use of 'allege' in your lead sentence. You're ok with using that term there -- right? Humanengr (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am OK with it, it is an allegation/Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just popping in here. Slatersteven, I assume we're discussing this sentence: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played ...." Is that correct?

So the first part is without "alleged" (I totally agree), and the second part is with it. What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? I'm just throwing this out there to probe your thinking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What "first part" and "second part"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(Perhaps BullRangifer mistook your "OK as I understand …" para as a proposed lead para?)

Re 'alleged': As others here have objected to that word, can you offer an alternative phrasing to the lead sentence that captures your intent? Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was referring to the first and second halves of your sentence I copied in my comment. Here it is again: (1) "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to (2) the alleged role that the Russian government played ...."

Did I understand you correctly, or am I way off base? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes those are the words I used, I am not sure what there is to not understand. It is an allegation, so it has been alleged. As to alternative wording. However I am wondering what we are arguing about, as it stand the opening paragraph of the lead seems to sum it up. |Maybe wee need to make it clear that not all the US intel agencies were quite so equivocal, but I do not see what about the lead paragraph is a problem.

"A number of US intelligence agencies officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[1] In January 2017, whilst another U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances.[2] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015"

It is odd that it says that "everyone" and then goes on to say "except these people". This is the germ of the debate, the fact we do over egg the cake over the degree to which US intelligence had concluded the Russians did it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we aren't arguing about anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. My questions were just as much to figure out your meaning as to learn from you. I'll repeat them here.

What is the distinction you're making? Is it that there is still some uncertainty about the degree to which the actual Russian government was involved, as opposed to other players? Why use alleged? I thought there was a lot of certainty about the involvement of the Russian government, enough that we wouldn't need to use the word "alleged" there. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to figure this out. I've read most RS, but there are other RS and other ways of looking at this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot as not absolute. And whilst there may be "a lot of certainty" this is not 100% (even in the US intelligence community). it is not "a lot of certainty" that is needed but "beyond reasonable doubt", and that seems to me to not be the case yet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the reformulated first paragraph

I think it's time to reinstate the reformulated first paragraph of the article. Here it is:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election. Following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta by WikiLeaks, the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks. An assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."

I'm not saying this first paragraph is perfect, but it is much stronger than the current first paragraph, and I think it has greater support from active editors on this talk page than the current lede. The advantages of this first paragraph, in my view, are:

1. The first sentence states generally what the article is about.
2. It gives a brief description of the major background elements of the affair (the release of emails by Wikileaks, the claims made by US intelligence).
3. It uses the appropriate word, "alleged," to refer to the allegations of Russian interference. Many reliable sources use exactly this word regularly, and almost all treat "Russian interference" as an allegation.

A number of editors worked together to formulate this intro paragraph. It was then reverted by MrX (diff). In the ensuing discussion, several more editors have expressed support for the reformulated first paragraph, and I think that it has majority support here. The main bone of contention with this text has been the word "alleged," but I think the above source discussion has shown that "alleged" is completely in line with reporting from numerous reliable sources (among them the BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC News, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Le Monde, although this list is by no means exhaustive).

Since the source discussion has established that "alleged" is a completely mainstream designation for Russia's alleged interference, I think this objection is now moot. I'd therefore propose to reinstate the reformulated intro paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Thanks for helping me out. — JFG ^talk 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Can you take a shot at answering my questions following your statements above? Thanks, — JFG ^talk 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"No, just no" is not a very productive attitude to take. If I understand your above post, you're saying that since US intelligence agencies ("Those who understand these things best") have said Russia interfered in the US elections, we should take that as fact. That's not how Wikipedia works. We go on the basis of reliable sources, and the large majority of reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. I say "large majority," because I'm holding out the possibility that one or two newspapers might state unequivocally that Russia interfered. I haven't seen any such clear statements from reliable sources, and they're apparently sufficiently difficult to find that (to my knowledge) they haven't been posted in this talk page yet. We go with source like the BBC and Reuters, not with allegations made by intelligence agencies.

We should absolutely describe the allegations made by US intelligence agencies, and the reformulated first paragraph does that. Reliable sources have reported heavily on those allegations, so we will, of course, describe them in this article. That's very different from taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact, which is something we're not going to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you wrote "large majority". You must have missed my explanation of the flaws in your thinking. There are plenty of RS which don't use "alleged". Your search, which "includes" alleged just confirms your bias. Others have performed the same search "without" alleged and found plenty of RS. This just shows that the search, especially without a complete (that would be hundreds of references) analysis on a time line, really doesn't prove anything other than that we can find RS which use it and which don't use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I responded to your points here. The fact that a newspaper does not use the word "alleged" in a particular article does not mean that the newspaper does not treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There are synonyms for "alleged," and there are plenty of ways of describing an allegation without endorsing it as true. Anyways, what I said above is that the large majority of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, and based on our discussion of sources above, that's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t seen anyone here taking raw statements from US intelligence and pasting them into Wikipedia as statements of fact. Exaggerating what other editors have done does not convince. I’ll say it again, if you are attempting to convince other editors, you are using the wrong tact. This talk page is way too long, filled as it is, with the same repetition . Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: BullRangifer clearly said, in reply to my proposal, that we should take the claims of US intelligence agencies as fact. That is specifically what I was responding to. I assume you disagree strongly with BullRangifer on this - if you don't, please correct me.

Thank you for the note about my tact, but I'm proposing something concrete here. What do you think of the proposed wording of the first paragraph? I think the source discussion above settled the issue of whether "alleged" is a mainstream way of describing "Russian interference" (again, please correct me if you disagree), so I think we can move on to reimplementing the reformulated first paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You do not convince. I do not agree to the change for reasons stated over and over. This is a boring waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ask my two questions directly:

1. Do you agree with BullRangifer's statement that we should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts?
2. Do you agree that reliable sources often use "alleged" when describing "Russian interference," and that they generally treat "Russian interference" as an allegation, without endorsing it as fact?

I really don't know what would convince you, but I think I've shown what needs to be shown: that reliable sources generally frame "Russian interference" as an allegation. I've also said why I think the reformulated first paragraph is better than what we have now. If you don't agree, it would be more helpful if you'd say what it is you don't like about the reformulated first paragraph. "You do not convince" isn't productive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You've made your point. The community can't allow a talk page to be bludgeoned against consensus. We all need to accept reality when our views are not shared by the consensus of editors on a given issue. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say that we "should treat statements made by US intelligence as facts." I believe they are correct, just as you, as an advocate for the Russian denial that any of this ever happened and that Trump is pure as snow , think the U.S. intelligence community is wrong. (Okay, I guess Putin has a right to have someone defending his POV here, and God knows that Trump and Putin are not ignoring our proceedings or allowing this discussion to happen without actively seeking to influence the editing process. C'est la vie.)

What we should NOT do is make the intelligence community state it as an "allegation", when they have "concluded" it happened. Don't misquote them. They are certain, even if you aren't. The current lead sentence is: "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Don't change that to "alleged". That's dishonest. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, have you read the proposals? Thucydides' text does not connect "alleged" with the intelligence agencies' statements: he says that this article discusses the alleged role of Russia in the US presidential election, and that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks", that's pretty unambiguous. Alternately, my proposed lead in the RfC totally removes "alleged" and states, in their exact words, that said agencies are "highly confident" that Russia interfered in the election. Isn't that satisfactory? — JFG ^talk 03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The text I'm proposing is the one that you helped write. I don't think your comments here apply at all to the text that I proposed above. For example, the text states unambiguously that "the US Intelligence Community concluded that Russia was behind the leaks." I'd really appreciate if you gave it a second look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired right now (jetlag), and this is a bit confusing,so maybe I'm conflating things. Somewhere on this page is a discussion to rename the article to some kind of "alleged" whatever. I think that's wrong, but I suspect that both of you support that idea, even though multiple intelligence agencies (USA and foreign), plus multiple competing cybersecurity companies, all conclude that the Russians did interfere in the election. That's factual, and there are plenty of RS which say it. That's the view which should get the most weight, and the title should reflect it.

I have made this comparison before, because I see what's happening here as similar to what has happened with the subject of climate change/global warming. The scientific consensus among 97% of published real climate scientists says that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but there are multiple non-climate scientists and many amateurs who say it's not true. So in people's minds they see the 97% as ONE (as here they count the 17 US intelligence agencies as one), and the long list of people in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as a whole lot of people (because they are named and can be counted) against that ONE. They think the deniers have the weightier argument. Fortunately the Wikipedia community gave the climate scientists the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, here I see the opposite happening. The amateur deniers get to push their POV and get more weight than the real experts when it comes to naming the article. They want the title to enshrine the doubt. I see that as problematic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW neither Thucydides411 nor I are suggesting to change the title. We do agree with Adlerschloß and others that the article is biased towards the "official" POV, especially the lead section, and there are two proposals being floated to make it more neutral: this section and the open RfC. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is being misframed as an either/or. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the intelligence agencies have concluded something does not mean that it ceases to be an allegation in the wider sense. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and the CIA etc do not act as the sole adjudicators of fact. The comparison with climate change is a little off-beam. The agencies are not a wide range of disinterested parties relying on the objective scientific method to look at hard data, but partisan players, from a narrow and specific sector, who are in the business of making often subjective assessments about actions and motive etc. With a history not only of getting things wrong but of deliberate misinformation. There is widespread scepticism IRL, at least among those not too heavily invested in blaming Russia for everything that went wrong for Clinton and right for Trump, about their claims on this point. The page should reflect that, not privilege the IC conclusions, let alone take them as read or as the last word N-HH talk/edits 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

But we're not relying on them alone. The strongest evidence comes from competing cybersecurity companies whose individual interests would be best served by not agreeing. Instead CrowdStrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect agree that Russia was behind the hacks. They are essentially looking at the DNA left under the fingernails of those attacked. It's strong evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Have you had a chance to look again at the paragraph I'm suggesting above? It's the same paragraph that you were involved in formulating, and that you previously expressed support for. I think it pretty clearly states the position of US intelligence, which seems to me to be your main concern. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and I've lost any desire to do much more here. It's fruitless and a waste of time. Nothing I say will make any difference. There are far too many threads rehashing the same issues. It's just too complicated. I'm not removing this from my watchlist, but I feel it's hopeless here. RS have documented what experts say, but when those experts are not given the weight they deserve, there isn't much point in continuing. Just retitle the article Rebuttal of the unfair charges that Vladimir Putin would ever have any desire to destabilize western democracies, and then sign it, since that's the opinion of a number of editors here. This was obviously the doing of some 15 year old kid, just to mess with us. It's not at all notable. Nothing happened. There's nothing to see here folks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit that editing here is frustrating, but I think you have the completely wrong idea about what I'm proposing here. It's a fairly limited change to the article, and one that you previously wrote you thought was an improvement. But yes, it is frustrating to edit here, and the environment is far from collegial! -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This version is inferior to both the current version and the amended version proposed by JFC above. The first sentence (basically "Interference refers to interference") is just poor writing because it is redundant. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy."). Neutrality^talk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No, the proposed first paragraph does not way "Interference refers to interference." It says, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the alleged role that the Russian government played in the 2016 US presidential election." The proposed first paragraph gives a concise description of the subject of the article, and properly refers to it as an allegation. It's vastly superior to the current first paragraph, which picks one random aspect of the subject to put in the first sentence, and doesn't give any background to the subject. The background is the publication of emails from the DNC and Podesta, which US intellgience alleges were given to Wikileaks by Russia through intermediaries. Any decent first paragraph would mention that. Instead, we have a jumbled lede that includes random elements of the subject, in a random order, and which gives far too much weight to the views of the spy agencies of one particular country. A lot of editors here seem not to be able to distinguish the difference between reliable sources and US intelligence any more, which is one of the reasons the lede is such a garbled mess. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any revision. Please do not disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and that the first sentence is unacceptable and would never fly in a formal RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolved lead text

Since the opening of this RfC, the proposed lead has evolved following remarks by MrX, Humanengr and Gouncbeatduke in a consensus effort, thanks. Could those editors who have not yet commented in the Survey section please take a fresh look and voice their opinion? @Adlerschloß, BullRangifer, ConservativeTrumpism, Darouet, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, Factchecker atyourservice, FallingGravity, Geogene, Guccisamsclub, Isaidnoway, James J. Lambden, Jytdog, K.e.coffman, Markbassett, MelanieN, My very best wishes, N-HH, Neutrality, Objective3000, Slatersteven, Softlavender, Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, SusanLesch, The Four Deuces, Thucydides411, and Volunteer Marek: + any others I forgot or passers-by, you're all welcome. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest JFG, I've read through the long thread above and it's unclear to me where we stand. Regarding your proposal at the very top, and considering N-HH's comment on the nature of intelligence organizations, I'd propose only to attribute the statement of confidence:

The United States Intelligence Community has stated it is "highly confident" that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Other issues can be addressed separately from this thread in my view. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for your comment. The wording of the lead sentence was developed by compromise between very opposed positions of MrX, Geogene and Humanengr. Personally I would be fine with your variant "has stated it is highly confident" instead of "has concluded with high confidence" but we'd need those other editors to agree as well. Apart from this first sentence, do you think the rest of the proposed text is an improvement compared to the current lead? — JFG ^talk 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, generally I support other aspects of your revision. I had done a bunch of legwork earlier on this topic - reviewing editorial policies about how this topic is presented in the media - but just haven't had the time to come back here, with real life work (teaching, research). I apologize for that, and hope to be more involved at some point. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. There is no deadline, except you may want to chime in within the nominal 30 days of the RfC period. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we would need consensus among all the editors who are active on this page or who come to this page to discuss. We can't make progress by using the consent of a few editors as if it were the consensus of the larger group here. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC puts a comprehensive text forward and specifically asks editors to suggest changes which could gain their support, as part of a consensus-building effort. You are obviously free to oppose, and other editors are free to support the outcome of this collective work towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 15:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - Thucydides411 is correct that alleged is the more prominent sources and majority of all sources. Google count for '"russian interference" us elections' is 1,250,000 with alleged vs 721,000 without. The with list firstpage is aol, cnbc, bbc, foxnews, nbc, and dni.gov; the without list firstpage is indivisibleguide, talkingpoints, resistencemanual, usnews, euractiv, and cbc. Also, those top 8 'with' all seem factual reporting, while the 'without' snippets seem only 2 are factual reporting (resistencemanual and euractiv) and the rest opinionating (cbc opinionating there will never be a smoking gun for this). Going several more pages in you do see some flakes in the 'with' and a few bigger names in the 'without', but it looks like 'alleged' retains a clear quality of RS and quantity lead.

Otherwise, I'll agree the RFC process looks a bit broken/confused by now, and largely rejecting the text as proposed -- 'prior version was better' crowd plus the 'only part A' crowd seem a majority. It might be better to tackle it para by para or individual points to avoid overwhelming size because 'alleged' goes on a bit. Concerns I can see with the top text here is is that a couple of the cites I tried are funky, and that the narrative is rather skipping about (2017, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2017, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2016..) and not a linked or overall picture -- even parts of the same para may be a puzzle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thanks for your comments. The discussion about using the word "alleged" has wasted enough editor time and we will never get consensus on it one way or the other. This perennial conundrum can be solved elegantly with the proper attribution of the "Russia interfered" statement to the intelligence community, as implemented in the proposed text. We don't need to choose between "A did B" or "A allegedly did B" when we simply write "C said that A did B".

For the rest of the lead, I agree that it does skip back and forth in dates, because it is rather arranged by themes: US intelligence statements (Russia meddled in the US presidential election), how Russia interfered (email hacks and online propaganda), political investigations, and finally diplomatic retaliation. I'm open to re-arranging the narrative in chronological order, but I think we should first de-clutter the current lead. Do you think the proposed text in an overall improvement compared to the current version? Do you have specific suggestions for further improvement? — JFG ^talk 06:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Podobnyy/Page, Prince, Hayden, etc.

I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:

• (1) Page's past contacts with Viktor Podobnyy before becoming a Trump advisor - although this incident took place in 2013, it's relevant because, as the sources reflect, Page was dumped from the team after the FBI investigation into the Podobnyy contacts came to light, and because the sources more generally cover it in the context of the 2016-present investigation into 2016 election interference. I added text to make clear that although the FBI interviewed Page in that case, he was never accused of wrongdoing, which I think we must mention. The relevant, full-length citations are:
  • Adam Goldman, Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump, New York Times (April 4, 2017).
  • Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with Russian spy in 2013, Associated Press (April 3, 2017).

• (2) Regarding Trump/CIA rupture - deletion of the word "unprecedented." - I can't understand the rationale for this deletion at all. The sources directly describe the rupture as being unprecedented. This is valuable historical information because it signals to readers how unusual it was. The citations reflect that:
  • New Yorker ("Never before has a President or President-elect spoken so dismissively of the C.I.A.")
  • ABC News ("an unprecedented public display of acrimony")
  • WSJ ("an extraordinary rupture").

• (3) Erik Prince section - this was deleted completely. I don't get this deletion as well. Although the Prince/Seychelles meeting occurred after the election, it's clearly related to the page topic. See Washington Post cite ("U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump."). We do appropriately mention that Prince had no formal appointment on the transition team, but that alone does not make the material irrelevant. If there is something we can do to shorten the text without omitting important information, or to add text that reflects any kind of doubt on the significance of the meeting, then of course I'm open to that, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem to be called for here.

• (4) Hayden sentence - I've restored a shortened version of the Hayden op-ed. Hayden is a very influential figure (he is more important than McMullin, who gets two sentences), the weight (literally one sentence) is proper, and it's clearly relevant here. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed rationale and partial revert with precise changes, that's refreshing. Here's my take on your remarks:

1. The Page anecdote of 2013 is over-extended but you explained it more clearly than the version I had trimmed, so I'm fine keeping it this way; some WP readers may appreciate spy novels…
2. I had removed both qualifiers "immediate and unprecedented" which are non-neutral; keeping "unprecedented" is fine, per sources.
3. This is a complete side story, entirely based on one source which quotes unnamed officials and remains prudent about the connection and the motives: "an apparent effort to establish a back-channel", "the full agenda remains unclear", "Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.", "alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump". Both the White House and Prince strongly denied the innuendo: "“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Therefore, I still think this entire section should be deleted. Or at least radically trimmed and balanced with denials.
4. Fine with the shortened Hayden citation. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad we can narrow the range of items under dispute. I don't think that a lack of clarity necessarily demands deletion; given the subject matter, a lot of this is shrouded in mystery. I understand that you would like to see the Prince section go altogether, but what do you have in mind for a "radically trimmed and balanced with denials" alternative? If you have some suggestion, maybe we can agree on a version we can all live with? Neutrality^talk 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We probably could agree on a trimmed version, although I still think this section should be entirely removed as a WP:BLPVIO. Let's first wait for comments on the BLP aspects, at WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince. — JFG ^talk 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I made changes on the entry for Prince.[15] It is perfectly fine to report allegations even if false provided they have received adequate attention. See for example "Freddie Starr ate my hamster." But we must always explain whether they are facts or allegations and if so whether they are disputed. Furthermore, in this case it is important to explain the supposed reason for the alleged meeting - to get Russian assistance on Iran. Otherwise the implication is that it was part of the alleged Russian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD, where did the idea that the meeting's purpose was "to get Russian assistance on Iran" come from? Maybe I'll have to read the source again. I just don't recall it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD - Half of your edit introduced content directly at odds with the source. There is no dispute that the meeting took place (Prince through his spokesman acknowledged that it took place, but said "The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump"), so the addition "allegedly took place" and "allegations" of a meeting is wrong). The statement "The Trump administration denies the meeting took place" is also incorrect (Spicer said "We are not aware of any meeting"—which is very different from an outright denial). Best, Neutrality^talk 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the article says, "Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions."[16] I now see that the article did not question whether the meeting took place. However, it is incorrect to imply that it's purpose was to subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!! But are you saying that WP should not report on the foes of America who may subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known? Battlestations! There's cleanup to be done on the Nixon, Jefferson Davis, & Alger Hiss. I'll take care of Tokyo Rose. You can work on the Rosenberg's. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. TFD (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See also, the collected speeches of Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help..." SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There's not an "even split". There are 8 for retain, and 4 to 5 remove. That's a clear supermajority to retain. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exact even split of 7 to 7 at the BLPN discussion; I have carefully listed all editors who commented there. But of course you reverted the contents claiming no consensus… Well we can say there's no consensus to remove the story and we can say there's no consensus to retain it, so how do you propose we solve this? Per BLP policy we must err on the side of caution, so "no consensus to keep" should trump "no consensus to remove" in this case (pardon my pun). — JFG ^talk 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you've miscounted; it's 8 to 4 or 5. If you'd like me to list each editor, I can. There is zero consensus that mentioning the cited Erik Prince activity is a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This contention there's a problem with RS content is a nonsense attack that has been decisively rejected at BLPN, where it made its unfortunate appearance as an ex-post defense of a 1RR DS violation. And P.S. we don't count votes around here, especially by involved or self-interested parties. Anyway, the aye's are above the no's. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "especially by involved or self-interested parties." What do you mean by that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: and friends: it's interesting how you vehemently called upon BLPVIO to suppress contents you didn't like, and now you vehemently run the exact counter-argument to keep contents you like. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP/N outcome

The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Extended content
References

It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody commented in 6 days, so I have applied the proposal. Qui tacet consentire videtur. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You just reverted this change, saying "There was no consensus to short this at all." Perhaps you had not seen this talk page section and the BLP/N discussion which shows consensus to shorten? Looking forward to your comments. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus anywhere for your edit, which alters the meaning of the text and is less faithful to the cited source. Your "silence procedure" link has nothing to do with WP editing policy. In general, the more relevant issue is WP:BLUDGEON. Folks get worn out repeating the same policy-based arguments and so they retreat from being asked over and over to justify their clearly stated viewpoint. Maybe we need a "safe word". SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I did not see this discussion in which you incorrectly claim that there was a "consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok". You removed the corroboration by two intelligence official but you left in the shallow denial from the white house. I see no justification for shortening the material. - MrX 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Please read final comments by Dumuzid, Thucydides411 and Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive254#Erik Prince, a couple hours after your last contribution to that discussion. You did not object further before the thread was archived, so I took it as silent assent. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dude, all these are involved editors. That's definitely not "consensus at WP:BLP/N". Come on, quit trying to pull one here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were editors with opposing views on the BLP issue, who reached an agreement through civil discussion. I call that consensus. Note: Dumuzid and Masem were *not* involved in this page, as far as I know, they just reacted to the BLP/N thread. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX here. There was no closure in the BLP/N discussion and I don't see a consensus to shorten there. Even if it should be shortened as a matter of style or weight (not BLP), the shortened form that you propose is (as MrX and SPECIFICO write), less faithful to the cited source and emphasizes the wrong things. Like MrX said, I can see no justification for leaving in the White House's cursory denial but taking out the corroboration from intelligence officials. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I'd be happy to consider an alternative proposal taking your concerns into account. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How is a bilateral negotiation consistent with your view that there was a community consensus at BLPN? Wouldn't you need to reopen the whole thread if in fact there had been consensus there? Not clear what process you are proposing. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The process looks clear to me, but I'm happy to recap what happened:

1. Once upon a time, a new section on Erik Prince was created in the article.
2. I deleted it among a bunch of other things which looked off-topic or newsy.
3. Neutrality restored parts of my edit, improved the contents and started a discussion
4. I answered and found consensus with him on all disputed points except the Erik Prince part, which I considered a BLP violation
5. I opened a discussion at BLP/N.
6. Meanwhile, several editors continued tweaking the text here.
7. The BLP/N discussion demonstrated a sharp divide among editors considering this section to be a BLPVIO and others who didn't
8. On 19 April, three editors from opposing views at BLP/N reached a consensus to mention the affair briefly, with "two lines, including the denials". Nobody commented further.
9. Two weeks later (4 May), I posted a text proposal here to implement this outcome, soliciting comments.
10. After 6 days with no comments, I applied the proposed text.
11. MrX reverted, and we are discussing. (That's healthy!)
12. I have invited editors to amend my proposed summary, so that we collectively reach an acceptable version for everyone involved.
13. I don't think we should re-litigate the BLPVIO issue, but if we fail to agree here, I suppose we could request a formal closure of the BLP/N discussion.

Voilà, à vous la parole! — JFG ^talk 01:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The fact is you edit-warred your preferred version into the article, falsely claiming consensus in your edit summary, and a torrent of opposition ensued. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So you consider that applying the WP:BRD process in collegiality with opposing editors as a form of edit warring? Invoking the outcome of a bona fide WP:BLPN discussion is "false consensus"? You repeatedly tried to focus the BLPN discussion on a bogus DS claim against me, and you got sanctioned for that. Please address contents soberly instead. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

14. Ne vous Trumpez pas!- MrX 02:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good one. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly this is well-sourced, and I preserved the source, I just summarized the core assertions made in the source. I did post on this talk page when opening the BLP/N discussion.[17] Many editors participated in that discussion. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So your only notification to editors on this page was one message given as a response to an editor mid-thread and telling that editor to wait. Seems to be the conversation was going against you here and you were engaging in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPCasprings (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I still think that lacks important detail. We should stay close to the main source. Here is my proposed version:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign.

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

I tweaked the wording and arrangement of a couple of sentences. I removed DeVos who is not relevant in any of this.- MrX 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First thoughts:

• Your version asserts as a fact that the FBI is investigating the meeting when actually the FBI declined to comment.
• When I rewrote the material, I assessed weight of many claims against the Washington Post piece and ten additional sources. If I recall correctly, DeVos was mentioned in all of them.

I think I would be ready to scrap "The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reports "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." No objection to editing the material so that it more closely aligns with the source, but there's no value in stating that the FBI didn't comment. I don't object to adding DeVos back in if other sources point that out.- MrX 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version looks good to me. It follows the sources, is appropriately concise but complete, and fair. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit too long on details. Here's a middle-ground variant:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

Good enough? — JFG ^talk 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There appears now to be consensus for MrX's version. The alternative directly above is weaseled and is less clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter version looks less weaseled to me. Prior version is still long on content-free prose such as "at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community". Yeah, that's something we already say a dozen times in this article… — JFG ^talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, MrX, Neutrality, and Politrukki: Any comments on the two latest rounds of proposals by MrX and yours truly? — JFG ^talk 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If everybody else thinks that Betsy DeVos should be omitted, I could accept your latest proposal. Politrukki (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think she should be omitted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to adding DeVos again for context. I had her in my first proposal, MrX omitted her and added Bannon. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version per SPECIFICO.Casprings (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I support that version as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX + DeVos, then. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I still support my slightly longer version, with or without DeVos.- MrX 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is what everyone is supporting, the longer MrX version with DeVos. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Needs to be shorter. The editorial point about "major donor" should go. It still is only a single day story with absolutely no followup. The contradictory accounts by "sources" cast enough of a pall that we shouldn't be tossing the mud that the Washington Post couldn't make stick. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, the gratuitous disparagement of the Washington Post doesn't help advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial point" but the donation was a fact that both sources found noteworthy enough to report.- MrX 20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That amount does not make him a "major donor." $10 million is around the "major donor" category. WaPo's animosity towards Trump has been noted elsewhere. The comment was neither disparaging nor gratuitous but it is an accurate observation that neither party holds the other in high regard. If we are going to use one as a source, we should be honest with their intent. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to replacing "... was a major donor to..." with "... donated $250,000 to...". We have not disqualified The Washington Post (or The New York Times or CNN) as sources for Trump-related information, so I don't see how your comments in that regard apply here.- MrX 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would you cherry pick a donation out of the entire article? Stating a donation doesn't impart any relevance other than he supported Trump. Why not highlight the inconsistency in the article where it attributes Prince statements to UAE as a connection to Trump but when they really want to link it to Trump they say no meeting would have been scheduled without his explicit okay (which would thereby negate reasoning they use to introduce Prince)? It's like they are stretching whatever line they need to make it more nefarious but not realizing that it invalidates other accounts. Also, no one is investigating "Trump-Russia" ties, they are looking to see if there were links to the Trump campaign, not Trump the person or Trump as President. That is a significant difference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.

The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Prince reboot

So here we are, after a month of discussion here and at BLPN, instead of turning this story into a "brief mention" as agreed, the latest proposals still argue to keep most of the contents and innuendo in a rather lengthy paragraph. Meanwhile, this "mysterious" meeting did not get any more press coverage, nothing seems to have come out of the reported discussions, and "back-channel" stories are now focusing on other places and other people. One still wonders why Trump would need to open all those back channels to Putin if they were long-time BFFs colluding to steal the election. But as long as it's printed in a reliable source, it seems the most tenuous stories must be included in the encyclopedia these days… At least we should be relieved that this one didn't spawn its own article. Any volunteers to finally cut the wording on this particular "spy-novel-of-the-day"? — JFG ^talk 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's move on please. Sarcastic misrepresentation is not helpful here. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS

Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald [18], Harper's [19], and Fortune [20]) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: [21]) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Conditional support - I would support a shorter version of this, without direct quotes, provided that someone can find at least one or two solid additional sources. The Miami Herald and VOA are reliable, but I'm concerned about the story being promoted in Breitbart, The Daily Mail, fringe blogs, and RT. Carr seems to dismiss CrowdStrike's findings on rather flimsy reasoning, in my opinion. Regardless, his expert view should be represented once it passes WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Based on the two additional sources presented (Harpers and Forbes), I now believe that a couple of sentences discussing Carr's criticism of CrowdStrike's findings should be included per WP:NPOV. Softlavender, did you really just reject a reputable source because of it's geographic proximity to Trump's other White House?- MrX 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose It is (as I say below) not exactly accurate as to what the sources say. It needs rewording, not just shortening. There is also as issue with Undue, CrowdStrike are not the only IT security firm to claim Russian interference, so it rejects just one piece of evidence, the article is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose use of Voice of America material, since that is simply Trump's mouthpiece. Also Oppose use of Miami Herald as a source, as that regional newspaper is way too close to Trump's Mar-a-Lago. If there is a major reliable unbiased national newspaper that says the same thing, then I would be open to reviewing that. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What a bizarre rationale to exclude mainstream sources! Who said VOA is "Trump's mouthpiece"? If the Miami Herald is too close to Mar-a-Lago for comfort, then would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower?? Where does this end??? This argument makes no sense at all, sorry. Focus on the contents rather than the messenger. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"would the New York Times be way too close to Trump Tower??" No, because New Yorkers hate Trump. That's why he goes to Mar-a-Lago every weekend. Plus the New York Times is a highly respected national and international newspaper, and is the newspaper of record for the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: the Miami Herald endorsed Clinton for President [22], brag that they don't indulge in "alternative facts" [23], and the VoA has numerous articles critical of the Administration: [24][25][26]. What is your take on this? -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support These are reliable sources and coverage in various sources establishes weight. I agree that coverage in unreliable sources does not establish weight, but that is a red herring since none have been presented. TFD (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Generally Oppose The problems with the text are manyfold. First, there’s too much speculation. Carr admits he doesn’t have all the evidence known to the agencies that have reported Russian influence in the election. He criticizes one of the sources based on a belief that they were incorrect in another case, while ignoring other sources. He argues that a report does not prove a case; but that report cannot include classified info. He was not a part of any of the deliberations behind the report. He is a private consultant with no direct connection. I’m also bothered by the statement growing doubt in the computer security industry. He does not speak for the industry and provides scant evidence for such a general statement. Pronouncements like this reflect poorly on his testimony. I also am troubled by Carr’s statements that he knows what investigations the FBI did and did not perform. I’m also bothered by the attack on CrowdStrike in a different case. CrowdStrike and Carr may be competitors and Carr has made strong statements about CrowdStrike in the past. (Apparently he detests McAfee whose execs funded CrowdStrike [27].) As an aside, Carr’s comments in Harpers are sarcastic in nature and comments elsewhere are dismissive. It just sounds like someone on the outside upset he isn’t on the inside. I’m not casting any aspersions, it just doesn’t sound like a good source. BTW, I think he is no longer associated with Taia Global Inc. Possibly a one or two sentence mention with a better source is acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: My proposed shorter text below addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Jeffrey Carr is barely notable, and this opinion column by the former TV columnist of a lesser-tier newspaper doesn't elevate JC's expertise to anything near significant enough to publish in Wikipedia. And how reliable is the source when the columnist refers to Carr as being CEO of this defunct wannabe cyberstartup that apparently raised a total of $80,000 venture capital funding before its demise? Talk is cheap, but WP is not. Lesser opinion columnists will smile-and-dial until they get some fodder for an op-ed, but consider the source. And the biases that (however unfortunately) select against the best expert comment appearing in the least expert publications. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:NPOV, but agree with MrX that a couple of sentences is sufficient. Other sources that quote Carr include: Associated Press, PBS Newshour, McClatchy and Arstechnica, not in depth coverage from these particular sources mentioned, but still enough to indicate that Carr's opinion was given some weight, and with the additional sources listed above I believe that a couple of sentences is warranted per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Prior to this (in 2014 and 2015), Carr's opinion has also been featured in Newsweek and CNN. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Carr was not the only one pointing out that the incriminated hacking tools were freely available to anybody, and not exclusive to people connected to Russian intelligence services; a bunch of cybersecurity experts have cast legitimate doubt on the inferences attributing the DNC hacks to Russian sources, e.g. John McAfee and Kevin Poulsen come to mind. However I think we can do with shorter prose, and we don't need to repeat Carr's statements about CrowdStrike's reputation. Here's proposed text with other sources: — JFG ^talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cybersecurity analyst Jeffrey Carr stated that CrowdStrike's inferences pointing at the Russian intelligence services were baseless because the incriminated X-Agent tool was freely available for anyone to download. Wordfence and Errata Security noted that the PHP malware referenced in the JAR was an out-of-date version "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world."

Extended content
References

Um, gee. This RfC is about Carr. Let's try to stay focused here. RfC should be closed, since nobody really seems to think Carr is a notable cyberexpert security guy. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose undue weight, marginal notability of Carr, and doubtful relevance of Ukrainian howitzers to DNC hacking. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Carr has been cited by a number of newspapers, as well as the wire agency AP ([28]). In connection with another cybersecurity story, he's recently been cited by the New York Times as well ([29]), so he's clearly regarded as an expert commentator by at least several newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TFD. Anyone who doubts he's notable should check out his bio and mentions here, here (there are more) and of course the Miami Herald. He is on of the more notable and knowledgeable voices on the issue. Keep in mind however that the malware fingerprint was not the only evidence found. So Carr can cast doubt on some of Crowdstrike's findings, but the he never said that the evidence was nonexistent, only that it is less conclusive than some think. Editors who are afraid that readers might misinterpret the proposed text as saying that no evidence exists, should actually take a moment to learn something topic and summarize the existing evidence for the readers — instead of trying to keep notable minority view points out. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here is text under discussion. It tells, among other things, that CrowdStrike itself was found by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2017 to have used data erroneously to falsely accuse Russia of being responsible for hacking a Ukrainian military artillery app. (ref). First of all, that is irrelevant to the subject of this page. Second, after reading the source, it appears that a report by CrowdStrike (on a different subject!) was disputed and needed some corrections, but was not actually wrong. This suggestion looks like a poisoning the well. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: My proposed shorter text addresses your objections, nothing to do with Ukraine indeed, and no undue criticism of CrowdStrike; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed per several editors above. Yes, per MVBW, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at a POV poisoning the well. Yes, per Geogene, the person is not really notable. On the other hand if this can be properly worded - perhaps the way that Guccisamsclub suggest with the "less conclusive" conclusion actually in the text then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Minor include - google is showing me reports about these on VOA, PBS, Politifact, Harpers, Wired, Ars Technica, Slate, Mother Jones, Daily Mail, News Day, .... so has some mainstream presence. But the quantity of mentions is much smaller and the ones I looked at had him as a brief bit, more of a side remark about a dissenting voice in a larger article. So I'd say shoot for a minor include is OK, but kind of optional and not to be done if there is something else giving doubts with larger prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Do you have links that cite Mr. Carr recently discussing the Russian intervention on all those publications or sites? That would be surprising. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Yes, as I recall basically Google turned them up from '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking', and then I paged thru and noted the URLs of places that seemed notable, and read the google snippet and clicked thru to read detail sometimes. (If you want a specific one then make it '"Jeffrey Carr" russia hacking VOA' or whatever.) Again, those seemed mostly to give him just a brief mention -- but that he is noted by them seemed some WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support including Carr's claims given his reputation and coverage of the claim (Miami Herald, Fortune and particularly Harper's.) Wait for additional sourcing on International Institute for Strategic Studies report – VOA is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't even mentioned in our article on Carr. If this fringey opinion is mentioned at all in WP it should be there, not here. See WP:ONEWAY. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• No -- excessive intricate detail; there's already too much of it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: What the article really needs is balance. While the article should be substantially shortened (it's become a coatrack for everything Russia-related in US politics), we shouldn't be excluding only material which is critical of the allegations made by US intelligence agencies. The significant criticism of US intelligence reports should be noted in the article. The article is chock-full of lengthy quotes from US intelligence, and has a separate section for nearly every single allegation that some person is connected to Russia. Until that bloat is addressed, I don't think we should be paring down the underrepresented dissenting viewpoints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would support JFG's text proposal as well-sourced and one of a number of other critical commentaries that should likely appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to fringe opinions, this would make it worse. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - not really notable and gives undue weight against the bulk of the relaible sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT if it's weighted appropriately with other sources. I'm not persuaded that the Miami Herald isn't sufficiently a reliable source for this information, and somewhat surprised that came up as an issue. Voice of America is definitely a WP:RS. If we use Crowdstrike as a source to document facts in this article, their credibility is an issue. It's really important for our readers to get a balanced presentation of facts on contentious issues. It deserves brief mention with reliable sources cited so readers can read the stuff that doesn't fit in a summary weighted with the other information. loupgarous (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose I don't have strong opinions about whether or not Carr's opinion is included, but I'm opposed to attacking CrowdStrike because of an updated report to "corroborate" someone's opinion per WP:SYNTH. It's akin to attacking a source because it issued a correction on an unrelated story, which is actually a signal of fact-checking per WP:RS. ^Falling_Gravity 22:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: My proposed shorter text above addresses your objections; would you support that? — JFG ^talk 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we have one bunch of "industry outsiders" opinions I see no reason why we should not have another.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC):However your text, I think, does not reflect very well what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This RfC deals with whether to include these sources, not my exact text. We can discuss text after the RfC. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks more like speculation than information. And, I see no reason to include such from any bunch of industry outsiders. Objective3000 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Carr was not really "speculating" about anything at all but describing problems with CrowdStrike's report and how it does not amount to proof. And we already include citations from several "industry outsiders" expressing degrees of agreement with the CrowdStrike report. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, indeed it is opinion not fact. But so is the entire story. And weight requires us to report opinions. TFD (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And this article is not about Crowdsrike.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Adlerschloß, you need to indicate in your OP what "information from Carr" you are talking about, who "Carr" is, what "CrowdStrike report" you are talking about, and what "information from IISS" you are talking about. Otherwise, this RfC is completely incomprehenible and invalid. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding additional reliable sources requested by MrX, Carr's viewpoints were also discussed in Harper's [30] and Fortune [31]. These discuss more than just the CrowdStrike report but would be appropriate to include in the same section (Cybersecurity analysis). Adlerschloß (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Softlavender's remarks alleging the Miami Herald to be unreliable for reasons of geography, I will point out that Mar-a-Lago is 90 miles away from Miami, and that the Miami Herald endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election: [32] Adlerschloß (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Trump won the election and is in power, and that regional newspaper is his regional newspaper. Carr lives in Seattle. The fact that only the Miami Herald would interview him is telling, as is the fact that he is the founder of a failed cybersecurity startup, and the fact that he only posts on Medium (a blogsite) and LinkedIn. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: With all due respect, do you realize that your inferences about Jeffrey Carr and the Miami Herald sound like a conspiracy theory? — JFG ^talk 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MMfA has mentioned the coverage.[33] I note that no other papers have picked up the story from the Miami Herald, so we need to be sure that we be clear the story has had limited mainstream coverage, but was widely reported in right-wing sources, the Daily Mail and RT. TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's disruptive to jump from one bad edit to a month-long RfC struggling to shoehorn Carr back into the article. It's already well-established consensus on this talk page that JC is not RS this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We are not using Carr as a source, we are using the Miami Herald. Note that reliability relates to facts, while the issue is whether to include his opinion, which is an issue of weight alone. Whether or not his opinion should be mentioned is decision of reliable secondary sources, such as the Miami Herald. TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Right. As I stated above his opinion is insignificant as is the Miami columnist's. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The Miami Herald opinion columnist's references to Carr's bio read like out-of-date material from Carr's LinkedIn page. "International cybersecurity expert" etc. Entrepreneur etc. Grey Goose etc. All defunct. From the best available information, JC appears to be a retiree who may be available to answer the phone for a journalist but is hardly in the loop these days. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Miami Herald article referenced is not a column, but a news article appearing in their national section. And as other references in above discussion and survey indicate, Carr's analysis on this subject is considered noteworthy by many reliable sources. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Of others have well have said thus, why not make it more general, and not have one man named as an authoritative source?Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding remarks by Myverybestwishes accusing me of bad faith edits -- it is potentially valid to argue that the erroneous CrowdStrike report on Ukraine is irrelevant to this specific article (although I disagree, as VOA in two separate articles linked these errors to CrowdStrike's narrative on election interference), but you are not accurate in flatly stating that CrowdStrike's report "wasn't wrong" in some objective sense. CrowdStrike retracted their allegations of combat losses caused by a military artillery app hack (their false reading of IISS data was the premise behind their overall narrative) while not retracting their larger claim that a hack occurred (although per their corrections it would seem they argue a hack occurred that was meaningless or had no tangible effect); but the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense argues that neither the combat losses nor the hack occurred at all, see: [34] Adlerschloß (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do believe you misinterpreted these sources, possibly because you did not read them carefully. Here is your link, and here is "retraction" by CrowdStrike your source refers to. This "retraction" tells, According to an update ... the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations and This previously unseen variant of X-Agent represents FANCY BEAR’s expansion in mobile malware ... reveals one more component of the broad spectrum approach to cyber operations taken by Russia-based actors in the war in Ukraine. It further tells (as relates to the subject of this page): The collection of such tactical artillery force positioning intelligence by FANCY BEAR further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces operating in Eastern Ukraine and its border regions in Russia. This is not retraction, as also clear from reading your link/source completely, instead of indiscriminately citing only the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My Very Best Wishes mentions that the IISS criticizes CrowdStrike for another analysis supposedly unrelated to the current one and therefore we cannot mention it. But it is a reasonable assumption that if a CrowdStrike has been wrong in the past they are less likely to be right now. Not something we can say, but a conclusion in a reliable source that we can report. Unless one subscribes to the gambler's fallacy. TFD (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also a tiny minority viewpoint, far out of line with coverage in the bulk of sources. I don't see how the alleged hacking in Ukraine relates to the DNC hacks, and I also don't see how CrowdStrike's choice of sources for Ukrainian battlefield casualty rates are related to its competency (or lack of it) in regards to cybersecurity. As far as I know, they aren't in the kind of business that Stratfor or Jane's Defence Weekly are in. So all of this seems like a tremendous stretch on both counts. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:You don't believe in mean reversion? Tell that to the hedge fund statisticians. One man's fish is another man's fallacy. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you were joking about mean reversion. Our article on that topic clearly defines it as "the assumption that a stock's price will tend to move to the average price over time". Mean reversion depends on sound inferences drawn from huge amounts of financial data. Crowdstrike's record of accuracy vs. inaccuracy is a very small data set compared to that. In evaluating the record of an intelligence analysis firm (or any other source or processor of intelligence) you have to rely on their record. I don't think that Crowdstrike's inaccuracies in one field are irrelevant to their overall reliability as a source of information, either. loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly joking, just trying to point out how preposterous was the reference to "gambler's fallacy" in a content/sourcing discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE

There has been a little bit of an edit war to shoehorn the opinion of Dan Goodin into this article. I don't see that his opinion is widely-cited. It seems WP:UNDUE and we have much better sources than Ars Technica to rely on for expert opinions. I think this content should be removed. What do other think?- MrX 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE This is clearly FRINGEy COATRACK stuff at this point. As established at previous talk discussion, Goodin is not a notable journalist and this content does not belong in the article. The edit war has been stopped and the content will no doubt be removed by the next passer-by. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE. Agreed. It's also outdated by further events and better sources. It should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion was to keep a brief mention of him in the article. Unless I am missing it I am not sure what you are referring to when you said it was established hes not notable? PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Remove based on WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk),

• DUE – Ars Technica is a highly respected technology publication and they regularly publish relevant commentary on cybersecurity. Dan Goodin is one of their top journalists. I see absolutely no reason to discount his analysis as fringe or undue. — JFG ^talk 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to a personal opinion but he is not wp-NOTABLE. eom. That's a first order screen of random opinions by journalists or pundits. As you know, this bit is out of date and reflects a view that is currently so marginal as to be extinct among notable journalists and accredited experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE – Ars (which leans left) has a record of publishing well-researched, authoritative pieces on several technical topics. It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than the author (security editor Goodin) at any major publication. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. Please respond to the given problem. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's the security editor for Ars Technica. Do you have any evidence that Ars Technica is not notable? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. See previous 2 posts of SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, are you able to support your claim that "It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than [Goodin]" with some evidence—perhaps some cites?- MrX 20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A Google Book search shows a number of citations to Goodin's work. WP:IRS suggests we evaluate the publication as well; Ars Technica is also frequently cited. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That is your OR. The opinion of a non-notable writer is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR isn't relevant here. MrX asked about Goodin's qualifications, and James J. Lambden showed that Dan Goodin is cited in various books about cybersecurity. WP:OR says that we can't insert our own original research into articles. It says nothing about us not being allowed to figure out whether someone we're considering citing is competent. Throwing around Wikipedia policy acronyms out of context isn't at all helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Judging the reputation of an author or publication by the frequency of their citations in other publications is not in any way WP:OR. Please stop this disruption. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Find 5-6 mainstream publications that cite Mr. Goodin's opinion on the report and you will begin to make some headway on this. Also, please. It hurts my feelings when you accuse me of disruption. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, and MrX: Thank you for posting here. Let's be honest, "FRINGEy" is not a policy. Neither Goodin [35] nor Ars Technica are "fringe" sources and you've provided no links or data to suggest as much. Furthermore COATRACK doesn't apply to a source about the Joint Analysis Report if it is cited a section called "Joint Analysis Report." A coatrack for what - the subject at hand?

Here is what Goodin writes:

Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

.

Goodin also writes that "anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves," and

Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks... [the JAR] largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity.

Goodin's analysis, and those he cites, are consistent with other publications from the period. Counterpunch has a piece [36] that states,

For a document that purports to offer strong evidence on behalf of U.S. government allegations of Russian culpability, it is striking how weak and sloppy the content is. Included in the report is a list of every threat group ever said to be associated with the Russian government, most of which are unrelated to the DNC hack... nowhere in the document is any evidence provided to back up the claim of a Russian connection. Indeed, as the majority of items on the list are unrelated to the DNC hack, one wonders what the point is.

This is similar to analysis from a news piece in The Guardian suggesting the report had little credibility among experts:

The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late... Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.

France 24 has a somewhat more political take on the affair [37], writing that the report is theatre to justify the expulsion of diplomats (JFG pardon me if my translation is off in some way):

To justify sanctions against Russia, Barack Obama relied upon a report from the FBI that made Moscow responsible for the hacks during the American presidential election... In effect no concrete element placing responsibility for the cyberattacks on Moscow can be found in the FBI and DHS conslusions.

Similarly, French BFM TV writes a skeptical article [38] titled, "Election hijacking: FBI accuses the Russians ... without apparent proof." Arguing that this material is WP:UNDUE requires ignoring all this reporting.

Not only is Goodin's analysis consistent with others, it also reflects what a chorus of editors here (TFD, N-HH, Thucydides411, K.e.coffman, Adlerschloß, etc.) have been saying for months: there is a difference between what intelligence agencies might state, and what we actually know via reliable sources. There is no reason in policy to exclude every source that disagrees with the statements of American intelligence services and your personal political views. And that's OK. You can (and should) cite critical commentary without leading readers.

Lastly, I see that Lord Roem has taken upon themselves to ban Thucydides411 for adding the Goodin material, which is a pretty impetuous or aggressive move considering the context. Markbassett and JFG have both argued here to include Ars Technica as a source (recently), and a consultation of the archives appears to show consensus for its inclusion in the past (Archive 3). -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE Unsurprising that not every expert out there agrees that Russia is at fault, but the overwhelming majority of them do. This non-notable one doesn't merit inclusion. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Geogene that's not an accurate summary of responses to the JAR and you've provided no evidence to indicate otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin's analysis does not gain credibility simply because you found a few sources that have reached similar conclusions. What would be much more convincing is to show a list of sources that cite this "top" journalist from this "authoritative" publication.- MrX 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe these examples were given in response to the comments suggesting his conclusions were "FRINGEy." Other sources reaching similar conclusions are directly relevant to that point. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards no inclusion -- not because the opinion is "Undue" or "Fringy", but because the para is fine as it is without the Ars Technica quote (shown in the diff by the OP as the "before" version). This is veering towards excessive intricate detail, especially as the Daily Beast quote in the same para is really good. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And thus do we confirm what was already known: There is no consensus to include this bit in the article and it may be safely removed like a hotswap hard drive. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE: Ars Technica is obviously a fine source for analysis of the technical case on alleged Russian hacking. It's a well-respected technology publication, and this sort of issue is its bread and butter. Dan Goodin has been writing for over a decade on computer security, for the Associated Press, The Register and Bloomberg, and is now the "Security Editor" for Ars Technica, so he's clearly competent to write on the subject. His article on the JAR is a good run-down of what various cybersecurity researchers thought about the report. Goodin's view isn't "Fringy" (he's reflecting the views of several prominent security researchers), and it isn't UNDUE (it concerns the JAR directly, and summarizes the dominant view among security researchers). I frankly don't understand the vehement opposition to including a quote from his article. Does anyone care to explain why they're so adamant that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited? It's just puzzling to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. it's his opinion. He's. not. notable. Fin SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica is notable, Goodin is a senior editor for it, and has worked at other news agencies around the world. Of course he is. Arguing otherwise is extraordinary, especially at a tech-centric place like Wikipedia. If you want to convince anyone and if your objections are good-faith, go to WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether Dan Goodin is WP:NOTABLE; all we need to establish is that he, along with Ars Technica, is a WP:RS. They are, beyond any doubt. — JFG ^talk 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RS? It's his opinion. Is my opinion going in the article? I used to work for Le Monde. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The cited article is not an opinion piece. Goodin reports on facts, analysis and opinions of various experts about the subject matter. It's called journalism, as your former press card surely shows. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My original argument still stands. It should be removed because it's outdated by further events and better sources.

I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions. They are therefore NOW fringe opinions, even if they may not have been in the early days where much was not known. To give them prominence now gives them undue weight in relation to newer information from better sources. Remove it, and other sources with equally outdated opinions of that nature.

If we were to keep Goodin and others of that persuasion, they should be moved to a "history" section which shows that in the early days with little evidence, there were doubters. Their opinions are now relegated to the rubbish heap of outdated theories. Such a rubbish heap exists for medical and scientific matters, but I'm not sure we want such a heap in this type of article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well put, and the harsh reality is that, unlike in medicine and engineering -- where the state of knowledge is constantly advancing -- reportorial rubbish is more frequently associated with efforts evincing less knowledge and insight. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions" do you mean? Dan Goodin's article discusses the JAR, and summarizes the very harsh reviews it got from cybersecurity experts. We have a section on the JAR, and that section should note how it was received. Are there newer, better sources that say the JAR was well received by cybersecurity experts? Please list them, because I haven't seen them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the abundant RS which affirm that the foreign and American intelligence communities are convinced that Russian hackers performed the hacking. The 35-page dossier gets even more specific, mentioning not just Russian hackers, but also Romanian hackers controlled by Putin, but paid by Trump. Note that evidence of who performed the hacking isn't only found in technical data, but also in evidence from surveillance of involved persons talking about it. To illustrate, a burglar can be convicted on technical data (finger prints, possession of stolen goods, etc.) and/or surveillance evidence of their own speech or the speech of accomplices. When crooks brag, that too is evidence.

At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it. Only fringe sources and older references express such doubts.

I'm not going to do any OR to second-guess the best sources, and I'm not going to give credence to outside and fringe observers who try to second-guess them. I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are "abundant RS" that contradict Dan Goodin (and the cybersecurity experts he cites) and say that the JAR contained strong evidence, then it should be easy for you to list a few. So far, you haven't. "I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources." I don't know what original research you're talking about: I'm talking about an article by Dan Goodin in Ars Technica, not my own research. I also don't know what "fringe" sources you're talking about. Ars Technica certainly isn't "fringe." And I don't know what your point is about the article being "old" (5 months, to be precise). Are you suggesting that there's some newer source that does a better job of describing the JAR?

"At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it." Please read the section immediately following this one. BBC and Reuters treat "the Russians did it" as an allegation that may or may not be true. Are BBC and Reuters not serious?

Please, be more concrete, because you're making a lot of very bold statements without showing any evidence. Give a reason why BBC and Reuters should not be taken seriously, and list sources that contradict Dan Goodin's reporting on the JAR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Abundant RS affirm that US intelligence has issued an assessment. That is not the same as affirming the truth of that assessment, which obviously has not occurred to this point. Intelligence agencies are dubious as sources; it is important to report what they are saying when that is notable, but treating them as either perfectly competent or perfectly honest, when the underlying evidence beneath their claims has not even been displayed, would obviously be inappropriate, or even evidence of an "authoritarian mindset" that has always plagued societies (some people feeling they do not need to see evidence for a claim, because they trust a structural authority). Intelligence agencies are often incorrect, incompetent, and dishonest, full stop. US intelligence even in recent years has often displayed these attributes.

It stretches comprehension to claim that RS reporting the stated assessment of dubious intelligence agencies (an assessment offered without proof, to "protect intelligence sources", conveniently) would qualify as making earlier technical analysis actually based on evidence "outdated."

I am unsure why you would even mention the 35 page dossier in this context when RS pretty universally describe it as "unverified" or worse. Bob Woodward called it a "garbage document." Adlerschloß (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Looking at the above discussion, I count 5 editors in favor of inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis, 5 against, and one leaning against (K.e.coffman). You've removed not only Dan Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but that of Kevin Poulsen, saying, "looking at talk this does not appear to have support." That's not an accurate statement, given the 5 editors above favoring inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis. Moreover, K.e.coffman explicitly said in their statement that the Daily Beast quote is "really good," so I take it they wouldn't favor your deletion of that quote. Instead of there being "no support" for the material you've removed, there appears to be a majority here that would actually oppose your deletion. Given that, you should self-revert, and you should refrain in the future from leaving false edit summaries. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Correct -- Either Ars Technica or Daily Beast should be included; see the "before" version here: diff. I participated in an earlier discussion on the Daily Beast quote and the material arrived at seemed to work fine back then. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE. Ars Technica is an excellent source and Goodin is a well-known security journalist. An anecdotal aside here, years ago in San Francisco I was recommended to seek employment at Ars, and Goodin was the person I was actually supposed to speak with. That ended up not happening; but I can note that the person who referred me to Goodin was a keynote speaker at multiple computer security conferences, and was nominated for multiple Pwnie awards over the years (receiving an honourable mention at one, which is actually mentioned in our Wikipedia article on the subject). Goodin regularly attends the Baysec computer security professionals meetup in San Francisco which is one the most elite such gatherings in the entire world (and I'm sure "Russiagate" has been extensively discussed there), basically he can in no way be derogated as "fringe" in contexts of the industry. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You showed up for a job interview and didn't meet Mr. Goodin therefore the non-NOTABLE Mr. Goodin whom you didn't meet should be quoted in this WP article? And you say you've heard that Mr. Goodin hangs out at an open meetup called Baysec? SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising my recounting. My point was that Goodin was held in very high regard by one of the leading reverse engineers in the world. Regarding Baysec, attending regularly for years would entail Goodin communicating often with globally-leading information security experts, from both the private and public sector, in an informal setting in which everyone is "saying what they really think." I am sure "Russiagate" and evidence regarding that narrative (or lack thereof) were substantively discussed.

Any source that contradicts a narrative that is being strangely and anomalously pushed on en.wiki through pointing out the obvious, namely that none of this has been proved and almost no evidence has been offered to substantiate the allegations, is being maligned and dragged through the mud, called "fringe", as occurred with Jeffrey Carr. The point is, I happen to personally know that Goodin is not regarded as fringe by anyone whose expertise would be relevant in this context. It is bizarre and confusing why anyone confident of their own assessment on this matter would be working so hard to keep sources out of the article that display what is, again, the obvious: that there is no technical proof justifying the US intelligence assessment of this. Generally those confident about their own viewpoint do not work to censor opposing arguments or evidence, and the repeated pattern of this here is suspicious itself (I feel rather agnostic on the specificity of accusations against Russia, but the behaviour of those wishing to depict that accusation as proved or universally accepted when it obviously isn't is suspicious enough to cast the accusations themselves in a new light for me). Adlerschloß (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Adler, I have read what you said about Mr. Goodin. You are presenting your personal conclusion, based on the sort of inference and circumstantial information every human uses in everyday life. We all sink or swim by our savvy reactions to people and events. But WP editors are not supposed to rely on our personal opinions when we propose content for the encyclopedia. I hope that with some reflection you can understand that your personal confidence as to who's who in the IT world is yours alone, and that it cannot relied on by the community here without RS documentation as to Mr. Goodin's standing as a WP:NOTABLE expert whose opinion needs to be published in an encyclopedia.

It's amusing sometimes to watch the Americans on their cable-TV news programs. I read the mainstream US media and I do sometimes indulge in some CNN and the like along with my BBC and RAI. I haven't seen anyone pausing to say "alleged interference" in a long time. Occasionally last year, occasionally in January this year, but as of May 2017, it's a WP:FRINGE POV that the Russians did not interfere. And anyway it's telling that you appear to think Goodin's questioning the interference when in fact he's criticizing the US Gov't's need to withhold classified information from the published summary report. Finally, your wrap-up is kind of surprising. If the efforts of 20-30 WP editors who struggle to sustain the mainstream narrative here makes you doubt the underlying facts as to geopolitical events, that seems like one giant leap for mankind -- logically speaking. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE, Not notable. Opinion of a writer at an online tech mag. I don’t see where he has any experience in counterespionage. Objective3000 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What level of "experience in counterespionage" would you require a journalist to have before you would agree to quoting them in the article? I would have thought being the "Security Editor" for a well-respected technology publication, and a former cybersecurity journalist for major publications like Bloomberg, AP and The Register would be enough qualification. Does he have to be a former intelligence agent? I'm just trying to get a sense of what threshold you're setting before we can cite a journalist's work here. After you've set that level, perhaps we can go through the article and remove all the reporting by journalists who don't meet it (and since Goodin is probably one of the most expert journalists we cite, we'll most likely have to delete most of the journalistic sources in the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably have more experience in the area than he, going back to the 70s. And I most certainly don't think I have the gravitas needed. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know as he has never been a part of the intelligence community. He is a writer in an online mag. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Experience regarding cybersecurity has been evidenced by many above, and that is at least as important in this context. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Hes a well respected cyber security expert from an good reliable source. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest include - I'll say seems obvious here's a prominent tech publication's cybersecurity lead giving an evaluation of the intelligence papers ... obviously relevant source with authority on topic, and seems more relevant than including right behind it of 'former hacker' from the Daily Beast who is saying much the same thing: both saying 'that did not give evidence'. Leave it in and move along, or else put it to a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the suggestion that a non-WP:NOTABLE writer is being called an authority on the technical subject of cybersecurity-cum-counterintelligence. Moreover as many editors have said many times: The non-classified report is not the basis for the human mainstream's near-universal acceptance of the fact that Russians interfered. If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that the US Government is too dumb to figure this out with the vast resources and information available to the US and its allies' intelligence services. Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist. When there are important points deserving DUE weight, there's no scarcity of RS citations. I would like to see an acknowledged counterespionage cybersecurity expert, perhaps a distinguished former intelligence official (not an Iraq-war-era weapons sleuth) who articulates the problems in a compelling way that can provide the basis for article content. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing puzzling about it. Dan Goodin is the Security Editor for Ars Technica, and he previously wrote for Bloomberg, AP and The Register on cybersecurity. If a respected tech publication like Ars Technica (along with AP, Bloomberg and The Register) thinks he's qualified to write on this subject, and even to make him their senior editor on such topics, then he almost certainly is qualified. "If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means." That's your own personal speculation. All we can do in the article is reflect what journalists have written about the JAR. "Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist." This may surprise you, but some of the best tech publications are published on the Internet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The responses you have posted to half a dozen editors here are entirely unresponsive, misrepresent the demonstrated flaws and objections, and pose straw man deflections instead of simple proffers of the material that would support inclusion of your POV in the article. BTW there are millions of journalists roaming the planet, each of them with their fans and admirers. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I reverted this edit of yours (but recovered your citation fix), because the context of the articles by Goodin and Poulsen is clear. They were both written shortly after the JAR was published, so there's no reason to repeatedly state the publication dates. You wrote in your edit summary, "add dates for context. When these opinions were written is crucial. ALL early reports were "alleged" and doubting, while many later ones are more certain." I don't see any evidence for the dates of the opinions being crucial. You've now claimed several times that there are abundant reliable sources that contradict Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but so far, you haven't posted a single one. I don't think the general evaluation of the JAR as a very weak report has changed since early January 2017. If you have sources that say the evaluation of the JAR has indeed changed, by all means, please post them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Per JFG and Lambden. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your edit summary includes an explicitly POV rationale: "The dates are necessary to show this is ancient information." In other words, you're trying to downplay the articles written by Goodin and Poulsen. You've stated repeatedly that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR are contradicted by newer reliable sources, but I'm still waiting for you to find even a single source that supports your assertion. So, do you have those sources, or are you going to admit that you don't have them?

Enough is really enough: Goodin and Poulsen criticized the JAR heavily (as did other prominent cybersecurity experts, cited in Goodin's article). You can't just relativize every fact you don't like in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You have removed those dates before, and we shouldn't have to keep restoring them. Just as with attribution for opinions, including dates for time sensitive commentary can be important. We often do this. Since we haven't yet created an actual timeline of events, as suggested, this is the next best thing. As for your comment about "weasel words", the part you removed was from the source. Without those words, the content is misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE per Objective3000.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need for parsing to determine due weight

@BullRangifer: Again, can you post your sources that contradict Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR?

Also, the version you've reverted to emphasizes one very minor aspect of Goodin's commentary - one that only gets a single sentence of mention in Goodin's piece. I can't help but conclude that you're just trying to downplay Goodin's criticism of the JAR, especially since you said explicitly in your edit summary that you'd like readers to know the criticism is "ancient." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the current wording (my bold emphasis). A parsing of the whole concept, and of certain phrases, is crucial for any discussion about how editors here should determine due weight, and that's what the following is about:

"... Goodin criticized the Joint Analysis Report for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted so as not to reveal sources and methods of cyberattack detection."

Leaving out the bold balancing words of that second phrase of the sentence was really bad and clearly your "truther" attempt to push the idea that the Russians were not involved and are innocent. By doing so, undue weight was given to Goodin's other words of criticism. Even Goodin realizes that the report cannot be expected to tell the whole story, and, like any other intelligence report, it doesn't reveal all that is known by the experts in the investigation.

Criticisms on that basis are naive and should not be given much weight. While called an "analysis report", it's really just a morsel reluctantly thrown to the masses to appease them, rather than a completely open and comprehensive attempt to inform them. That's how the intelligence community functions. They have to do that. Everyone wants more info, including experts, and they are frustrated when they don't get more. C'est la vie. They should be happy they got anything at all. As long as the investigations are ongoing, and right now they are intensifying as more things are confirmed, we're not going to get the full story. If Trump's obstruction efforts are unsuccessful, we may see this cleared up in court.

I share the POV expressed by "former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, [who] stated that while there is solid evidence of Russia's interference from other sources,..." It is that "solid evidence" which should get more weight, and complaints given less weight, or not even mentioned when they are obviously contradictory to the facts. We shouldn't give "truthers" (your POV) any weight here. A passing mention showing how foolish they are would be all that should be allowed.

The reason I don't give this criticism of the JAR report much weight isn't because of other technical details which might find fault with it, if they even exist, but because there is so much other evidence (Kevin Poulsen's POV), which we also mention in the article. It shows that Russians were behind the hacking and interference. No doubt about it. Period. Full stop. (Only truthers doubt it.)

Technical data, especially the incomplete bits we know, should no longer be your sole focus. Stop giving it so much weight in your thinking. It doesn't change the bigger picture. Look at the big picture and realize that right now the technical data is a minor aspect which is deliberately slurred from our view, and therefore criticisms of it should not be given much weight at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments made on this talk page appeal to the authority of the unseen evidence which remains hidden for protection of sources and methods. But the reliance on the classified version of the intelligence report is overblown. Even people who have seen it admit that there is not much more in there than in the declassified version.

The new report incorporates material from previous assessments and assembles in a single document details of cyber operations dating back to 2008. Still, U.S. officials said there are no major new bombshell disclosures even in the classified report. A shorter, declassified version is expected to be released to the public early next week.
— The Washington Post January 5, 2017 [39]

— JFG ^talk 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that just says that it's clear the Russians did interfere and that there are no conclusive pointers ("bombshells") to the further facts and details that are currently under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, I find this wording in the first phrase of the sentence rather awkward, especially the highlighted words:

"... for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted...."

I suspect there is some ambiguity there, so I'd like to know what you think that means. How should it be parsed?

1. Does it suggest there may not be any connection between the hacking and the Russians? Is Goodin a "truther", like you?
2. Does it mean we haven't explained well enough how the Russian hacking actually affected the elections?

We need more eyes to parse this phrase and then tweak it to clear up any ambiguity. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As editors respond to BullRangifier's very clear and well-founded concerns with respect to this content, bear in mind that the declassified reports are not the subject of this article. So to the extent that these critical pundits and blogotypes are directing their criticisms at the reports or at the fact that the intelligence agencies do not share all their sensitive and privileged information with the internet, this content is really off-topic and classic UNDUE. At some point we need to just get it out of the article and work on the mounting backlog of relevant significant RS reporting on core content. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer hasn't presented any well-founded concerns with respect to this content. BullRangifer keeps asserting that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses are out-of-date (despite refusing to give any sources as evidence of this), and then goes on to try to denigrate anyone who wants to include reliably sourced criticism of the JAR as a "truther." BullRangifer is giving explicitly political reasons for excluding or relativizing Goodin and Poulsen's analyses.

"[T]his content is really off-topic": Criticism of the JAR in a section about the JAR is not off-topic. Reliable sources criticized the JAR heavily, but you're trying to exclude that criticism from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just an assertion. As I asked BullRangifer almost a month ago:

(BullRangifer speaking): No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(JFG speaking) Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Never received an answer. Please enlighten me as to this "mounting backlog" of evidence confirming the Russian intervention since the initial allegations of June 2016. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've also been asking for BullRangifer to post their sources for a while now, without any luck. BullRangifer keeps claiming that "abundant" RS say one thing or another, but doesn't actually cite any RS when asked to do so. For example, BullRangifer said that

"I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions."

I asked what reliable sources contradict Goodin's article about the JAR. I still haven't gotten a reply, even though BullRangifer continues to revert my edits on the rationale that Goodin's article is obsolete. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to make light of it, but that's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your dog?" -- You won't find articles that bother to scrutinize relatively weak opinion on the internet for the purpose of debunking it. This is an issue that comes up all over WP. Fringe or inexpert or non-notable comment is not refuted by the mainstream -- it is ignored. Goodin, as a non-notable journalist, is not daily on the radar of the Wall St. Journal, NY Times or Washington Post. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the question before answering? Thucydides asks BullRangifer to show "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions." He doesn't ask for somebody to opine about Goodin's qualifications, just somebody who would refute his point. A point that most cybersecurity experts have made too, i.e. the abyssal weakness of report after report. And yet every time somebody dares question the official narrative, they are mocked with "look at the reports, the proof is there, the facts are clear". — JFG ^talk 23:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost everybody has a viewpoint that is inconsistent with Goodin's and as to "refuting" Goodin, that can only be done with specific reference to Goodin and such reference will not be found in the overwhelming majority of cases wherein a WP editor cites minor, fringe, or non-notable opinions on widely reported issues. Please consider whether your "did you read it?" was civil or constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It having now been demonstrated that there is no consensus to include, and with no secondary reference to Goodin's view supporting DUE WEIGHT to include it, the disputed Goodin sentence should now be expunged from the article, leaving the Poulsen bit in place to move to the head of that paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It should be minimized or removed altogether as clearly UNDUE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In the case of true WP:NOTABLE experts whose opinion is widely regarded as dispositive, there will be many secondary RS citations to that notable expert analysis. In this case, Goodin is quoted in a nice piece in Breitbart, on a few fake news blogs, and on a scattered and scant sample of other venues. And that's not even before we get into how the current text misrepresents Goodin's own emphasis on the report not the acknowledged Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

From the above input (in bold), it looks like there's more support for inclusion of Goodin's article than opposition. Given that, the edit summary of its most recent deletion is inaccurate. Since editors here lean towards including Goodin's article, let's figure out what sort of phrasing would be acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an election. This is just one of those things that does pretty good in the popular vote but doesn't make it across the finish line. There's no consensus for this stuff. Time to get back to more important work here. SPECIFICO talk 10:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If this isn't an election, then who determines if there's consensus? You?

A majority of editors supported inclusion. You haven't given a good argument for excluding Goodin's research. You've been throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks: WP:FRINGE (Goodin's analysis actually represents the mainstream view of the JAR), WP:UNDUE (the JAR is central to this article, and cybersecurity experts' views on it are important to note), your idea that Goodin isn't an expert (he's written for a number of respected publications on cybersecurity throughout his career, and his analysis is publised in a reliable source, so your objection about expertise is spurious).

You challenged inclusion of Goodin's analysis, and it turned out a majority of editors didn't agree with you. Unless you have some constructive suggestions on wording, I'm going to reinsert Goodin's analysis using the same wording I used in my original addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: consensus & elections: Please review WP policy and guidelines concerning closing of contentious discussions. If Mr. Goodin's view were shared by the mainstream view of reliable sources, we would not have to reach into Ars Technica to pluck it on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the policies. Again, if not a majority of editors, who determines consensus? You're just asserting that there's no consensus, despite the balance of opinion falling in favor of including the Goodin article. It sounds at this point like you're asserting your personal veto on the material.

We're not reaching at all by citing Ars Technica. The Ars Technica article happens to be a very good summary of various cybersecurity experts' analyses of the JAR. There are other articles that also note the negative reaction to the JAR, such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung article cited in the JAR section. I simply picked the Ars Technica article because it gave a good overview, and this subject is one that Ars Technica often covers with greater competence than some larger publications. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this guy has any expertise in the narrow fields of cyber intelligence or counter-espionage, or knowledge of the particulars of this incident. As I understand it, he’s a guy that writes articles on security of interest to server and PC owners. That’s what the readers of Ars care about, not government cyber-warfare. He has demonstrated no government security clearance or knowledge of top secret analysis methodology, or any of the particulars in this specific investigation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You've already made the argument above that (essentially) only former intelligence analysts should be quoted. I don't agree, and a majority of editors apparently didn't find that argument persuasive. Effectively, your argument is that if a journalist didn't spend time working at the CIA or NSA, we shouldn't quote them when they write about a US government report on cybersecurity. Your argument, if we followed it, would introduce a very serious bias into Wikipedia, in favor of the official US government position.

If a journalist is assigned by a reliable publication to write about a given topic, that means that the reliable publication considers that journalist competent to write about the subject. I don't have to sit here and list Dan Goodin's CV to you. He writes for Ars Technica, and has written for a number of other highly respected publications on similar topics throughout his career. He doesn't need to have done a stint at the CIA to be able to report on these issues. If we only quoted former US intelligence analysts, as you're suggesting, we'd end up writing horribly biased articles.

So, if you don't have any suggestions about wording, I'm going to edit according to the above consensus for inclusion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That is NOT my argument. My argument is that he has demonstrated no expertise in the subject at hand, cyber-warfare. Objective3000 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't reinsert that stuff. You can post a request at WP:AN to have an uninvolved Admin close the thread if you believe that it justifies reinsertion, but it will accomplish nothing to continue your edit war based on your personal preference. SPECIFICO talk 11:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You keep making the same claim over and over again, namely that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited because he's "not notable". That is not the question: we are not writing an article about Dan Goodin, we are citing his bona fide journalistic work published in a reputable reliable source. Moving the goalposts and repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your view. When I asked you: Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. you responded with… crickets.

The other objection we see, notably from BullRangifer, is that Goodin's study is ancient and has been superseded by more recent sources. However, the age of his article doesn't change its validity, just like the age of the ODNI reports doesn't change what they say. Intelligence services have published reports in October 2016, December 2016 and January 2017; each of these publications has triggered feedback from various commentators at the time. Since then, no new report, no new feedback, and prior feedback remains valid unless substantial new information comes to light. Given the lack of new information, understandably, when asked by Thucydides411 and Adlerschloß to provide these "more recent sources", BullRangifer responded with… crickets.

At the beginning of this thread, answering your unsubstantiated claims of WP:FRINGE and WP:COATRACK, Darouet asked you: Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? You responded with… crickets.

On pure editor count, we have now 8 people considering this content DUE (JFG, Thucydides411, Darouet, Adlerschloß, PackMecEng, James J. Lambden, Markbassett, Jrheller1) vs 7 people considering it UNDUE (MrX, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, Casprings, Geogene, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek) and one neutral (K.e.coffman could accept either Ars Technica or The Daily Beast but doesn't think both are necessary). If this were an RfC, the closer would evaluate the strength of the arguments on both sides, in light of policy. In a discussion about inserting some contents, where proponents demonstrate the suitability of said contents per policy, while opponents fail to justify the arguments they cite or just go "me too", I don't see why we should abide by the same opponents' vocal calls that "the matter is settled, there is no consensus". Your repeated attempts to curtail discussion by declaring the issue settled while you are heavily WP:INVOLVED are at best disruptive, at worst evidence of bad faith.

Finally, spending weeks and walls of text discussing a simple, journalistically well-sourced sentence in an article that otherwise is quite wordy and repetitive, strikes me as counter-productive; possibly something we agree upon. Let it go! — JFG ^talk 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How does this witticism contribute to improving the article? — JFG ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you are saying applies to you as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, User:SPECIFICO is not an admin (see your INVOLVED link). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, he's a simple editor heavily involved in the discussion. That gives him even less authority than an involved admin to act as judge, jury and executioner on said discussion thread. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. That applies to you as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No: I never declared this discussion settled. — JFG ^talk 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG please re-read my statement. I said that this would be resolved by soliciting an uninvolved close. It's surprising to see you misrepresent my clear and straightforward statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes you did today,[40] thanks for that. You also did call it settled several times before: May 8, May 14 and May 16. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, "yes you did today" -- What did I do today? Did you intend this to be a response to my previous post? In what way is that a response? Please have another look at the words in my previous post. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @JFG: You overlooked the comment from Fyddlestix, which makes this a tie in terms of vote count, and certainly not indicative of a consensus at this point.- MrX 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this ought to be excluded as well. It is out-of-date, and I think there are significant weight concerns. (As a compromise, the Kevin Poulsen stuff might be OK - don't see why we need both him and Goodin). Neutrality^talk 16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The faction promoting the UNDUE source here is experienced enough to understand the difference between editors stating the obvious -- that there is no consensus for inclusion -- and on the other hand, editors declaring this a settled, formally closed issue. And that is why this thread has devolved into a time sump of monumental suction. The simple remedy of the aggrieved complainants would be to articulate a convincing theory for inclusion that could tip consensus to their view. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorial policy: alleged

Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC and Reuters

The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:

• "On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."" BBC 26 April
• "Then the roiling controversy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election turned Moscow into a toxic subject in Washington." BBC 13 April
• “A US intelligence report released in January alleged that Vladimir Putin had tried to help Mr Trump to victory, allegations strongly denied the Russian president.” BBC 10 April
• “US Congressman forced to step down from the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.” BBC 6 April
• “Both the House and Senate intelligence committees and the FBI are investigating alleged Kremlin interference in the US election” BBC 4 April
• “US Senate to probe allegations of Russian involvement in presidential election” BBC 30 March
• “The committee is examining Russia's alleged interference in last year's election.” BBC 29 March
• “FBI chief confirms criminal probe into alleged Russian interference in 2016 US election” BBC 21 March
• “Did Russia interfere in last year’s presidential election? A US intelligence committee is hearing evidence about the Kremlin’s alleged involvement.” BBC 20 March
• “The US House Intelligence Committee will hear the testimony of the FBI Director James Comey as they look into allegations of Russian interference in last year's American presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “FBI director James Comey has confirmed for the first time that the FBI is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.” BBC 20 March
• “Hearings are being held on alleged Russian interference in the US election campaign, at Capitol Hill.” BBC 20 March
• “We speak to a Democrat Congressman about the latest on the allegations of Russian involvement in the US Presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “President Trump's Attorney General says he'll step aside from involvement in any investigations about Moscow's alleged interference in last year's election.” 2 March
• “Last week President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US over the alleged hacking” BBC 7 January
• “US expels 35 Russian diplomats as punishment for alleged interference in the presidential election” BBC 29 December
• “President Obama vows action over Moscow's alleged interference in the US election.” 16 December

Reuters appears to do the same thing:

• “Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues. Those include alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election…” Reuters 10 April
• “Russian-state media service RT reported, citing his wife, that Levashov was suspected of being connected to hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election” Reuters 10 April
• “House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is stepping aside from the panel's probe of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election” Reuters for WSJ 7 April
• “Michael Conaway (R-TX) awaits for FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to testify to the House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election… But unlike Devin Nunes - who on Thursday stepped down as leader of the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, including possible collusion with Trump associates - Conaway was not a member of the incoming president's transition team. Russia denies the allegations… And in a January interview with the Dallas Morning News, [Conaway] seemed to make light of the alleged Russian meddling in the election” Reuters 7 April
• “The House Intelligence Committee wants Susan Rice, a top aide in the Obama administration, to testify in a probe of alleged Russian election interference” Reuters for WSJ 5 April
• “The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee will ask the directors of FBI and the National Security agency to appear in a closed session in its probe of allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections” Reuters 24 March
• “U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Monday it was not known whether any Americans helped Russia in an alleged hacking campaign aimed at swaying the Nov. 8 election” Reuters 20 March
• “FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the agency was investigating possible Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election” Reuters 20 March
• “The charges came amid a swirl of controversies relating to alleged Kremlin-backed hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election” 16 Reuters March
• “President Barack Obama retaliated for Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Reuters 9 February

(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):

• “Even before Trump ordered last week's strike in retaliation for a nerve gas attack, Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues, including Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election” [41]

Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?

Other language Wikis

I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.

For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”

• The Accusations contested:
• Absence of proof
• Credibility of authorities placed in doubt
• Alternative hypotheses
• Conspiracy theories:
• To direct attention from stolen emails
• The explain Clinton’s defeat
• To sabatoge Trump’s election

These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:

• Edward Snowden, “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.” Le Monde
• Investigative journal Mediapart: “despite multiple accusations, often proffered to the press anonymously by intelligence officials, American authorities have brought no definitive proof that the Russian government is behind Guccifer 2.0” [42]
• Cybersecurity expert Nicolas Arpagian, “we still have but solemn political declarations. But no proof, no distinct or incontestable element…” Liberation or journalist Stephane Trano, “American intelligence services… are not required to produce the least element of public proof, since their information is by nature classified.” Marianne Or cybersecurity expert Gerome Billois, to the effect of, “many people could have hacked the DNC” France 24
• Statement from le Quotidian, “it’s impossible to take Washington’s words as good coin” after the recent claims of WMD, or the Gulf of Tonkin for that matter [43]
• William Binney and Ray McGovern Baltimore Sun
• Glenn Greenwald Monde DiplomatiqueThe Intercept
• Jean-Paul Bequiast, Florian Filippot MediaPart blogLe Monde, and a humorous commentary from Afrique Asie: “After a careful reading of 25 pages of the declassified, redacted report concocted by the American Intelligence Community, the ODNI (CIA, FBI, NSA, and fourteen other agencies), just one word comes to mind: nothing” [44]

Congratulations, you've managed to cherry picked some opinions statements that exist on the internet. That's great. Why should we care? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

        Why should we care?  Because no one has come forward with actual evidence of the alleged hacking by Russia.  That's why. 8675309 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).

We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur -- the article intro should either include "alleged" or be moved to Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment French Wikipedia is a joke. They are still trying to figure out who shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, and their article gives "equal time" between the Dutch Safety Board and Putinist propaganda. [45]. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet, they, the Spanish, and the Germans appear to generally follow a neutral editorial line as set out by the BBC and Reuters, whereas we do not. -Darouet (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other language Wikipedias do. And by "follow a neutral editorial line" you simply mean "I like those versions better". Which is your right, but like I said, irrelevant here. Different Wikipedias have different policies. Likewise, BBC and Reuters aren't encyclopedias so they also do things differently. See WP:ALLEGED. We've been over this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC or Reuters editorial policies and attitudes are not irrelevant: these are considered flagship sources globally. If they write that hacking / interference is "alleged," they are not treating it as a fact but as an allegation. We have to be honest that if we treat interference as a fact, we are diverging from their policies about what is known, or not known. And while we are not obliged to follow other wikis, I've listed the approach taken by other language wikipedias because those approaches are consistent with reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, whereas our approach is not. -Darouet (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

From WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." That's exactly the case here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't an RFC on this subject closed today? Consensus is pretty clear and this seems like a dead horse. If you disagree, I would suggest challenging the RFC's close.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not challenging that RfC's close, since I think the issues raised here are broader than a choice between two options for a first sentence. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• We have to stop having this same discussion. That the Russian election interference happened is the neutral, widely-reported point of view. What is still to be determined is whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.- MrX 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The editorial position of the BBC and Reuters appear to disagree with you. Why is that? -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because they're not encyclopedias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I don't see your point. We're supposed to reflect reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX: No, that's not neutral at all, and what the above quotes that Darouet has put together show conclusively is that BBC and Reuters do not treat Russian interference as a fact. To reach compromise, we have to have a common basis to work from. One important aspect of that common basis has to be an acceptance by all editors here that reliable sources do not generally consider Russian interference a fact. We simply can't keep having this argument over and over again. Enough evidence has been presented to show that RSes generally treat Russian interference as uncertain, and to keep insisting that it's an established fact isn't reasonable at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• We must stop meeting here like this 😍 ... SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a signature and I'm too lazy to search the history. So who took a quote from Trump and tried to attribute that as being the BBC's editorial stance? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not even going to bother clicking on the rest of the links when the first one is that bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That is humorous: "alleged" is the BBC, the rest is Trump. If you are too lazy even to read one sentence, sure, why read anything else? -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The BBC says, On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups." Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How the hell is WP:PASSINGMENTION not an essay yet? Apparently it needs to be explained thoroughly and in-depth to a number of users. Not by me, though. I don't have the patience to deal with editors still complaining about something that's been settled by countless RfC's and talk page discussions. But I'll give it the passing mention treatment: Trump's words are the ONLY part of that quote that actually makes a claim. The rest is just semantics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC explicitly calls it "alleged Russian hacking," as they regularly do when discussing the subject. We've had countless RfCs, but something I've noticed is that whenever we get to a discussion of sources, you and a number of other editors declare that we've already discussed this and refuse to actually acknowledge how the sources treat this subject. Darouet just listed a few dozen BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or a claim of unknown truth, rather than as a known fact, but you're not acknowledging that fact. This is how most reliable sources are treating the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. I've already explicitly addressed this. Are you sure you understand what this discussion is about? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. You've been presented with a list of BBC articles that refer to "alleged" Russian interference, and your only response (other than that you're not willing to read them) is that one of the articles doesn't deal with the issue at great enough length. I'm sorry, but that's not a real argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it really seems like the problem isn't on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Whenever the BBC mentions "Russian hacking" or "Russian interference" in the US election, they always write "alleged." The same is true for Reuters. That is all this list shows - that they have had a consistent editorial policy that these are allegations, not facts. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has already proven this statement wrong, two comments below this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, VM did not do anything of the sort. VM quoted two articles in which Reuters quotes US intelligence officials. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or in any way endorse what they're saying. News agencies quote Trump all the time, but that doesn't mean they agree with him. When Reuters covers "Russian interference," it generally uses "alleged" (or a synonym), unless it's clear that Reuters is quoting someone else. When quoting someone else, it's clear that "Russian interfernce" is an allegation, and Reuters doesn't have to use the word "alleged." This is a really simple concept, and it's incredibly frustrating to go round and round in circles on it. Darouet has provided proof above of the editorial position that the BBC and Reuters have taken, and you're essentially ignoring it. We have to have a basic agreement on facts if we're going to get anywhere, and it's clear that BBC and Reuters treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur: Many thanks for putting together this list. This shows us that BBC and Reuters do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact, but rather prefix it with "alleged," "possible," and similar phrases. To the editors who are quickly dismissing this (above: Casprings, Geogene, SPECIFICO, MjolnirPants), please take Darouet's effort a bit more seriously. Darouet has done us all a huge favor by going through BBC and Reuters articles and showing what their editorial policy is regarding "alleged." I really would like to think that Wikipedia is a collaborative place where people are able to reach compromise on how to present contentious topics - even topics as contentious as current American politics. But compromise requires that editors be open to changing their mind when evidence is presented. The above evidence shows that what several editors have been insisting (reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact) is simply not true. If we can't have agreement on something as basic as this (something for which solid evidence has been presented), I don't think we'll be able to reach compromise on anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I typed in "Reuters Russian Hacking" into google. I got this [46]. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". The second hit was this. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". So I'm guessing the above lists was cherry picked to make a WP:POINT or is outdated. Regardless, there are also plenty of other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, your first source attributes the claim of Russian hacking to US officials: "Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday." Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing: "Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump." Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh. So "concluded" is synonymous with "alleged". Gotcha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what's being discussed. We're not discussing what precise wording reliable sources use. We're discussing how they treat "Russian interference." Do they report it as a fact? Do they report it as a claim that certain people/groups are making? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Robocop is riding a unicorn. Your argument is invalid. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there a point you're trying to make about the article? You said in your opening statement that you don't want to read the sources above, and now you're linking to random images on the web. I don't see what any of your posts here have to do with article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just responding to your rebuttal with something equally valid and supported by evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Like for example, I could make a list for New York Times and Washington Post, maybe starting with Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election - Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Notice the absence of "alleged" in that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I frankly acknowledge that the NYT and WP often write about interference from Russia as a fact. Reuters and the BBC never do so: for them it is always an allegation. But all four of those sources would never doubt the truth of evolution by natural selection, or the fact of the holocaust. In other words, among educated people and reliable sources, we recognize that we can have certainty about many things, but the fact of Russian interference in the US election. Right now we are taking a different, radical approach that is inconsistent with what we know via reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I do take Darouet seriously and I dismiss him seriously. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? And stop gendering me. -Darouet (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Replying to bulleted point above beginning with concur. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur: It's fucking crazy how Wikipedia basically just parrots CIA/DNC propaganda on everything these days. What the hell happened to being an encyclopedia anyone can edit. 108.41.8.44 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Reboot

The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."

The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.

Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.

This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If the opening sentence is to be as above, then this page needs to be retitled "What the US Intelligence Agencies Think About Russian Interference". Equally, given that this page actually has the broader title "Russian Interference ..", the topic should not be defined from the outset by one (interested) party's view of the matter. A page about a noted historical unsolved murder which has been the subject of wide-ranging inquiry and speculation would not simply start "The Police think Mr X killed Mr Y". As noted previously, yes the CIA et al have declared/concluded (with some caveats) the interference occurred but it remains, at the same time, an allegation, because the CIA is not a court of law with the power to declare facts. There is no contradiction there. The page should say at the outset that these are allegations; then go on to set out that the IC say this, others say that. Sadly, the reaction to the detailed evidence presented above as to how third-party sources are quite deliberately and consciously treating this story as an allegation (something which is obvious from watching and reading media in the UK) is symptomatic of the simplistic politicisation of the issue in real life and on this page. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of RfCs if they are ignored? Objective3000 (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but equally what is the point of RfCs if they are just railroaded by the same editors who have long been most active on the page and the outcome is at best wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? Plus as noted by the starter of this thread, the issue is slightly broader and relates to the structure of the page as a whole rather than simply the exact wording of the first sentence. AFAICT, the option was between two versions of phrasing to describe the views of US agencies. My point is that we shouldn't privilege the views of US spy agencies or frame the article from the outset around their views, however we describe them. N-HH talk/edits 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Railroaded? Wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? You don’t appear to have much respect for Wikipedia process. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Time heals all wounds. Come back in 6 months. Maybe consensus will change. Maybe BBC will change. Nothing to see here for now. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean - the BBC and Reuters treat this as alleged for now, but maybe eventually they won't? That's not the way this works. "Nothing to see here for now" is equivalent to writing "who cares what reliable sources write?" -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not followed the discussion or the RFC, but I've just given it a quick read. I would strongly encourage you to move this article to Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because that's what it is. Moreover, the lede uses the word "stated" several times, when it should be "hypothesized." Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    How is it that we can claim Russia did something without actual evidence?  Is it possible?  Sure.  Has Russia been proven to be involved?  No.  Why are we acting like this happened?8675309 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin redux

In the Ars Technica source [47] being debated above, Goodin makes two interesting observations. One is that the government's report on the North Korea Sony hacks was criticized on the same grounds, and two, that it was "likely" that the reason the report was light on evidence was because the intelligence community doesn't want to teach the Russians how to evade detection. Last two paragraphs. So it's not an accurate representation of the source to throw in a quote from Goodin that says "no evidence!" [48] and leave it at that. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to include Goodin's analysis (and so far, there is no consensus to do so), we should summarize his key points rather than quote the entire lede.- MrX 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is to include, of course. But Undue isn't the only issue with the current version. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly.- MrX 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so why is this being added back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously because of our policy that says that content cant't be removed unless there is consensus to remove it.- MrX 12:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've copy edited the material to properly summarize the source. That should not be interpreted as an endorsement for keeping any of the Goodin material per my previous comments.- MrX 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a better summary of the source. It took one very minor element of Goodin's article, and then prefaced it with a suggestive wording that's not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article ("while acknowledging that ..." suggests that what follows is true, even though we don't know if it is). I've restored the previous summary of Goodin's article. The above discussion suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article. Before changing this passage (and I don't see why it should be changed), propose the changes you'd like to make, and see if there's consensus for them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the "above discussion" DOES NOT "suggests that there is overall support for quoting Goodin's article." There are strong objections. It's still UNDUE and should be minimized or removed altogether. SPECIFICO is correct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It does show the majority favor inclusion. Discussion has slowed with no new arguments or editors since the 10th (I believe.) We can revisit this if new information comes to light or, if an editor feels strongly they can start an RfC. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. For the record, I'm also opposed to including it per the arguments above. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There are "strong objections" to nearly every aspect of this article, but that doesn't mean that us editors with strong objections get to blockade everything. The strong objections to including Goodin's article on the JAR have been noted, but a majority of editors thought it merited inclusion.

@Fyddlestix: The above discussion showed a majority for inclusion, and the arguments against inclusion were simply weak. I asked BullRangifer several times to support their claim that Goodin's analysis of the JAR has been contradicted by later reporting, but BullRangifer was never able to provide any sources to back up that claim. A number of other arguments were tried, like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, but the JAR is an important part of this story, so expert reaction to it is eminently WP:DUE, and the reactions that Goodin goes over are anything but WP:FRINGE. They were the mainstream reaction among experts to the JAR. The arguments fell flat, and a majority of editors favored inclusion. That should be good enough for inclusion.

Just generally, I don't understand why there's such opposition to including a short journalistic summary of expert reactions to the JAR. This is a very small addition of a larger article, and the addition reflects a completely mainstream analysis, so I don't understand how one can object so strongly to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oval Office meeting RE: national security risk

Odd overnight news, not sure how or where it fits here: [49] [50] [51]. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As the election is over not at all. This is a different issue now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Still in the area of ramifications of their efforts.Casprings (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Really goofy. But, I don't think it improves the article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[52] -- At least one White House insider is quoted as saying it's more "terrifying" than "goofy" -- we need to see more RS reporting on this. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cornell and Georgetown University professors quoted on the seriousness of the national security risk of the Trump administration apparently letting Russian government bring electronic devices into oval office. Here: [53]. Former Deputy Director of the CIA and a former KGB spy's comments also were also reported. Trump staff claimed to have been "tricked."[54] [55] [56].

This is being widely discussed in the mainstream media and it appears increasingly significant to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reports indicate that a White House official photographer was present as well as the official Russian photographer. Amusing anecdote for the ongoing spy story but this is certainly not related to election interference. WP:KITCHENSINK? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Weasel again. What reports? RS please? The POTUS slipping highest security access to the Russians is not kitchen sink. And that is not my opinion, because I have no particular interest in the Americans. But this is receiving huge ongoing coverage including coverage of real accredited experts, not the "consultant pundit" and blogmeister types. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:Waiting to hear back from you what RS reports that the a White House official photographer was in the Oval Office for the meeting of Trump+Russians. The exlcusion of US press has received ongoing coverage in light of the subsequent leaks of discussion in that meeting, including Trump's remarks concerning his dismissal of Director Comey and his boasts that he shared information which intelligence experts believe compromised Israeli intelligence assets in Syria. @MelanieN: I'd be interested in your current thoughts as to whether you still agree that the exclusion of non-Russian press was just an amusing anecdote. I am inclined to add some article content on this. Also pinging @Slatersteven: who commented below. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Here's NPR from May 11, for example: That's all they let into the room, the White House photographer and what they thought was the official Russian photographer. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Or if you prefer CNN on May 12: The White House blocked US reporters from photographing the meeting, opting to allow only White House and a sole Russian photographer to capture images of the leaders' interactions. — JFG ^talk 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether the American media was excluded. According to every RS report, the American press was excluded. The CNN video on the page you link above states that the American media was excluded around 3:20 in the video. It is irrelevant whether an White House photographer under Trump Administration's control was permitted in the room. That's not American media and it doesn't help address our editorial duties to deflect from the issue. JFG has cited a stale report that did not have the full context of subsequent revelations concerning the meeting. It is contextualized in the majority of more recent mainstream accounts, e.g. [57] [58][59]. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I was merely answering your question about a source stating that a White House photographer was present in addition to the Kremlin photographer: I gave you two sources. Now you ask why the press was excluded; I have no idea but methinks you're reading too much into this. Trump met the Ukrainian foreign minister the same day and it doesn't look like the press was invited either. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the description "amusing anecdote". It is not part of this story (Russian interference in the election). And it is not receiving "huge ongoing coverage", at least not in mainstream/neutral sources. It was a best a one-time sidebar. Reflective, perhaps, of Trump's ongoing eagerness to be pals with the Russians, but that is not (at this time) part of this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just grabbed a few quick RS discussions, but apparently if JFG is seeing revisionist accounts of the matter it must be receiving ongoing attention both from the White House and from the mainstream press accounts JFG has seen. According to the links I found, the possibility of a Russian surveillance device in the Oval Office is a big deal. Why is the appearance that US officials may be facilitating ongoing Russian interference in the US any less relevant than the long list of other follow-up events that we have included in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:01, May 12, 2017‎ (UTC)

Its not, it's just a different issue. related maybe (in the same way say Ww1 and Ww2 are related) but not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JFG - this isn't related to the 2016 election. It might belong in Russian espionage in the United States. Burley22 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Now it finally all makes sense: Russian intelligence services worked very hard to get Trump elected, so that they could plant a microphone in the Oval Office and listen to him fuming at CNN all day while Putin strokes his white cat. Bwahahahahaha!!! — JFG ^talk 18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The strange and unprecedented and exclusion of US media in favor of a Russian "photographer" from Tass is once again in the news with the reports in RS press that Trump compromised US national security by sharing classified information from which US intelligence assets locations or identities can be inferred.[60] [61] SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?"

These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.

• What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?

Here's something I noticed:

"In April, the Guardian published a story revealing GCHQ’s role, under the headline “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia”. On Monday, Clapper confirmed the report – an unusual move. Asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein whether the article were true, he said: “Yes, it is and it’s also quite sensitive … The specifics are quite sensitive.”

The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:

• British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia

References

BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You know I'm a liberal, but right now I wouldn't state as fact anything that comes from Clapper. Attribution should be required, as he is clearly not an unbiased source at this point. I'm not saying not to use interviews with him, but I wouldn't go overboard with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Attribution is the rule for opinions. Only uncontested facts (the sun sets in the west, etc.) don't get refs, and opinions do get attribution, especially if they are controversial. This has nothing to do with whether we actually use content from a RS. Of course we use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The article says we do not know anything, but quotes two controversial former intelligence officers whose previous statements have been questioned. TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What we "know" is ultimately irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. That can easily be judged as OR. What we do "know" is what RS say, and we document what they report, without censorship. If they have a bias, we must, per NPOV, preserve that bias, unaffected by editorial bias or censorship.

What we know is what the article says and it says we don't know anything. Accurate reporting of sources is not OR, it's what we are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with last sentence. That's what I was driving at. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, even if some detail of their statements has been questioned, most of their statements have not been questioned, but instead confirmed, and they certainly know more than any of us or the public, and definitely more than the Trump people, because they are being kept in the dark as any suspects would be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

When intelligence officers say "I'm not sure about the accuracy of that article", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. When news outlets omit important information, I'm not so willing. Politrukki (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed redundant ref. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Show a bit of respect for your fellow editor's work. I don't alter your comments, and you don't alter mine. Okay? These sources are potential content, so those refs may be helpful, even if you don't think so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Sorry I meant to move the refs to your comments so they weren’t always showing at the bottom of the section. I see that you did that. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Grahamboat, all's well. It also looks like someone else did it, and it looks better. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, what I was referring to with my comment earlier was to mean that anything which Clapper says about the investigation, Trump or Russia should be carefully attributed, including claims of fact for which he would otherwise be considered a reliable primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants, you also mentioned Clapper in relation to bias. We should expect everyone to have a bias, and that having a bias is not necessarily a bad thing in real life, and for Wikipedia's purposes, does not preclude using them. On the contrary. We want to document real, biased, opinions. We should just attribute them. No big deal and nothing unusual. He should not be treated any differently than anyone else (but if you were to put him up against Trump, he's obviously more honest and reliable). That goes without saying, so attribute both of them, as usual. We don't censor them or use them less because of any bias.

  NPOV is all about how editors must not alter biased sources and content. See my essay which goes in depth on this subject: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.

  If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: and anyone else reading my comments: I had a serious, ongoing brain fart. I had completely mixed up James Clapper and James Comey, leading me to be mistaken about what the sources were saying. I agree with you about Clapper and am striking my comments above (I still feel the same way about Comey, but as this isn't a case of Comey commenting on the investigation, those thoughts aren't applicable). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Interfered in" the elections?

The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We are required to first cite secondary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: Welcome to this article… Yes, what the intelligence reports actually say differs from what media sources and politicians have been peddling. What security analysts actually say differs from what scaremongering pundits are pushing. C'est la vie… — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

...Which is the second article ever edited by that account (btw, that's one of my favorite songs).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: it is also the case that not all major media agree that Russia "interfered" in the election either, as I showed above for Reuters and the BBC. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true, as explained above. How many times are you going to try to pull these stunts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You didn't explain anything above. You showed that two Reuters articles report on what US intelligence officials are saying, and then claimed that that disproved the point that Reuters and BBC treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You and everyone else here understands that when a news agency reports, "Person X said Y," they're not endorsing position Y. The "stunt" here is pretending not to understand that basic distinction. Have a bit of respect for the work Darouet put in and acknowledge the stance taken by the BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did. The fact is that you're engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But at this point it's not my problem. I tried. Tired of it by now. As is most everyone here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed. Darouet gave you a long list of BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You then pretended not to understand the difference between citing a US official who says Russia interfered and the newspaper itself taking a stance on the issue. It is getting tiring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, to give you the benefit of doubt for the moment - can you link where "as explained above" refers to? You made a talk post about finding two Reuters sources - [62][63] - which quote the opinions of various U.S. officials and authorities, and never state or imply that Russia did interfere in the election. If you're referring to something else you wrote I'd like to know what it is. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw Darouet claim that the BBC and Reuters "always" use the word "alleged" to describe the interference. I then saw VM prove that statement wrong. The evidence is just above on this very page. Asking us to provide you links is just more WP:IDHT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's what Darouet wrote: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” VM cited two articles in which Reuters is "quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials." It gets tiresome to go over this again and again. Volunteer Marek and MjolnirPants, can't you just admit at this point that what Darouet said about BBC and Reuters was accurate? VM in particular likes to quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so they should understand my frustration here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So in other words, Darouet said they always use the word "alleged" and VM proved that they didn't. Not that it would even matter, because one or two large media groups taking an editorial policy to prefer a certain phrasing doesn't change how they actually treat the subject, a discussion you and I have had numerous times over the past six months or so, and which I've observed you to have with numerous other editors over that time, as well. This issue was settled quite some time ago. The fact that there are a small handful of editors who continue to push this POV despite their arguments having been brought up and shot down countless times is evidence of nothing but that old, discredited canard about insanity. I suppose that might be of particular interest to you two, because it shows that a claim which is obviously false can still contain quite a bit of truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: No. This is getting so ridiculous, I can't actually believe you're just making an honest mistake any more. Darouet wrote, “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added). Read the bolded part of the quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Can you please stop replying to my post if you don't even read what I'm writing? My words unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials blatantly contradict your false paraphrase, they always use the word "alleged". -Darouet (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: that is some form of special pleading - every article I cited, and those VM linked as well, either demonstrate or are consistent with the fact that Reuters and BBC treat this as an unsubstantiated allegation. Your initial reaction to the quotes was to so blatantly misread the first that you declared you would read no more. Your attitude hasn't changed at all. You write here like you made up your mind a long time ago and no number of sources would ever convince you otherwise. We need to have some solution that involves outside parties here because this kind of conversation will go nowhere. -Darouet (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about the need for outside parties to get involved here. We're clearly at a point where no amount of reliable sourcing will change people's minds (see the Reuters/BBC thread above, where dozens of sources were met with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I don't know if dispute resolution is the correct venue, since it's frankly unlikely that many people will participate. Perhaps someone more familiar with the various community input mechanisms can propose a way forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious horse-beating rehashing minor issues and personal insults is not likely to make for attracting new editors here. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Anyone can read through the talk page (and the archives) and make up their own minds about who's been more civil here. I have no doubt about what a neutral third party would conclude. The issues raised above are not minor: whether to treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation or an established fact is a very basic question we have to get straight, because it affects how the entire article should be written. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: You can see my own position and the disputed sources being discussed here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Editorial policy: alleged -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Different sources have different editorial policies regarding the use of the word allegedly. We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you say which reliable sources constitute that preponderance? Also, if a significant number of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation, why should Wikipedia take a more confident position? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, rather than getting ahead of reliable sources like BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrghghgh. Stop it! We've done this. This isn't fucking Groundhog's Day where we relive the same damn discussion over and over and over and over and over and over again until it works out to your satisfaction. Your behavior is past being disruptive at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC

I'm not going to stop asking for sources. You and others keep saying things like, "We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS," without actually showing that that is the case. You basically want the article to be a certain way, without actually having to show that reliable sources support your preferred version. You just assert that they do, and complain when I ask you for sources. And when I or others who disagree with you show sources, you reject them out of hand (see the above discussion initiated by Darouet). That's what's disruptive here. If you'd just agree to deal with the sources, you wouldn't be living in Groundhog Day. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Channeling Sarah Palin..."all of 'em". SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Only use the talk page for discussion of article improvement. Responding with random jokes is disrespectful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the same answer that a couple of dozen other editors have given over a period of months. If one surveys "all of them" one finds the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream reports and discussions of the Russian interference does not express uncertainty as to the Russians' interference. The full details and connections to Trump and his associates are not yet demonstrated, and that's why we see those factors widely described as "suspected" "alleged" or whatnot. As a matter of fact, the juxtaposition of those two differentiated modes of reporting -- fact vs. allegation -- is the cat that eats the canary. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting all of our time. Back up your claims with actual citations or stop posting. Darouet showed that when it comes to BBC and Reuters, you're wrong. Obviously, Ars Technica has expressed doubt about the US government's case (see the Goodin article), and I've shown that major European papers, Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung, treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. I also showed the same for the Associated Press. That means that for at least five of the most influential news publications in the world, your assertion is wrong. Which papers treat "Russian interference" as fact, and why should we follow them instead of Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you really just accuse someone else of "wasting all of our time"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica reported that Trump fired Comey because the latter was not nice to Hillary Clinton. Did Le Monde and Reuters do the same? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• BBC uses alleged.

• The only ref in Süddeutsche Zeitung that I could find was an interview of Germany’s spy chief warning that Russian hackers are pelting his country with disinformation that could undermine the democratic process, echoing concerns already voiced by his domestic intelligence counterpart. [64]

• Here Le Monde states that the Democrats were hacked, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain En savoir plus sur, which is to say American intelligence imputed to the Russians, which is what this article says. It says that American intelligence announced the Russians hacked the Democrats; but it has yet to be tied to the Trump team. [65]

• Here’s the first related AP story I could find in the AP. [66]. It says: The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.. It doesn’t say alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can’t find any mention of alleged in this recent Reuters article. [67]

• I don’t even consider Ars Technica one of the better tech sites, much less a source of serious news.

Now, I just looked at your sources. Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into sources. Let's go through the ones you listed, keeping in mind Darouet's statement about the BBC and Reuters: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”.

• I agree about BBC (and Reuters, based on the sources above).
• Reuters gives a summary of a Süddeutsche Zeitung interview with the head of German foreign intelligence: [68]. When the Süddeutsche Zeitung interviews someone, there's no implication that the SZ agrees with the interviewee's statements. We can take Bruno Kahl's statements as a reflection of his own beliefs, but not as a reflection of the SZ's editorial position. This is in line with What Darouet said about BBC/Reuters: “they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added).
• The Le Monde article you linked does indeed talk of "piratages informatiques ciblant les démocrates, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain" (my translation: "hacks targeted at the Democrats, attributed to Russia by American intelligence services"). Le Monde very clearly attributes the view that Russia is responsible for the hacks to US intelligence, which is in line with what BBC and Reuters do. Le Monde doesn't take a stance on whether or not this attribution is correct. This is what I've found, in general, reading Le Monde.
• The AP wire you linked says that "The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election." That's what the Senate Judiciary subcommittee is investigating. I don't see any statement by AP that Russia interfered in the election. I just see a description of the subject of the investigation.
• The Reuters article you link specifically attributes the theories expressed in the article to US intelligence officials: "A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters" (emphasis added). This is entirely in line with what Darouet said above about Reuters and BBC.

If this were a straightforward matter of reliable sources treating Russian interference as a fact, it would be easy to find statements in all these publications explicitly saying things like, "Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and passed the documents on to Wikileaks." But what we've found here is that most reliable sources don't make any such explicit statement. They either use the word "alleged" (or some synonym) or attribute the view that Russia interfered in the election to the people making the claim (normally, US intelligence officials). I don't think we should get out ahead of reliable sources like BBC, Reuters, SZ and Le Monde, and make statements of fact that those sources seem unwilling to make. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged." The sources that do not use "alleged" are mostly quoting from US intelligence officials. When a newspaper quotes someone, it doesn't mean that the newspapers is endorsing that person's views. A major problem is that many editors here are taking such examples (where a newspaper says, "US intelligence officials say that ...") as evidence that newspapers treat "Russian interference" as a fact.

We have many examples of newspapers explicitly calling "Russian interference" an allegation. We have very few examples of them endorsing the view that "Russian interference" is a fact. I think the balance of reliable sourcing is clear now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So the only people willing to address my point agree with me? That can't be right, I'd better give it another day. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have two points with regard to your initial post: First, our widespread practice is to use WP:SECONDARY sources, in this case reputable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets that have reputations for fact checking. Second, your apparent interpretation that an influence campaign in U.S. elections by Russia is somehow substantively different than Russian interference in the U.S. elections underscores why we use secondary sources. Primary sources are far more vulnerable to being viewed through the lens of editor bias, education, intelligence, experiences, culture, and language. Allowing any random person on the internet to interpret primary sources whilst editing Wikipedia articles would erode the integrity of the information that we try to preserve. I imagine that we would become about as useful an encyclopedia as Conservapedia, the 56,319th most popular website on the planet, instead of being the 5th most popular website on the planet.- MrX 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand why secondary sources are used, the issue is that the assertion in question is falsely attributed to the primary source instead of those secondary sources. But the issue I brought up here has been so thoroughly derailed that I see no point in wasting any more time on it. Funny how that happens whenever anyone points out demonstrably false statements in political articles. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's ironic that one of the extraordinarily small number of editors still beating this dead horse months later has the gal to accuse others of wasting their time. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Current Washington Post lede

Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow

President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI director was the latest in a series of destabilizing jolts to core institutions of the U.S. government, actions that, although driven by the president, have in some ways amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its effort to undermine the 2016 presidential race. And while the Kremlin may have hoped for sanctions relief from the Trump administration, the tumult in the United States is a welcome alternative.

SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So what? Speculative opinion by a WaPo columnist stuck in a Cold War paranoid mentality, that's all. Do you really believe that the replacement of the FBI director is a "jolt to core institutions of the U.S. government"? The new French president abruptly replaced the head of their intelligence services, without even a justification, and nobody says it's a coup. The tumult in Washington may be fun to observe from afar, but it certainly doesn't undermine the U.S. institutions. Trump does irritate Washingtonians, who voted 95% for Clinton. — JFG ^talk 05:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That is the front page lead news story by a Pulitzer Prize winning news reporter in the Washington Post. The French bit is yet another straw man. Different law, precedent, context, and stated motivation. Misrepresentation is disrespectful to the community and to Mr. Miller. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And come on, even Trump's man Tillerson says they did it, without any 'alleged' in there [69]. I'm pretty sure even Trump agreed that they did it (I think the source for that is already in the article). The only question is how and why and who was involved. This is really a pointless discussion at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is really a pointless discussion at this point. I agree. I would like to point out that the onus for ceasing this endless argument lies on all editors involved, not just those pushing the minority POV. All of us should stop discussing this. I'm aware that the minority view is unlikely to heed my advice, but if the majority view does listen to me, the result will be the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion here [70] that NeilN consider whether reinstating the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision, which remains in place on most other ARBAP2 pages, would relieve us all of the edit-warring and the need to reply to repetitive minority arguments to change consensus. As it stands, when editors don't reply to each attempt to change consensus, silence is claimed to be assent and edit-warring ensues. The reinstatement of that provision would obviate these repetitive and needless rehash pile-ups. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How about asking for an admin to impose a "Silence is not assent" provision? This discussion has been going on for months. It is as old as this article, and the direction of the sources clearly favors the majority view. Hell, even without adding any provisions to the DS, one could place a note at the top of the page which would excuse 3RR violations which enforce the existing consensus. Something like "Note that other editors failing to respond to your proposal should not be taken as assent. If your proposal does not get any responses, you should check the page archives to see if it has been discussed previously, and you should abide by the decisions made there. I know for a fact that there are at least two RfC's in the archives covering the "alleged or not" argument. So that would solve that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants! I agree with you that the perennial disputes are as old as the article itself. When you exclude the occasional drive-by editors, there is a core constituency of people who would like to reflect a diversity of opinions about the article subject, and another core constituency who demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of "the mainstream view". That is imho not what a Wikipedia article should be. I have absolutely no problem laying out the majority view as dominant and widely accepted; I do have a problem when that view is the only one tolerated in the article. That creates a strong impression of systemic bias, which would be easily dispelled with a little less absolutism. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your description is correct, but lacking in one key detail. Namely that the consensus lies with the "core constituency" who, in your words "demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of 'the mainstream view'." With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus. But until you can make such a case, the continual arguing over how to describe this is never going to accomplish anything except adding to the list of conservative editors under sanctions in this area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And of course, the editors of the consensus view are not the ones who have been blocked and banned for disruption. It's fine for editors to hold personal opinions contrary to the mainstream, and it's conceivable that the rotation of the earth will change and Lee Harvey Oswald will confess to the hacking. Meanwhile, we need to find a way to avoid this intolerable waste of WP resources and editor attention. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Calling one core constituency the "consensus" is an exaggeration. The two constituencies are similar in size, with the "represent only the views of US intelligence" constituency being a majority, but by no means an overwhelming one. The "treat the issue with the same caution as BBC, Reuters, and most other major news outlets" constituency is a very significant minority here. "Consensus" suggests something more than a 60%/40% split, which looks to be approximately what we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet one side consistently looses all RfC's by the numbers (not to mention by the arguments, but since that's been explained to you a hundred times, I doubt doing so again is worth much). And for the record, a consensus is not a majority. You should know this by now. A consensus can still be a consensus with only 10% of the vote, if that 10% can shoot down the arguments of the 90% and a neutral third party is the one who declares it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfCs are typically close. There's clearly a large minority that's in favor of a less US-intelligence-centric presentation of the subject matter. Obviously, I don't agree with you that the majority view wins by the arguments. For example, the minority view pretty obviously has the stronger reliable-source-based argument, and has done much more to show what the sources say.

The issue hasn't been the weakness of the arguments of the minority side - it's simply been the numbers being roughly 60%/40%. These RfCs are almost always closed based on sheer vote count, not based on an analysis of the relative strength of the arguments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus." Sadly, this hasn't been the case. Above, Darouet went through BBC and Reuters reporting and showed quite clearly what their editorial stance is. That was brushed off (which was a great disrespect, in my opinion, since no one else on this talk page has done that much work to go through the source material). I went through a random assortment of press coverage of the issue a few months ago (here), but that also had no effect. Instead, I was accused of cherry-picking (I actually chose the first Google hits for the search phrase "Russian interference in us election"). That's why I'm baffled that every time this issue comes up, a number of editors show up and say things like, "We've already shown abundant RS that treat Russian interference as a fact." Looking through the archives of the talk page, the opposite is actually the case. The majority of the source work - seeing whether sources treat Russian interference as fact - has actually been done by the "constituency" that wants to present a range of views in the article. The other constituency has consistently blown off these discussions of reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My point above was that we need to STOP arguing about something you and yours stand no chance of winning. Whether you're ignoring that part of my comments for the sake of tendentiousness, managed to just completely miss the most obvious point of my comments or just can't help yourself really doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, and I'm going to keep advising everyone else to stop humoring you as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My point above is that no matter how many times we show that reliable sources, on balance, support a cautious approach to the subject matter, we're told to just give up the argument. I thought reliable sources were supposed to dictate how we cover an issue. Consistently brushing off any discussion of how reliable sources treat the subject, and then saying you're going to stop "humoring" this discussion, looks very much to me like a simple blockading approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the only who cares what it looks like to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we already knew your point above. Spoiler alert! Let's move on to the next content. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a fair number of editors care what it looks like, and a fair number of editors agree with my view about the systemic bias in this article. Refusing to address these issues doesn't make them disappear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough is enough. Even your own sources don’t always use the word alleged or any word like it. At this point, does anyone actually think there isn’t Russian interference in elections? Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” I don't know why, but you (and a few others) constantly ignore the bolded part of that sentence. Can you reply to the bolded part of the sentence? Do you agree that when a newspaper quotes or paraphrases someone, the newspaper isn't necessarily implying that that person is correct? If you agree, I don't see how you can use the absence of "alleged" in the articles you cited as evidence that Le Monde, Reuters, etc. treat "Russian interference" as something other than an allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously some editors do think that. But it doesn't matter because it's not a view supported by the sources, so can we please stop arguing about it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of thinking there wasn't Russian interference in the elections. It's a matter of not knowing whether there was Russian interference. Most reliable sources do not claim to know whether Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. That's been established pretty clearly by the above discussions about reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought I've already explained my views of your arguments about this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A GIF? A persuasive argument indeed. The above is really a great summary of your entire engagement here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

U mad, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

i think this article isn't very neutral

its about the language. for example instead of

"The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

it should be

"The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

--81.136.77.195 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but as you can see, this has been a point of contention for months on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, a "claim" is a statement made without evidence (e.g., Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped him), the US intelligence agencies have substantial evidence, so they drew conclusions based on the evidence. To say that Russian interference is a claim would be unsourced, non-neutral, and of course, false. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A claim can be made with evidence. It's simply a statement that is unproven. How much evidence US intelligence agencies actually have is unknown at this point. The publicly released evidence (e.g., in the JAR) is very sparse, and there's speculation that there may be weightier evidence that's classified. Almost all the available evidence comes from private security firms, at this point.

We don't really know what the intelligence agencies have concluded - we'd have to have telepathic powers or some inside information to know that. We know what they publicly state, and past experience shows that there's often a wide gulf between what intelligence agencies state publicly and internally assess (that's in the very nature of their being secretive organizations). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not our problem. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as it affects how we write the article, it is our problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Intelligence agencies concluded" is a statement of fact. One can dislike the fact, one can disagree with the conclusion, but that it is a fact is not something that can be negotiated. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that state that the United States government's intelligence agencies did NOT conclude the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections? If not, I don't understand your point. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Claims can be made without evidence but conclusions presume evidence. In this case, intelligence weighed evidence, so conclusion is a better description. Since conclusions are not necessarily correct or even reasonable, I don't think the term is inaccurate. If evidence shows they are wrong, we would change it to "wrongly concluded." TFD (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues with the lead that doesn't seem neutral. The word interfere seems to mean too many things also and needs more information. The intelligence reports more likely showed they were trying to influence the election. So using influenced is more likely what he intelligence documents were saying. The media outlets and others are sensationalizing the story and making it into a bigger story than the intelligence reports actually found. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's actually exactly why "interfered" is better than "influenced". The latter implies that it had an actual effect. The former only that there was an attempt - whether successful or not - at influence. So I think you got it backwards. Also "media outlets", at least those which meet our criteria, is exactly what we use as reliable sources. So you're not going to get far by asking Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources because you happen personally to believe they are "sensationalizing" something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess I should say trying to influence. That implies that they tried to but doesn't mean they actually did. Interfere sounds more substantial to me than influence the election. I guess we are now talking semantics on this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

semantics is essential. Without meaning we can say nothing. Influenced is a causal term that implies an effect. Interfered means actions were taken to influence the election outcome, but it does not imply that these actions actually influenced the outcome. I think what you may be getting at is that "interfered" carries with it intent whereas "influenced" does not imply intent. However, sources clearly establish intent on the part of the Russian government. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess I should become a lawyer because it looks like an be an argument of meaning and definitions of words here. The word influenced might carry with it intent because they intended to do effect the election which is the same as interfere which also carries intent of changing something in the election. Influence simply means they were trying to influence the voter and participants of the election. They weren't actually trying to interfere with the actual election itself though. Interference seems to be more of a forceful action of doing something. In any case there can be intent with either one. You can intend to influence an election and also intend to interfere in an election. Its not about intent but more about the actions which were specifically took and the evidence that supports it with the sources. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be worth asking yourself; can you imagine a situation in which one party was "trying to influence" something without "interfering" in it? From where I sit, the only way to attempt to influence something without interfering would be prayer. And if you believe in God, then whether or not you've interfered by praying becomes an arguable point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, not a lawyer. You should become a Philosopher or a priest. But we're not lawyers or philosophers here. Just lowly editors -- most of us with no particular opinion as to the underlying facts and events. Just scouring reliable sources for the mainstream narrative. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well there is differences in the words obviously and how they are being used. It seems that interference has more of an action with it and different intention with it. The definition of interfere is more about trying to stop a process or something from occurring with it. It has more of an effect on the thing happening and what is occurring. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't the with the intelligence community conclusions, the problem is the completely synthesized relationship to the Trump campaign and the investigations around Russian influence. There simply is no current link and to synthesize one is beyond what a neutral encyclopedia should be. --DHeyward (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

Somehow, I doubt that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the problem seems to be that some news media sources dont even use those intelligence conclusions. They make up their own conclusions. Then this being wikipedia they are allowed to have them as sources and be used on here with little thought. Simply because they have been granted almighty status because they are media companies. Fox news can also say what they want and many on the other side would scream bloody murder if they were used. So I guess it can go both ways with this. Aaroneditor1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence (not just media reports) that U.S. intelligence agencies either concluded or claimed that Russia interfered in U.S. elections? If not, why do so many editors insist on attributing that assertion (instead of the one actually made in the cited intelligence report) to U.S. intelligence agencies instead of media reports? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence of this includes the released IC assessment. Media reports from reliable outlets are adequate, too. GAB^gab 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to the same IC assessment cited by those media reports, it does not in fact say that, as I assume you know. If you're referring to a different IC assessment, please provide a link. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why reliable sources all saying "they concluded X" isn't enough evidence that they concluded X. If there is that broad of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, then any attempt to get around it on a public part of the internet is doomed to failure, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Because we have access to the very same primary sources cited by and used by those supposedly reliable sources. They're not suppressing the truth, they're just relying on the fact that they can cite a primary source, even provide a link to it, and still get by with claiming it says something it doesn't because their intended audience won't bother to check because they like getting spoonfed. Wikipedia can bother to check. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources should at least be examined more. Do you trust Fox news as a reliable source? Some people do and others don't. So the definition of a reliable sources doesn't mean much unless you are able to look at them more. Also the intelligence reports say influence from what I have seen in them. They don't mention anything more or the impact of what occurred. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For simple statements of fact, I do trust Fox News. Do you know why? Because Fox News has a habit of getting simple statements of fact right. It's when you get into their opinions and their overall portrayal of politicized news events that they become questionable sources. But NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (etc, etc...)? They have a habit of getting the overall portrayal of politicized news events right, and giving well-informed opinions. I understand skepticism; I'm a skeptic. But the current fad among the extremes of the political spectrum to distrust the "mainstream media" isn't skepticism, it's a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Its because nobody trusts the supposedly reliable sources. This is not an appropriate argument or believable. If you have a problem with what is considered a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Such discussions cannot be played out on every talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The criteria for reliable sources are right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of the previous points on corrections to the opening sentence:

1. "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded.." - not all of them. In fact, not even MOST of them. This should be changed to "Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded...". To use the current sentence is to state that all sixteen coordinated, which isn't true.

2. "...the Russian government interfered..." - this is not fact, it's speculation. The declassified information from the three intelligence agencies concludes that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." (from page 7 of the official document). Whether their efforts were actually effective in altering the election is speculation. There are many who believe that the Russian campaign had no impact on the election results and therefore did not interfere. The official document only uses the word "interfere" twice, neither of which are used to describe Russia's actions. "Interfere" is the wrong word.

Both of the above changes are factual. Consequently, the entire sentence should be changed to...

"Three of the United States' sixteen intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government, led by Vladimir Putin, ordered a campaign with the intent of influencing the 2016 United States Presidential Election." droxford —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The current opening sentence is supported by reliable sources. Your suggestion is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My suggestions are supported by the official document that was released by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Try reading it. It's only 25 pages long. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The article should state fact. It should not be used as propaganda. droxford —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've proven that I'm right. You're ignorant to reality and facts. Droxford (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The reality is that if you call other editors ignorant, they will ignore you, at best. "I’m right and you’re ignorant" is not a very good argument. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My retort was appropriate for his in-depth and thorough "you are wrong" response. If he wants to respond childishly, perhaps I should have responded with "you're wrong infinity". However I believe it's better for all to keep this discussion at a higher level.

Regarding the article, I stand by my statements. The change should be made to ensure that the article presents factual information, not personal agenda. Droxford (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First, personal attacks are very likely to get you blocked from editing, and absolutely no-one here has the slightest bit of respect for an editor who has to rely on them to make their case. The are only "appropriate" to an editor who's trying to get blocked.

Second, your argument above is pure original research, and completely unusable. The reliable sources all agree that all 17 agencies lent their weight. You aren't telling me I'm wrong, you're telling every reputable journalist who has covered this report that they're wrong, not to mention the hordes of intelligence agents who haven't been blowing the same trumpet you're tooting here.

When all 17 intelligence agencies agree on a conclusion, but only three send representatives, that does not, in any way indicate that only those three agree on the conclusion. How the ever loving hell you need this explained to you is completely beyond me. But apparently you're in luck, because politifact took a turn at the claim in the lead when Clinton said it. Spoiler alert: You're wrong.

Deal with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Seems to me that Droxford has a point: when pressed on this question of "17 agencies" in various interviews and Senate testimonies, Brennan, Clapper and Comey all said that only 3 agencies contributed to the reports on Russian interference: FBI, CIA and NSA (which makes sense, as they all have relevant competence). Separately, the ODNI does supervise all intelligence agencies, and those facts were conflated as a campaign talking point to say "all 17 agencies agree that Russia did it" whereas the facts of the matter are that the ODNI made that assessment and you can't find anywhere in their report that 17 agencies somehow contributed, expressed an opinion or even were consulted. The Politifact evaluation you cite doesn't say anything different (emphasis mine): We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. — JFG ^talk 03:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Campaign? SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, campaign: the Russia-WikiLeaks claims first surfaced on July 25, 2016, at the opening of the Democratic convention, just a couple days after WikiLeaks had published the DNC emails. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats Then Clinton emphasized the "17 intelligence agencies" claim during the third presidential debate. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/ and media coverage picked up from there. Compare a news search for "17 intelligence agencies" and "Russia" from January to September 2016[82] with the same search for just October 2016.[83] — JFG ^talk 06:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A candidate stating a fact doesn't make it a campaign talking point. Let's not tell the intelligence agencies how to do their work. Let's just report what they say, as scrutinized and verified by RS. This point has been hashed and rehashed here so many times it would help not to bring it up any further here. WP editors' theories about how the US intelligence services "should" conduct themselves is of no interest to our users. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh? "Let's just report what they say"? That's exactly my point! The head of the intel agencies said under oath that the report was compiled by FBI, CIA and NSA, nobody else. There is no "WP editors' theories" behind this at all... — JFG ^talk 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG I refer you to my comment here. Even ignoring that completely insurmountable objection to this edit, it's still not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The simple fact is; when the spokesman for an agency speaks for that agency, they are speaking for that agency. That you've "uncovered" the fact that only three of the agencies worked on the report only shows that three of the agencies worked on the report. It doesn't indicate, in any way -as such an edit would- that the other agencies disagreed with them or even held no opinion on the matter. Indeed, we have a statement prepared on behalf of the entire US intelligence community which states quite clearly the lack of any disagreement, whatsoever. Neither of you have, nor can prove that no-one in any other agency did not review the report and endorse it, for example. I know you both see this as "there's no evidence that any of the other agencies had anything to do with this," but that's simply not an accurate view of this report. The authors were explicitly speaking for the entire community, as evinced not only in the report but in the reliable third-party coverage of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not me saying it, it's the DNI director in charge. Clapper's Senate testimony, May 8, 2017, his opening statement:

As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term. The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/ — JFG ^talk 05:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Product of" != "statement by" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Right: the reports were a product of the FBI, CIA and NSA research, and the conclusive assessment was a statement by the DNI. I fail to see why people are so hung up on this "17 agencies" myth. — JFG ^talk 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's stated by multiple reliable sources, and never contested. Reminder: Nothing in that quote you provided contradicts any of the possibilities I mentioned above. This is analogous to a situation in which a company (let's say Google) takes a contract to provide some service to another company (let's say Amazon). Six months later, the CEO of Google could say "only these three out of our 17 departments have directly provided services to Amazon," but that in no way implies that other departments within Google aren't going to provide services, aren't required to provide services, or that the heads of those departments would argue that the contract doesn't include their departments. You've provided evidence that 14 agencies weren't involved in working on the report, but you're using that to claim that 14 agencies have nothing to do with the report. That's OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Methinks you're grasping at straws... There are plenty of reliable sources who say the world is real and atoms are a thing, but nothing in the scientific body of knowledge contradicts the hypothesis that we all live in a simulation. By Occam's Razor, we do live in reality and the 14 intelligence agencies that are never mentioned played absolutely no role in building or endorsing the reports. Note that this fact doesn't remove an ounce of credibility to the IC assessment; if anything, it would reinforce it, because the FBI, CIA and NSA are certainly more qualified than the Marine Corps Intelligence to opine on Russia's nefarious cyber-schemes. — JFG ^talk 16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Forget Occam's Razor. This is Jack the Ripper. RS reflect how the intelligence community works and collaborates and if there were a dissenting view among them, this would be reported and could perhaps be relevant to the article. Or perhaps not, because it didn't happen so we have no way of knowing about something that didn't happen and wasn't reported by RS. SPECIFICO talk

Agree with SPECIFICO. This is a waste of time and parsing hairs. The 17 agencies are 17 agencies and this is what reliable sources say. To debate otherwise without suggesting any sources to back up claims to the contrary is a waste of time without reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You can think whatever you want, it won't make you right. Your analogy is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not sure if you noticed that or not, but the unsupported hypothesis that there's no evidence against is yours, not mine. The report explicitly speaks for the entire intelligence community, something which I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. I'll be the first to admit that it's not overwhelming or even particularly compelling evidence that, for example, INSCOM agrees with the report, but it is evidence. On the other hand, you keep offering evidence that might mean I'm wrong about an implication I've made, if you interpret my remarks in a certain way and interpret that evidence in another, certain way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is yet another dispute I don't understand. It's perfectly clear to everyone here that three agencies (not seventeen) were involved in producing the report. That's what Clapper said rather explicitly in his testimony (and I see no reason why he would have lied about such a trivial detail), and it's also pretty obvious that the Coast Guard Intelligence wasn't involved. We're just repeating a campaign line that we know is factually wrong. Why? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP does not publish the beliefs of its editors or what they can and can't understand. Let's stick to the mainstream of RS reporting. This is the US National Intelligence Assessment and it presents the conclusion of 17 agencies based on whatever however manyofthem shared with the other howevermanyofthem. That's what RS say. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO. To do anything different would be to violate WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no "belief of editors" involved. Quoting the ODNI's own report and Clapper's sworn statements is not "original research". Again, look at the ODNI report of January 2017, section "Scope":

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. […] When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

That same report doesn't say anything about "17 intelligence agencies", it doesn't even contain the number 17 or the word "seventeen". When it talks about intelligence agencies, it says: "All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." Again, not a word on other agencies.

Add Clapper's sworn testimony of May 7: As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office.

Since January, there has been no further report or statement contradicting this fact. It's high time Wikipedia reflects reality (which again, is perhaps even more convincing than the "17 agencies" myth, but that's a matter for individual judgment). — JFG ^talk 09:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants - you are flat-out wrong. The report does not "explicitly speak for the intelligence community." It NEVER states that, or anything similar to that. If I'm wrong about this, please cite the section in the report that you're referring to.

The report DOES explicitly state (in the Scope section on page i) that "this report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among the CIA, FBI, and NSA, which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies." This sentence is a clear and explicit OMISSION of all other intelligence agencies.

This article should not continue to obfuscate this clear fact. Do not bend the truth. Droxford (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary reliable sources over primary sources when available, partly to avoid original research issues. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Revelation of classified information to Russia

This section should be returned. [84] . I think multiple sources (I don't have time to find sources right now) will discuss Trump's revelation of classified information in the context of Russian supporting Trump in the election. Given he did this the day after he fired Comey, I think the section is highly relevant to the article and should be returned.Casprings (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, if this article was called "Trumps links with Russia" I would agree, at best this warrants a see also and a link to just such an article. This article is about the election, and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this event should be in the article, to the extent that it's supported by the RS that make the connection with the Russian interference in US governance. I'm also very disappointed that this content it would be removed with an edit summary that falsely refers to this as a "diplomatic" incident (like whether Melania failed to wear above-the-elbow gloves with a sleeveless gown to dinner at the Court of St. James.) None of the RS reports on this matter have mischaracterized the national security issues as a "diplomatic" breach. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the elections. It also has its own article now so I'm not sure there's much else we need to do here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it doesn't belong in this article. It's part of Trump's far too cozy relationship with Russia, but not part of the election. Let's stay on topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong here. Unless something new comes up that links this incident to the election it should remain in Presidency of Donald Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here, albeit briefly. A short one para section is sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? It has no connection to the election and is therefore off-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. What does this have to do with "[Alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? This article isn't supposed to be "Trump, Russia, you connect the dots." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RS treatment of the story will guide us as to whether this is associated with the topic of Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If and when that happens, we can restore the content. Until then, it should stay in its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with BullRangifer and SPECIFICO. This isn't related unless and until RSes say it's related. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if they say that Donnie's choice to do this is related to the Russian hacking during the election, fine. But not if they just say "another example of Donnie's ties to Russia". As this is about the election, not Donnie's ties to Russia. But they must make an explicit link, not implied or hinted at, explicit. They must say the two are linked not just mention both incidents in the same article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. Simply mentioning both subjects in a source article is not sufficient.- MrX 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus to keep this out for now, consistent with my initial edit summary "Removed off-topic section; sources do not connect this diplomatic incident to Russian election interference". Isn't it refreshing that most editors can agree on something? Sorry for SPECIFICO that this affair doesn't rise to a full-blown diplomatic incident yet. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The events described in the removed text are no more of a diplomatic incident than this discussion is. That's not just OR, that's really bad OR. So please don't snipe at SPECIFICO because they happen to agree with you. It's incentivizing them not to do so in the future, and it reflects poorly on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My remark was meant as an olive branch, celebrating a rare moment of consensus on this page, in the spirit of your very useful User:MjolnirPants/clarify. Beer time! — JFG ^talk 21:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The elections are over. Unless we are talking about Obama's decision to share highly classified information with Russia in 2016 during the election, and the subsequent Russian attacks on our Free Syrian allies utilizing Obama's briefing, this meeting with Trump had nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Apparently, on the basis of "consensus"! So, the utterances of the US "intelligence community" (without evidence) are to be taken as fact on Wikipedia? The folk who brought us WMD in Iraq and helped overthrow Democratically elected Governments across the globe? And this propagandist bull is by the collective that decided the English Daily Mail is an "unreliable source"??? Lmfao Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that you disregarded or were not aware of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:WEASEL, and evidently did not read many, or possibly any, sources. Sorry, but your edit was bad.- MrX 20:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

AS long as we say "The US has said" yes we can say that is what they have said.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: WP:ALLEGED (related to WP:WEASEL) says that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined".

@Slatersteven: I agree that we can (and should) relay the accusations made by US intelligence officials and agencies. The issue is when these claims are presented as facts, and when any and all dissenting/critical views are removed from the article. A number of editors have been pushing the view that using "alleged," or any such hedging language, is inherently a violation of WP:WEASEL or WP:ALLEGED, and that we must therefore present accusations as fact. This is clearly a misreading of policy, which would have absurd consequences if followed throughout Wikipedia.

@Sarah777: There definitely is a systemic problem throughout this article, in that it represents the views of US intelligence, and generally excludes critical views. You can review the talk page archives to see how this has played out across many subtopics within the article. Generally, anything that criticizes or casts doubt on US intelligence claims has been removed from the article, while every claim of a Russian connection gets exhaustive treatment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Except we do not say it is a fact the Russians interfered, we say that US intelligence has said it is a fact. That is acceptable, what we should do is also say that people dispute this.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree with you, both in that we should say US intelligence has made the claim and that various people dispute the claims or express doubt. The problem is that:

1. The article presents US intelligence claims in a way that makes them sound like they're coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice (see, for example, how the body of the article begins with a long quote from US intelligence, without any context or introduction - that's highly unusual, and there are editors who have reverted any attempt to introduce the quote with some explanatory text).

2. Critical / doubting views have been systematically removed from the article (see, for example, the removal of Goodin's analysis, or of William Binney's skeptical comments).

Also, note that in the comment directly below, MrX makes the extraordinary claim that Russian interference is a proven fact, something that is not supportable by the bulk of RS reporting. The fact that a number editors believe strongly that "Russian interference" is proven, and have been pushing hard for the article to reflect that belief, is the underlying cause for the two problems I list above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: "Alleged" is not appropriate for this article because wrongdoing has been asserted and determined. Let's please not WP:REHASH.- MrX 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You're just dead wrong about that. I frankly can't believe you're claiming that the wrongdoing is "determined." We've been through the reliable sources above (BBC, Reuters, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Associated Press), most of which treat this as an open question (and in fact, all the RSes I listed in parentheses do so). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That has been contradicted, and we have already had this discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You can say that as many times as you'd like, but every time we've had this conversation, the sources have overwhelmingly shown that reliable sources do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact. But every time we have the same source discussion, the editors who apparently believe otherwise get frustrated and declare we've already settled the issue - despite the overwhelming RS evidence from BBC, Reuters, AP, etc. that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation of unknown truth. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In one aspect I agree, wew need to reword that opening paragraph (of the body, we already do this in the lead) to make it clear that this is the US intelligence communities, and not Wikipedias, opinion.

Well, one thing we can take as fact on reading this article is that it isn't the Russian Intelligence Community who control the narrative but it certainly appears to be controlled by an Intelligence Community. Seems that whenever the authoritative voice of Wikipedia is speaking about issues pertaining to US military and geopolitical establishments ("communities") - the voice becomes becomes that of a puppet. Which makes some of decisions Wiki takes in relation to other media outlets looking a bit hypocritical. Sarah777 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And as regards the ludicrous assertion that Russian interference has been "determined" - an impeccably mainstream outlet, RTE, the national broadcaster in Ireland, always use the term "alleged Russian interference". And RTE is no fan of either Trump or Russia - to put it mildly Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus Wikipedias hypocrisy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As to RTE, "always"?[85] "when US intelligence discovered a Russian plot to interfere in the presidential election.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

And this: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html Casprings (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow.- MrX 21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. This will be in all the relevant RS by tomorrow. Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Report confirmed by wsj: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-asked-comey-to-drop-flynn-investigation-according-to-memo-written-by-former-fbi-director-1494974774?mod=e2tw Casprings (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See also, Comey memo.- MrX 00:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Might need to move if other Comey memos appear. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem—we can just add an s.- MrX 00:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Name Change?

As this articles continues to become more and more about the investigations that are following the Russian interference, should we think about changing the name of the article. If so, what to?Casprings (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest Investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. That would be more in line with article contents. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support as it brings the article more in tune with the nature of investigative methodology, i.e. LAW; in this case, including Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938.

Would not support that. Way too long and odd.Casprings (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be called, Russian influence rather than interference. Almost all media in Western countries was against Trump and was also influencing the US elections to be against Trump, particularly European and Australian Media, but this is not considered to be "interference" but influencing. 202.142.36.223 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? we have many articles that cover the results and events that came after something and do not call them "the Kennedy assassination investigation", what we do is create a new article if the material is overburdening this one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any need for an article name change. The current title is clear, descriptive, and accurate.- MrX 11:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page, which one would assume defines the topic, reads:

• "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

Hence, the page title should, manifestly, be changed to "What the US intelligence agencies think about the possibility of Russian interference". Failing that, as requested by several people on this page, can we have a proper introductory sentence, which explains the full scope of the topic, and points out that investigations are ongoing, and then addresses, without prioritising any above all others, what various bodies, including but not limited to intelligence agencies, have said about alleged interference? The Kennedy assassination page, for example, does not start by simply declaring what the Warren Commission concluded – and that was a completed investigation. It's hard to see what is motivating the endless obstructionism on this point beyond politics and personal beliefs about what has happened tbh. This should be pretty basic stuff. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We should not obfuscate the title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA will explain why. I'm very open to exploring a better lead sentence that better describes the scope of the article.- MrX 17:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose name change. People have been proposing name changes for years and years now. Like since the times of Paul Revere. Sagecandor (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it feels like decades! Thanks for teaching me about Paul Revere. You never know what you'll learn each day on Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why the removal of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll"?

On what basis is User:Volunteer Marek's addition of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll" removed? Whether it really is a joke is questionable, because Ryan treated it as serious. It really makes no difference, even if it were a joke, because it's reliably sourced, extremely notable, widely covered, and should be restored. (It's a bombshell revelation which appears to show Ryan engaging in both obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That's pretty serious.)

As the source said, Putin is known to financially support the campaigns and personal pockets of right wing populists like Trump. (Trump is not known to ever refuse money, especially laundered money from Russian mobsters, as well as money from Russian business interests and Russian banks. There was a long period where he was essentially bankrupt and no American banks would loan him money, and most of his funds came from the named Russian sources.)

So, just document what happened. That's our obligation. Censorship of such a notable event is a serious violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer that it is notable and should be included. I also don't quite understand why it was removed on the basis that it was a joke. Have reliable sources concluded that it was indeed a joke? Otherwise, what is the basis for that conclusion? And even if we somehow know whether it was really a joke or not, a joke that has stirred up news-worthy controversy and has been reported on by reliable sources is still worthy of inclusion. However, we should certainly include that spokespeople have defended the comments, saying it was just a joke (which the previous version did). Bennv3771 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this is actually pretty minor, and whilst we are not sure if it waqs a joke, we also cannot be sure it was not (after all do we know the context for the comment).

This might give a clue its a joke

“There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.”

Generally people do not laugh at (or when making) such serious allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous content can be cut down. As for whether it's a joke or not, right now, the only reliable source who have access to the audio recording is the Washington Post, and their stance is: "It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally." As for the laughter...according to Washington Post, McCarthy wasn't the one laughing, "Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”" Bennv3771 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And none of your have ever done something similar, when being sarcastic? This really is a nothing blown up out of all proportions. Lets keep this article above the level of the "shouty sheets" shall we, we are not a red top lets not become one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Even in the most charitable interpretation they're making jokes about treason. Anyway, still not seeing a reason for removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the "most charitable interpretation" is that they are making jokes about what they think is a silly accusation, and the reason it should not be included is that we are not a news paper or scandal site, we are an encyclopedia. This adds absolutely zero to our understanding of what (or if) happened. It is just a distraction that will make this article (and this Wikipedia) look like just a bunch of partisan hacks out for any bit of salacious tattletale.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

At least one person who was present at the conversation disagrees with you. As do reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so would you like to provide the quotes that dispute that either this was not clealry meant as a joke or that it should be here on Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the source, the primary document and the original text of this article - look for the comments by Evan McMullin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be included, but it needs to be rewritten. The composition in the version that was removed was rhetorical. It was trying to convince that reader that the conversation was real and serious. That is not how encyclopedic content should be written. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The conversation was real. I don't know about "serious" but it wasn't the purpose of the text to convey that. Just to reflect the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: This revert does not reflect consensus. Editors are just starting to debate here, a) whether this should be included, and b) how it should be written. Please self-undo until more people chime in. — JFG ^talk 15:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is your second revert. Whoops. — JFG ^talk 15:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And when I restored it pretty much everyone here said "why is this being removed, it could use some tweaking". So yeah, that's consensus especially for such a spurious removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You have a peculiar definition of "everyone". — JFG ^talk 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Like others, struggling to see how this fits into a serious encyclopedic entry on the topic. Simply citing "RS" isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page, even if some editors tell the rest of us how much they like it and how important and relevant it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy governing this matter is WP:TRIVIA. It's an editorial call based on how RS treat a matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS (as in this case), or is covered by multiple RS (also this case), then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinion doesn't matter. We must mention it. The current content may need some revision, but it should be included. Its significance is shown in the WaPo article:

"The conversation provides a glimpse at the internal views of GOP leaders who now find themselves under mounting pressure over the conduct of President Trump. The exchange shows that the Republican leadership in the House privately discussed Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and Trump’s relationship to Putin, but wanted to keep their concerns secret. It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally.

"The House leadership has so far stood by the White House as it has lurched from one crisis to another, much of the turmoil fueled by contacts between Trump or his associates with Russia."

The next step is to tweak it and return it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer wrote: We must mention it. No, there is no policy that says Wikipedia must mention everything that makes the front page of the Washington Post. We are building an encyclopedia, not a political gazette. Look up the ten-year test. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yea and it passes that test.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, not mentioning it when the RSes devote serious coverage to it is pretty much the definition of an WP:NPOV vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I am not sure it is quite that clear cut. So lets make it easy. We can discus the details once we are sure we should even include it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And WP:TRIVIA is part of the MoS guideline about trivia sections. It is not a policy and has no relevance here at all. As I said, "Simply citing 'RS' isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page". All BullRangifer and VM have done in response to that entirely legitimate point is to say we have to do exactly that, while mis-citing another wiki-acronym on top. There are judgments to make about weight, relevance and significance etc (where there are actual relevant policies). As noted, there is no "must". N-HH talk/edits 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Which acronym have I mis-cited? And as to your point, it may have had a chance of being valid if this was a source or too, but this is very widely covered stuff. Indeed, it's very widely covered stuff in midst of a news cycle that is swamped with breaking stories. Hence very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we include this material (in some form)

Support

• Support, as noteworthy and widely reported discussion of legislative branch oversight and evaluation of potential outside interference in the operation of democratic processes. Encyclopedic, quite notable in its own right, and discussed in-depth among multiple reliable sources from varying viewpoints. Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support with rewording. As I mentioned above, the wording that was removed was too rhetorical. It needs to be detached. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. Until I started reading some sources (beyond the initial Washington Post report), I was leaning slight toward opposing including this content. However, sources like this[86][87][88][89] make the connection. Specifically, Paul Ryan's spokesman saw fit to mention it. As an aside, I think it's unlikely that the the conversation was a joke, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of legislators joking about it.- MrX 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in some form; as above, document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. This has received extensive coverage in high-quality sources, ties directly to the article topic, and the weight is appropriate. The users opposing inclusion give a number of labels ("silly"; "trash reporting"; "unencyclopedic") but basically never explain how or why this is so. As for the argument that "it may have been a joke" — well, sure, we should explain that in text (and in fact do), but that's no reason to exclude. Neutrality^talk 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a joke, but extremely important information, and it has been treated as such in RS. Why this is so important? Because the discussion among very top Republicans (no matter if they "joked" or not) shows they knew about the conflict of interest for a long time, but wanted to hide it. That is how this matter was interpreted in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:GNG. This is widely reported and tied to the Russian interference in the election. Why not include it? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - for monkey's sake, it's a significant part of the story reported widely in top quality sources. I realize that a few even more shocking stories have come out recently which overshadow that one but notability and relevance is not relative. This is notable, it's well sourced, it's relevant - the only reason, regardless of the actual pretext the 'opposes' invent, I can see for removing it is the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)]
• Support Directly relates to the subject. Of course you can include his arguments for why it isn't a big deal as long as you include the other side. That said, it is directly tied to the election interference by Russia as they were coming out of a briefing on a related subject.Casprings (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, because, as RS have noted, it gives important insights into the conspiratorial thinking of the GOP at the time. Leadership put party over country and was willing to accept and support a potentially compromised candidate. That situation is part of what makes it relevant for this article. Rather than acting on the suspicion, they doubled down on their support, and as more information, even classified information, became known to them (before the public), they still supported him, and thus they are also compromised by Putin. The "gang of eight" got top level information, yet McConnell ordered silence, rather than action, so the conspiracy of silence continued.

  It's covered in multiple RS in a serious manner, and not treated at all as trivia. To ignore it is a violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose – Unencyclopedic Washington gossip. Glad to include (in short form) if it survives a week. — JFG ^talk 16:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Largely speculative as to it's seriousness, and most likely as lam joke among "friends". Sure RS are reporting it, but how many as a genuine issue rather then as a silly season story that will have no legs?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose silly nonsense, putin pays trump, what trash reporting. Also sad to see that Marek user edit warring his content back in the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I suspect that this actually was a joke, in which case it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - actual reliable sources are denied here but this is OK? Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think a user has breached the rules, report then. Please do not discus it here as it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, what's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And "what trash reporting" is not a policy based !vote. So it can be safely discounted and ignored in closing this poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC item (May 18th)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39957358 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

what are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

parody

Not productive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this comment is off topic, but I thought it would be fun to do a parody of this article over on en.uncyclopedia.co, if anyone is interested and wants to help. I started one. Michael9422 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-Comey opinion poll

Today Benwitt added a new poll and Geogene reverted it, saying "(thought we weren't going to expand the opinion polling section?" While I agree that excessive polls are not necessary, I believe that the dismissal of James Comey is a sufficiently significant event to have an impact on public opinion on this affair. Therefore a poll taken after the dismissal is warranted and informative to readers. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I found a Quinnipiac poll from today (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2460) about Comey. I will add it later today if you don't mind. Thanks -Benwitt

NYTimes: Trump told Russians firing Comey eased pressure

This will quickly spread to all relevant RS; but it’s based on only one source and the original source was oral, which is bothersome. I think an official response is needed. [90] Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not dispute the comments to the Times.". Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. These are according to official White House records, corroborated by two inside sources. Several news sources are reporting it.- MrX 19:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is remarkable. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Agent Registration Act and Russian-speaking members of AIPAC

This is not a forum. Objective3000 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems there is a higher-than-normal ratio of Russian, Slavic, or Yiddish speaking member of AIPAC than other Lobby groups focused on in the current investigation. Are they not one and the same, and doesn`t this need to be thouroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If not, why not? Liberty and Justice FOR ALL. This smacks of Neo-Conservative Neo-Liberal McCarthyism with an Islamophic twist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.200.105.194 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see User talk:125.200.105.194 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_violations_by_Conspiracy_theory_user_spamming_links_to_AIPAC_and_anti-Israel_on_unrelated_pages for more on this user. Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

can you add in see also " Israel interference in the 2016 United States elections ? or at least put it somehow ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources or it didn't happen… Off-topic too. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"See also" links to McCarthyism, etc.

I have removed the addition of "see also" links to McCarthyism and Propaganda in the United States.

I'm happy to talk about this further, but this seems baldly POV to me; it suggests (in Wikipedia's voice) that this topic is related to those topics, and that's a very contentious (and indeed rather fringe) point of view. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how either of those subjects are related to this one. Augurar, perhaps you could explain?- MrX 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like POV to me. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

POV unless good sources are provided. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

The recent investigation material has moved around in the article because of several edits attempting to reorganize the content. I question whether the recent report that a Trump advisor is being investigated belongs under "Investigation by Special Counsel". None of the source articles that I've read specify that. Are we assuming that any ongoing FBI investigation of this falls under the Special Counsel investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Special Counsel is essentially picking up the investigation where the FBI left off and possibly amplifying it, so yes it makes sense. — JFG ^talk 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. The investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation. Are we documenting all three phases? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Right now, 'Investigation by Special Counsel' is a third level section under '2017 Developments'. In my opinion, there should be a level two 'Investigations' section broken down further, either chronologically, or (my preference) by 'Criminal investigation' and 'Counterintelligence investigation'. The investigations are a very significant aspect of this subject, and most of the future coverage will likely fall under that category. This is a complex subject. Coming up with a consistent structure is going to be important to making sure the article is informative to our readers.- MrX 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article

I'm beginning to think we should expand the logical scope of this article to something like this:

• Russian meddling in the 2016 United States elections and its aftermath

We can't document collusion yet, but there is abundant evidence in RS of a very close relationship between the Trump administration, including Trump, and Russian officials of various types, including the meeting in the Oval Office, a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes. We need to be able to include material related to the aftermath. What think ye? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't fit. Keep the title and scope as they are, please. Title now suits the WP:COMMONNAME of a well-known topic scope. Using a different title would noserve. And adding random bits just because they have 'Russian' in it also doesn't fit the much more common scope. Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: "a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes", really? That's quite an extraordinary assertion. Is Trump not friendly to basically everyone he meets, be they American, British, Saudi, Russian and even yeah Mexican?

On your scope question, I agree that this article has kept ballooning out of scope. The fix is not to rename it but rather to move all the Trump–Russia collusion stuff into another article, leaving this one to deal with the Russian hacking, propaganda, counter-propaganda and consequences; basically stopping at the December expelling of Russian diplomats. — JFG ^talk 07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The aftermath is within the scope of the article, but the title doesn't need to reference it. At some point, there will probably be indictments, prosecutions, impeachment proceedings, and resignations that require us to WP:SPINOFF one or more articles.- MrX 12:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the section below, I think at some point we'll get an article on the investigation itself and that will effectively accomplish what you propose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That all makes sense. The aftermath is automatically covered within the existing scope, and if there is enough content, we spin it off into its own article. Natural developments will determine what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft split

I think there's a good case to split the article now. I have created a draft here: Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, please take a look. This article would then focus solely on the Russian interference topic, basically keeping everything that I haven't moved into the draft. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with the need divide the article. Those two subjects are way to inter-related for two articles.Casprings (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought before trying, but taking our current contents paragraph by paragraph, I noticed that the collusion issues were clearly separated from the interference issues. Please take a second look. Obviously, each article should prominently point to the other; in my draft the first lead sentence points directly back here; if we endorse the split, then the lead of this article should naturally point to the collusion article. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Voter registration hacking

The article appears to completely overlook the occurrences of voter registration hacking, as covered by a number of sources[91][92][93][94] and more. While the message from on high has been something to the effect of "only registration was hacked, not the actual vote" I believe this to be a fallacy and its potential impact on the election to be severely understated. The way voter eligibility works in most places across the country, if your registration is not valid well ahead of the election date, you will not be able to vote in that election. Merely by tampering with voter registration at a convenient time (for example, changing an absentee voter's registered address right before ballots are mailed) it is possible to prevent people from voting, and as these databases contain information such as ethnicity and party affiliation, it is possible to target specific demographics and effect a campaign of voter suppression. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should be briefly covered in the article.- MrX 12:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that we need a few good sentences on this. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We must take care to ensure that RS citations concern Russian involvement in this. --SPECIFICO (talk) 12:09, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Here's my draft copy - likely can be cleaned up:

As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about "bad actors" probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities. In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was "looking 'very, very hard' at Russian hackers who may try to disrupt the U.S. election" and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases, which independent assessments determined were "extremely vulnerable to hacking." Comey stated: "There have been a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well as some attempted intrusions at voter database registrations beyond those we knew about in July and August." He told Congress that the Bureau was looking into "just what mischief is Russia up to in connection with our election." This statement echoed a comment by a U.S. intelligence official the previous month, who told NBC News that "there is serious concern" about Russian government-directed interference in the U.S. presidential election. Earlier, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin, stating that he was "'paranoid' about the potential for revolutions in Russia,'and of course they see a U.S. conspiracy behind every bush, and ascribe far more impact than we're actually guilty of.'" In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months. Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers, and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies. Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases. Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data, Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen. The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result. In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide "flash alert" warning state election officials about hacking attempts. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS. The department also offered "more comprehensive, on-site risk and vulnerability" assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching. The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI: "The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War."

References

Tagging MrX, Ham Pastrami, SPECIFICO - don't know if this approximates what you had in mind. --Neutrality^talk 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks for taking the time to write it!- MrX 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added it (with minor rearrangement of sentences). Thanks! Neutrality^talk 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work everybody, and a special thanks to Ham Pastrami -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you very much for doing that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good stuff, on-topic. — JFG ^talk 10:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Investigation by Special Counsel

Investigation by Special Counsel

Maybe this could also become its own article? Sagecandor (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But first there should be something in this article before spinning it out. The amount of coverage here should be limited to its overall significance and additional details put into the other article. TFD (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

At some point probably. I'd say it's still too early.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that we should consider this, but at a later date. In three months' time we will know more. Neutrality^talk 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which would split this article between the Russian interference topics (staying here) and the Trump collusion topics (going to the other article). Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The title and entire focus of that draft fails WP:NPOV, as it focuses only on "collusion" and avoids criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Except for the title and lead section (which can be debated), I strictly copied all contents from the present article. If you feel that "criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc." are missing, then feel free to add them to this article (there is a section about investigations into financial flows, which is not much, but that's what the source said). From a neutrality standpoint, it's strange to consider the current article balanced and a copy of half of it elsewhere unbalanced. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As others have said, we should wait to split the article.- MrX 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad idea. Fork. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention for now, then a split when more info comes out.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cover-up investigation

The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:

• Comey agrees to testify in public as Trump-Russia probe heats up, McClatchy DC Bureau

"...authorized to probe whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up..."

"Even as members of Congress were mulling the possible expansion of the case into a cover-up probe, and its reclassification from counterintelligence to criminal, the scandal appeared to grow."

"Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described the possibility of a cover-up as the third branch of an investigation that began as a look at Russian meddling in the election and broadened into whether members of the Trump campaign had cooperated in that effort."

• Top Oversight Dem: ‘I Want Every Note’ White House Has On Trump’s Meeting With Russians. Rep. Elijah Cummings has prepared a draft subpoena he wants the House Oversight Committee to send to the administration.

"After his interview with “This Week,” Cummings released a draft subpoena that he urged Chaffetz to sign and send to the White House.

“The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago,” Cummings said in a statement. “I have prepared a subpoena that the chairman could sign today. If he does not want to do that, we ask that he allow the committee members to vote on it.”

• Investigation launched into whether White House officials covered up Russian meddling. The investigation marks the third line of inquiry into Russian interference in the US election. The Independent
• Feinstein believes Trump-Russia probe includes cover-up question, CBS News
• How Impeaching Trump Would Work, Rolling Stone

"This brings us back to Trump. A key lesson of the Nixon scandal was "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up." It was Nixon on tape saying that the FBI should be forced to back off that put the final nail in his presidential coffin. That many of Trump's associates, especially his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had Russian connections is politically damaging, but it's not necessarily Trump's fault. Firing FBI Director Jim Comey in the middle of an investigation, however, is clearly Trump's fault. This is Trump's own "Tuesday Night Massacre." It looks like obstruction of justice. The latest revelation – that Trump, in a February Oval Office meeting, asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn's connections to the Russian government ("I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go") – is reminiscent of Nixon's "smoking gun" tape, and again looks like obstruction of justice. Just as it was with Nixon, it could be the cover-up that will bring Trump down."

BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

Should be added. Both refused to do it.Casprings (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting development from the deep state/deep throats.- MrX 22:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, The few people in government Trump DIDN'T call to pressure on the FBI investigation must be feeling awfully left out.Casprings (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the key quote is the report is: --> "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements abt an ongoing investigation." and the fact that "Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA officials.Casprings (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, pretty telling. But, let's give it some time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed by CNN: Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html Casprings (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Patience. This is not a newspaper. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No. it is an encyclopedia that should be up to date. Very relavent information to the article.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Objective. Wait on it. It ain't going anywhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is now 3 independent news sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean WP shouldn't be up to date.Casprings (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

NBC News Confirms: Trump Asked Top Intel Officials To Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-asked-top-intel-officials-push-back-publicly-russia-probe-n763336 Casprings (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I do not think we should add every bit of tittle tattle I think this is very relevant, even if it is just an example of the total lack of trust Donny now suffers from.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added what I would consider the key points here. [95]. Of course we shouldn't just put in the title.Casprings (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we know if either of them documented their interactions in a similar manner to the Comey memos ? Sagecandor (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • All three sources say Coats did and WP says it is unclear if Rogers did.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In accordance with his comments here, Casprings added several sentences to the article lede. I reverted them, stating that some of the wording was problematic and the information did not belong in the lede. Casprings and I then discussed it at my talk page, here, and reached consensus that a modified version could go in the article text. We did not discuss where in the article the material should go. Obviously it should be somewhere in the "2017 developments" section. I would suggest the "Comey memos" subsection be renamed with a more general title, such as "White House attempts to influence the investigation" (too suggestive) or "White House contacts with law enforcement agencies". I think the existing material in the article about Comey's memos could be condensed into a single, better organized paragraph, and then the following material added:

In February 2017 it was reported that White House officials had asked the FBI to issue a statement that there had been no contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence sources during the 2016 campaign. The FBI did not make the requested statement, and observers noted that the request violated established procedures about contact between the White House and the FBI regarding pending investigations.

After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and Director of National Security ADM Michael S. Rogers to state publicly that the FBI's investigation had turned up no evidence of any collusion. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate and did not make the requested statement. Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request. In addition, senior White House officials reportedly asked intelligence officials if they could intervene to stop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn.

References

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. However, the title is a little too WP:Weasel. Many sources suggest more then contact. Fine without your original title, but we should title it something that tells the reader more what is being reported by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The text looks good, but it doesn't belong under 'Comey memos'. It should go under its own section, probably called 'FBI Collusion probe'.- MrX 02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not combine all this stuff (Comey, this, etc) into one section called "Trump Administration's Investagation Interference". Such a title is justified per WP:Censor. It would create a logical subsection and you could always create additional headings under this subheading if something(e.g. The Comey Memos) need to be broken out.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with combining it into a single subsection (Comey and the others), about the various attempts by Trump himself and White House officials to get the FBI to close down the investigation or publicly contradict some of the reporting. But I don't think the phrase "investigation interference" has been used by any Reliable Source; let's not get ahead of the reporting. In any case "interference" is not accurate since none of the reported attempts to influence law enforcement agencies actually succeeded - so the investigation has not been interfered with. I still prefer a neutral term like "White House contacts with law enforcement" but am open to other suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the RS in the previous section right above, we can use Investigation of suspected cover-up. This is the third phase of the existing investigations and is covered by much of Comey's, FBI's and CIA's current activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am cool with that.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Since an investigation necessarily comes after-the-fact, would Suspected cover-up be better? That would be all-inclusive, past, present, and future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter is better. Plus it's better at tell the reader the subject of the section.Casprings (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In preparation for restoring the content, and Casprings, you write well, so you're welcome to perform the honors , please keep in mind that content in the body has primacy over content in the lead. Add to the body, and then add a short summary to the lead. There shouldn't be any content or references in the lead which are not first used in the body (except certain types of minor facts). You can read more on the subject here: WP:CREATELEAD.

Also incorporate the references and their content found above in the previous section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I just have my phone on me right now, and I never edit articles with only my phone. I get too annoyed.Casprings (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "coverup". That term is not being used in connection with these White House actions; it sounds more like WP:SYNTH. Again, let's not get ahead of the reporting. Earlier I objected to "White House attempts to influence the investigation" but maybe that would be the best title for what we have right now. --MelanieN (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. My only point is that the sources support something more but I understand some would be nervous.Casprings (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN, that's a very good start, but I have some questions or suggestions.

1. Buried deep into WaPo piece is this paragraph: "In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange. [emphasis added]"
2. Then there's the quote from "a former senior intelligence official": "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation. [emphasis added]"
3. "A former senior intelligence official" cited in the NBC News piece contradicts this: "The former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request, they believed, according to the official. 'I don't think [Trump] ever asked somebody to say something that they didn't believe was true', the former official said. [emphasis added]"

So did Trump make a different request to Rogers to Coats or were they both truthful and do we need to note this discrepancy?

According to NBC News, one of them wrote a memo because the request was "extraordinary", and they exchanged notes, but neither of them was not "sufficiently concerned that they reported it". We should add something about this.

I take issue with the last sentence ("In addition ...) – Flynn investigation is not related to the FBI's probe of alleged Russian election interference. If the sentence is to be included, it should mention the Flynn investigation, and the content should be moved somewhere else, separate from content that is directly related to Russia investigation. Section title that includes "cover-up" would totally improper because it's not based on sources. Politrukki (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with not using cover up. But if this a main heading for Comey, this, and others the section title needs to say something more then contacts. I would suggest, since this is going into the body, use the quote from NBC and WP to show the WP:RSes are somewhat conflicted. One source might say and view something one way and another source might view it another way.Casprings (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, User:Politrukki. My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. The sources (except for the "former senior official") don't say that either. In fact we (and probably the "former senior official", and probably Trump himself) have no idea whether such a statement would have been truthful or false, because we (and they) do not have access to everything the FBI investigation has turned up or is looking at. What we do know, per Comey, is that the FBI is looking into whether there was collusion. Whether the proposed statement would have been false, or simply inappropriate at this stage of the game, is not known, and there is no point in our trying to parse which it is. From a legal standpoint it may not even be important whether the statement they were being urged to make was true or false - simply that they were being (improperly?) urged to make it. What we do know: Trump and/or White House officials asked them to make a particular public statement; they decided not to make it; Rogers at least felt moved to document the phone call, possibly because he found it improper, or possibly because he always makes a note of such conversations. We can't go beyond what we know.

To your second point, that the Flynn investigation is "not related to the FBI's probe of Russian election interference", I disagree. We don't know what all they are investigating Flynn for, but there is at least a strong possibility that if there was improper contact he could have been one of the people involved. In addition, Flynn's hints that he has "a story to tell," and his obvious hope that he can obtain immunity or at least leniency by telling it, suggest that he has knowledge about the overall Russia situation involving other people besides himself. He could turn out to be this investigations's John Dean, an insider-turned-star-witness in the Russia investigation. Flynn material definitely belongs in this article and this section, and approaches by the White House regarding the Flynn investigation are no different from approaches by the White House regarding the overall investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify my proposed wording I have added "the investigation into Michael Flynn" to the "in addition" sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent parsing of the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. I saw that, and I thank you for being careful. "False" was used in the edit you reverted and in the discussion on your talk page (also, as you may have noticed, someone added "false statements" to Trump's bio and I deleted "false"). But I also wanted to highlight that I think the WaPo piece is very difficult to parse. Again, WaPo says: "Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion [emphasis added]". That's the biggest "if" I've seen in a long time. That's WaPo saying in its editorial voice that Rogers was asked to tell the truth (no, that would not make the request any less idiotic, in my opinion). We don't know what kind of request Trump supposedly made to Coats because WaPo doesn't say it – either because they don't know or because they refuse to tell – but they do call the appeals "similar". Here's what I propose:

After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. He also made a similar request to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.

References

Re: Flynn. It is true that Flynn could be under investigation for a number of things. Yes, NYT says

"The documentation of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. ... Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.

but also says

In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.

My interpretation of all this is that Flynn could be investigated for things that are related to Russia but unrelated to collusion. The cited WaPo piece does not even hint what Flynn is being investigated for. The immunity offer is a moot point because the request was rejected both in House and Senate Intelligence committees and not all experts even agree that Flynn's request was serious: "Some experts cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Mr. Flynn's request for immunity." That being said, you don't have refute me on this because I approve your edit. I'm just going to make one or three bold edits that add content.
And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial! Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Politrukki. Just one comment, about Flynn: It's true he is under investigation for other things unrelated to the collusion issue. But he is also smack in the middle of the collusion investigation. According to this new report, Flynn and Manafort were the main "Trump associates" the Russians were hoping to use to influence Trump. I saw that you removed the Comey memo from the lede because it is about the Flynn investigation. I am OK with removing it from the lede as long as it stays in the article text. And I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text. In fact let's say so in a more prominent place - rather than the middle of another discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, it concerns me that you would make an accusation of SYNTH, when I have repeatedly pointed to the section above, where there are several RS which use the term "cover-up". Use of that word is indeed based on RS. It is the third phase of the ongoing investigation. The suggestion is also worded neutrally (Suspected cover-up). That is the most accurate and short description, and it's used by RS, including Elijah Cummings:

• "The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago."[96]

(Pinging Casprings & Politrukki) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you took that as an accusation, BullRangifer. I merely meant that we do not have the sources to say it. And having now read through the section above (I have been gone for a week) I still don't feel there is any basis for us to say "coverup" in Wikipedia's voice. Elijah Cummings is not an Independent Reliable Source in this matter; he is a partisan making a partisan accusation, not a neutral commenter saying something about which he has personal knowledge. This case may eventually turn out to prove the old saying "it's not the crime that lands you in jail, it's the coverup", but we have no basis for saying anything like that now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. We could possibly add a final sentence to my proposed material, saying that reported contacts such as these have caused investigators to expand their investigation into the possibility of a coverup. That much does appear to be documented. But it would be too much of a stretch to make that the title of the subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that right now I don't know time to go through your sources and they seem to predate Coats/Rogers reports. Can you provide a quote from a source that labels requests to Coats & Rogers as a cover-up? If you do, could also estimate if your sample is representative? As I said, Coats & Rogers believed that, according to a former senior intelligence official, Trump made a public relations request. Politrukki (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I think there's been enough time to get significant coverage and that it's fine to include this now. I think combining it with the Comey Memo subsection is the best way, along with renaming that section to "White house interactions with the investigation" or something similar. I'm okay with the wording as proposed by MelanieN, but I haven't read much past it in this thread, so not sure if any concerns have been raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have merged this wording with the Comey memo material, and have put it in the article in place of the Comey memo subsection, in a section titled "White House attempts to influence the investigation." We had not really reached a consensus on the section title but I felt there was sufficient consensus to add the material, leaving room for more discussion on the title. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article

A new article popped up related to Russian interference. Looks like it could use a substantial amount of help Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election if anyone is interested. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Julian Assange Section Addition

Two additions should be added to the Julian Assange Section. Neutral information. First, is to add to his claim about how a 14 ye3ar old could hack podesta's email. It should be noted that podesta's password for one of his computer was "username: jpodesta; password: p@assword" and Assange claims his password was literally "password". I've also heard it was "12345password".

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/

Second, is to add his claim that Seth Rich was one of his sources. The information related to his unsolved murder, the active investigation by the local police, and the non-investigation on the federal level, are all relevant. It should be written in a way that doesn't have a bias towards any conspiracy theory, but is very relevant information given Julian Assange's claim & the significant impact of that claim. Anyone could have murdered Seth Rich. It could have been a random robbery (although nothing was stolen - which should be mentioned), it could have been a US group, or it could have been the Russias. All relevant, but speculation should NOT be mentioned. Just the information about the murder & current investigation & statements by Julian Assange.

Third, It should also be noted that Julian Assange has a track record of substantiated evidence (unless you can prove otherwise; using evidence to disprove WikiLeaks claims). Meanwhile, websites like the Washington Post have significantly worse track records when it comes to the evidence validating/invalidating their claims. This is very important. It means nothing, but is relevant to the truth because it is evidence-based reliability. Using the Scientific Method, you can quantify both sources. If evidence has ever concluded to prove or disprove a claim, that actually matters. All of it should be written in an unbiased way though - the evidence is what matters NOT opinion. Unsubstantiated claims by Assange should be written as a "claim", not a "conclusion". Although the FBI "concluded" rather than "Claimed", despite the lack of public evidence. So this article already has a bias in favor of the US government, which IMO should be corrected as not all of us are Americans.

edit: Actually, I think it would be better to simply mention Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source, he was murdered, and then simply link to the relevant Wikipedia article. No reason to add anything to that section outside that brief sentence & single link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:f040:34:7db9:20b3:a5ff:becd (talk • contribs)

Assange's comments about Podesta's password are already in this article (albeit indirectly). I don't think we need to get down to the gnat's proverbial ass on this.

Could you please cite a couple of reliable sources for "Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source"?- MrX 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Assange never said Rich was his source as he does not reveal sources and if he received the emails through third parties may not know who the original source was. TFD (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing here worth adding to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

VOA Videos

Russia, Trump Team in Contact, Former CIA Director Tells Congress

Brennan testimony on Trump intelligence sharing

I just migrated these reports, please add them to the article if / where appropriate.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede

I'd like to call attention to a couple of comments which are buried in the middle of a discussion above:

From Politrukki: And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial!

From me: I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text.

Bottom line: when you have new, sourced material that is relevant to this article, please put it in the appropriate section of article text, with references. Only after it is determined to be an essential part of the overall story should it be added to the lede as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — JFG ^talk 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wholly agree, if it is notable it goers in the lead otherwise keep in in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• No argument here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, but the lead paragraph is messed up, IMHO. It starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that connclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence, and adding more overview to the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: there's an open RfC to re-shape the lead section. It's still time to participate before it gets closed. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not clear on what the problem is suppose to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have elaborated in the RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Lordy this is so freaking annoying. Why do people add shit straight into the intro that is not first in the body ? So stupid. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with MelanieN, with allowable exceptions for exceptional developments like the resignation of the President, revelation of "smoking gun" evidence, or grand jury indictments.- MrX 11:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation

Per WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jared-kushner-now-a-focus-in-russia-investigation/2017/05/25/f078db74-40c7-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_kushner-645pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7f48fd270ce1

Should be added to his section and someone this close to POTUS is a big deal. Casprings (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NBC Confirming: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jared-kushner-now-under-fbi-scrutiny-russia-probe-say-officials-n764826?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma Casprings (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

CNN: FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/fbi-russia-investigation-jared-kushner/index.html Casprings (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

The Washington Post: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-kushner-exclusive-idUSKBN18N018

Should be in article. Casprings (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT confirms article: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC Casprings (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Diane Feinstein comment

In a CNN interview three weeks ago, Diane Feinstein's responded "Not at this time" when asked

"Here's the question. And you don't have to provide us with any classified information, Senator. But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?"

This information is out of date (see, for example, this), and it's not particularly significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Based on what is known today, it represents a minority viewpoint that has largely been promulgated by questionable sources like Breitbart and The Washington Times. I think this material should remain out of the article.- MrX 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

4-word snippets off the tube present rather a target-rich environment to cherrypick UNDUE content, but one mustn't muscle it back into the text after it's been removed. The noteworthy content will have been repeated in dozens of other sources. The remainder is chaff. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: In your edit comment, you state: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia." Feinstein's comment is not a "viewpoint", it's her current assessment of the state of the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry as regards to suspected collusion between Trump and Russia. As one of the leaders of this committee, her statement is eminently WP:DUE. It was sufficiently interesting to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he repeated the question two weeks later and she gave an even more precise response, saying she has seen nothing tangible apart from rumors and press reports. That doesn't mean there is nothing, but that's a noteworthy statement coming from one of the bodies investigating the matter (and Feinstein can't exactly be called a Trump apologist, right?) No objection to adding her other statement of May 21 that you cite. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

BS. Cable news needs to fill endless hours of airtime. Cherrypicked chaff. Please do not reinsert content that's been challenged with reversion. Use talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

She was asked if she had info and responded not yet. How is that DUE? Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So one of the key people in the government investigating the subject of this article makes a statement saying they have no evidence for the claim, which is then picked up and covered by numerous RS is not due? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is insane. It's not a "minority" viewpoint (what people seem to really mean is "it doesn't tally with what I and some others believe"), it's the view of a well-known US Senator who had been presented with the available evidence and said, on a major TV show, in comments that were widely reported elsewhere, that she could see no evidence of collusion. AFAICT she has not retracted that, even if she has gone on to say other things about the investigation. Yes, she said, "not yet" but so what? That goes without saying, unless she can see into the future. It doesn't mean it *is* going to turn up. Editors here argue for filling this page with speculation and opinion from all sorts of people who say one thing, and all nod together about the "great sources" they are using, and then push the most bizarre pretexts for shutting out anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative. This page is nothing but agenda-driven politics. Is it not possible to look across the views and sources out there and create a measured, balanced overview? N-HH talk/edits 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Including this material would suggest to readers that there is no evidence, which is extremely unlikely based on recent coverage of the matter.- MrX 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes – as Rumsfeld once said about WMD I believe – and sometimes absence of evidence is indeed that, absence of evidence. What you or anyone else here thinks "likely" or "unlikely" is neither here nor there. You've kind of proved some of the points I was making about confirmation bias and following preferred narratives to be honest. N-HH talk/edits 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one here has said that collusion between Trump associates and Russia is a fact. Objective3000 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they did. But the most active editors are all clearly leaning in that direction. I mean just above you've got a pseudonymous WP editor simply asserting it's "extremely unlikely" there is no evidence of collusion, in a debate about the comments of someone who has actually seen much of the information and has said exactly the opposite. N-HH talk/edits 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The question appears to have been designed to elicit a response that can be used as a headline that investigation has concluded that there was no collusion. Congressmen in hearings and lawyers in trials commonly use this technique. We are in the very early days of investigation and should not suggest a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of silly. There are far, far more sources that point to inappropriate contact between Russians and the Trump crew, than that are sources that claim there is no evidence of such contact. That observation doesn't prove confirmation bias. At most, it shows that I don't get my information from Breitbart and Sean Hannity.- MrX 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion, which is a much stronger thing. Also there's a lot of debate about what is or is not inappropriate contact (campaigns speak to reps from other nations all the time). I for one have literally never read Breitbart or watched Sean Hannity in my life, nor have I tapped into much of the politically driven Democrat-led hysteria about this, or even looked that much at the mainstream US media (which of course is pretty uniformly hostile to Trump, albeit not without reason). I get most of my information on it from the UK media. The point with the allegations and speculation about Russian interference and Trump's possible collusion with it is that there is no clear answer as to what happened. That's why it's being investigated. Until there is a conclusion to those investigations, this page needs to reflect the diversity of views, not tie itself down to either narrative (and no, this is not "false equivalence" if you want to try that one next). N-HH talk/edits 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to edit this article according to WP:NPOV and in particular WP:WEIGHT without reading much US media. Anyway Sen. Feinstein was not expressing a "view" so this is the wrong floor for ties. and "narratives" are found in Millinery, aisle 4. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion" Well, collusion falls under inappropriate contact. It's true that at this point there is no clear answers to what happened, but within the article both points of view about possible collusion are already presented. Feinstein's comment doesn't make anything any clearer. It's noise that will be forgotten once the investigation starts yielding results.- MrX 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JFG, the simple fact that Feinstein confirmed on May 18 that she has not seen evidence of collusion still doesn't convince me that this should be mentioned in the article. Others may disagree.- MrX 14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given the enormous amount of coverage this topic has recieved and the huge amount of material (including interviews) that's out there, I agree that a remark in an interview (even by the ranking member if a committee) isn't inherently noteworthy here. We should only include such remarks if they get significant coverage in other, major newspapers or similarly weight-y sources. I have no idea if that's the case here or not, but if so it wasn't clear from the sources used. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are issues about not including everything given the volume of statements and opinions on this, and it is fair to say it was mostly picked up by conservative media, but that's not surprising really. But then you risk running into asking for meta-sourcing for everything rather than relying on what is already a good secondary source, ie CNN. N-HH talk/edits 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Very very very obviously it should be included. We discuss and discuss and discuss investigations about collusion. Now you want to omit that a person who has been amply briefed says those investigations have turned up no such evidence. Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. Please read WP:NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I just skimmed/searched the page for the specific word "collusion", and that seems a fair assessment, although it does include Schiff saying there is "circumstantial" evidence of it (as well as quotes from Morell and Clapper saying they have seen none). Feinstein's comments may or may not be worth including, but the dismissal of them, and the initial arguments deployed against inclusion above, were pretty weak tbh (and indicative of a wider issue). N-HH talk/edits 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Feinstein most certainly did not say "those investigations have turned up no such evidence.". She said:

"So, I would depend on this investigation that we’re talking about, that would bring forward any criminal activity, and, of course, has the right and the ability to charge people, select targets, look at them, bring about an indictment. And so, it’s a very big investigation, and I think somebody that’s as sophisticated as Bob Mueller is really the one to carry it out and see that it does not go awry, it does not overeach, but it’s what it should be."

- MrX 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What does that quote have to do with anything? The issue under discussion is her comments about evidence for collusion. She's addressed this twice now only this month, as this later quote makes clear:

• WOLF BLITZER, CNN: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me — and I’m quoting you now — you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”
• SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “Well, not– no, it hasn’t.”

That's pretty clear cut, and also refutes the claim that the previous comment is now "out of date". N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the article mentions the word "collusion" 20 times. It does not say, anywhere, "there is evidence that (named living person) colluded", so it's not a BLP issue. It does not even say "there is evidence that associates of Trump colluded"; all it says is that the possibility of collusion is under investigation. And as N-HH points out, we already have in the article both Morell and Clapper saying that at a particular point in time they had not seen evidence of collusion. So it's not a balance issue. So why is it so desperately important (Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. ----Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by a third person saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from the lead suggesting collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign:

“ Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015....Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone....On March 20, 2017, FBI director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation about Russian interference since July 2016, including possible coordination between associates of Trump and Russia.... ”

In contrast, there is not one word in the lead saying that no evidence of collusion has been found to date. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN not to include it, that assessment is the best one in this section so far [97]. Sagecandor (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and others that this doesn't belong. It is outdated ([98]) but also not particularly important/doesn't convey much information to the reader ("We don't know yet" is obvious and implicit in the statement that it's under investigation). Neutrality^talk 22:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not "outdated" unless it's been superseded. And she isn't simply saying "I don't know about X either way", she's specifically saying "I have seen no evidence of X". N-HH talk/edits 07:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, why? This is not a BLP issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Closed by admin Sphilbrick at that noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It may well deserve discussion, but multiple people questioned whether it was a BLP issue, and it seemed not to be. No sense cluttering up a page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's cluttering up everything everywhere. Sagecandor (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Sphilbrick at the BLPN talk page. That seems the best place to do so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet another page to add more clutter. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cluttering everywhere is obviously suboptimal. It is being discussed here, robustly. Not immediately obvious that it needs to be discussed elsewhere, but if someone judges that it needs more involvement, one option is an RfC, another is to determine the central issue and decide if there is a good, relevant noticeboard. It seems to me to be an issue of neutrality, and only involves BLP in a way that would allow almost anything to qualify. If this was a low-traffic page, I'd understand the need to take it elsewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better just to state that Feinstein said she had not seen any evidence. Not important how she phrased it, who was asking the question, where she was, what she was wearing, the temperature outside, etc. TFD (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, as long as we mention she's the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and mention when she said it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That phrasing suggests there is no evidence. And the Senate Intelligence Committee is only one of the investigations, and the investigations are in early stages. At this point in the Nixon investigations, little was known. We should have the patience to let this play out without putting out "BREAKING NEWS". Objective3000 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Feinstein's committee oversees the whole intelligence community, and Blitzer prefaced his question like this: "I know that you and some of your colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee drove over to Langley, Virginia, yesterday to CIA headquarters and you were briefed." As for Watergate, Bob Woodward says: "But this is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime on the Russian issue... in the case of Nixon, he had his former White House counsel, John Dean, for four days testifying that the president corruptly and illegally led the obstruction of justice and you have nothing comparable. Now, that doesn't mean, you know, we don't know where this is going to go. There is an immense amount of smoke." Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we know that Feinstein knows everything going on in the House Committee, or the Mueller investigation? We should be careful calling this “Feinstein’s committee”, since she hasn’t chaired it in over a year and we’ve already seen problems with briefing all members of the House committee. Objective3000 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That was true 23 days ago, who knows if it is true now, and if it does change, we won't necessarily find out about it in a timely manner. People favoring inclusion should agree to an "expiration date" at which it can be removed without disagreement. Best not to include in the first place. Geogene (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: Sorry, that was still true 7 days ago, when she answered the second Blitzer interview on May 19. Besides, we shouldn't place an arbitrary "expiration date" on information we include, otherwise the article would soon be empty… Feinstein's statement is afaik the first feedback from the Senate Intelligence Committee since they started their investigation in January: like it or not, that's pretty significant in and of itself. What if she had said "oh yes we've seen some serious evidence of collusion but we can't talk about it yet". Would that still be UNDUE in your opinion? — JFG ^talk 05:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, before the Ervin Committee was authorized (Feb. 7, 1973), seven men were convicted in the DNC headquarters break-in, including G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, who worked both for the White House and the Nixon reelection campaign. So yes there was conclusive evidence of crimes committed by people working for Nixon. TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds misleading. Yes, the Cubans that actually performed the break-in were taken to task early on in that long-running episode in history. But, clearly it did not end there, despite their promise to not rat out those that paid them. Long after, Nixon resigned due to the cover up. I simply do not understand how Feinstein's response is useful to an understanding of the subject of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not just the Cubans, but also G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, who worked both for the White House and the Nixon reelection campaign. Considering this article is about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," it is relevant whether or not there is any evidence it happened and which people investigating it have actually seen it. Usually in criminal cases, evidence is considered to be important, but maybe this is an exception. TFD (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Nevins revelations

At some point some mention of the new Aaron Nevins revelations should be added. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anthony-nevins-roger-stone-stolen-democratic-voter-analyses SecretName101 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. But, looks pretty weak. Objective3000 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Kushner and secret channel of communication with Russians

[99]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Too early for us. Objective3000 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please show me policy that says WP should not be update with current information from WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kushner is a living person, making information about him subject to BLP. That means we need a) more and more definitive sources and b) some time to pass so that this can be evaluated before we put it in the article anywhere.--MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WaPo is a "definitive source". Here is more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And more

And more

And more

And more (I mean, Fox News is even reporting it! Whoa!)

Enough? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Also (b) above is not a policy nor a guideline. We don't need "time to pass" if there are plenty of reliable sources reporting it. Which there are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just rescanned WP:BLP and I saw nothing on the "time" part of your statement. Might have missed it. On sourcing, WP is a great source who maintains great standards. I would argue that it is fine for any BLP claim. That said, when/if this reporting is repeated this should be clearly placed into the article as soon as possiable.Casprings (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to wait a day or even two before adding this kind of information. That way every other paragraph doesn't have to begin with "According the Washington Post, unnamed officials said...". Hopefully we don't need a policy to tell us that a little bit of restraint will make for a more better article.- MrX 02:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT independtly confirms: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC

We should go ahead and add it. Two very high quality WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a response. Sounds DUE; but what's the hurry? Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You need a reliably sourced explanation of the connection between setting up a communications channel after the election with Russian interference in the election. TFD (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Even FOX news makes such connection [100]: "At the same time, a new Reuters report stated that Kushner had at least three previously undisclosed contacts with Kislyak during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Those contacts included two phone calls between April and November 2016. Seven current and former U.S. officials confirmed the information with Reuters.". My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than talk about this (or anything else) in the abstract, I find it almost always more productive for someone to put suggested language on the table (either at talk or through an appropriate edit). So if someone has a suggested draft? Neutrality^talk 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. - To make my view clear, we certainly should have something on this (extremely) important development, which has been independently reported by both Reuters and Washington Post. Of course, it may take some time to allow the developments to shake out. Neutrality^talk 03:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is increasingly becoming a parody. Gossip and speculation about every minor thing which could look bad for Trump or Russia? "Extremely important", "quality sources", "simply must be included". Something which suggests that while there's a lot of hot air around the topic of interference and collusion, there might not be much actual evidence of either of those things? "Undue", "outdated", "poorly sourced", "a minority view". N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not "gossip". Objective3000 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: Didn't you know this page is a testbed for WP's experimental new NPOV+ policy? — JFG ^talk 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, "according to sources" very much is "gossip" in the widest sense, albeit gossip given the imprimatur of having been reported by the media (plus I also said "speculation" of course). It's in the nature of the media to sometimes overplay every minor incident or comment. It sells newspapers. There may be something significant here, and I'm not saying it isn't relevant for the page, but this is certainly not a clear and complete exposition of what happened or what it actually means. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing all that much linking between this and the election interference (and this all still rumors of rumors stuff). If this was the "Donnie's links to Russia" page I would agree to inclusion now, it's not.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

its directly related to the infestation the FBI is doing on Russian interference on the election. The WP and NYT are the highest standard of journalism WP can use for sourcing.Casprings (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

IS it directly related, can we have a source that says there is a direct relation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: FBI deals with pest infestations now? ROTFLMAO! — JFG ^talk 13:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

RAID!- MrX 14:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Cell phones and auto correct. On being connected to the FBI investigation, that connection is made in literally every source I have seen on this. For example, The NY Times: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured. Made my day! — JFG ^talk 16:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Conspiracy theories

An IP user has inserted a link to this article on Template:Conspiracy theories. I have removed it — given that the reliable sources do not describe the Russia affair as a "conspiracy theory" — but I wanted to flag the issue on this page. If you can, please add the template to your watchlist - more eyeballs always appreciated. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That is spectacularly POV, effectively equating this article with UFOs and men in black. It doesn't surprise me; I've seen seen persistent efforts to involve other Russia-related articles with that template. Geogene (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you on excluding such junk; however "spectacularly POV" may well apply to the whole article… — JFG ^talk 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?. - MrX 14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Summary to lede by Enthusiast01

Disagree with this summary added to the lede [101].

This article is not just about the FBI investigation.

It is about the wider topic itself.

Though there could be another separate article about the FBI investigation only, and or the Special counsel. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I have rewritten the lede paragraph to include the other investigations (because they actually are covered in this article). Comments welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says intro sections should be no more than 4 paragraphs. This article is currently unwieldy at 6. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. After we settle the question of the lede sentence/paragraph, let's see if we can trim/combine/move some of the material into the body of the article and leave just a summary of the article in the lede as we are supposed to. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article, redux

Today's changes to the lead section by Enthusiast01[102] and MelanieN[103] have redefined the scope of this article as covering the investigations about Russian election interference and suspected Trump campaign misdeeds. In prior discussions, the scope had been defined as covering Russian meddling activities broadly construed, and not just the investigations about them. More recently, as the article grew to include various allegations about the Trump entourage, I suggested a split between the Russian election interference here and the Trump–Russia collusion investigations elsewhere (see draft), but this proposal was rebuked. Now, if the scope is redefined as all-inclusive of various investigations into Trumpian affairs beyond Russian election interference, then the title is grossly inappropriate. What can we do? I see three logical options:

• Option A: Accept new lead, focus article on Trump–Russia links and change the title to something like "Investigations of Russian election interference and collusion between Trump and Russia]]
• Option B: Keep current title and split article between Russian interference on the one hand, and Trump team collusion stories on the other hand, as proposed in Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (exact title to be discussed)
• Option C: Revert recent lead changes to prior status quo, defining article scope as Russian interference and its aftermath (several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed)

Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. This article should be about the wider topic, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, broadly construed. Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• I didn't think of the changes as "redefining" the subject, simply as "defining" it, per WP style for a lede sentence - rather than plunging right into the story without any introduction as the article did previously. In other words I saw it as a style change to conform to WP:LEDE, not a changing of the scope. So the problem you see is that the article isn't just about the investigations as such, it's about the broader story, of which the investigations are one part? That's a valid point - so how would you word a lede sentence/paragraph to get that idea across? --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. There are many RS accounts of these events that relate to investigations as to whether the Pres. Trump, his campaign people associated with it promoted and enabled the Russian interference. So I think that mainstream reporting on these factors is inseparable from current RS accounts of the interference. It would violate NPOV for us as editors to separate them, although many other articles may elaborate on various aspects of the suspected collusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. I reverted the bold edit because it doesn't make sense. The construct "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also called the Russia investigation, refers to investigations by agencies..." is poorly-worded and semantically incorrect. Interference is not a synonym for investigation. The edit also reduced the scope of the interference from U.S. election to Presidential elections, which has previously been discussed (with sources) on this page. Now I'm off to fix the grammatical error left by another user earlier today.- MrX 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, sources say the Russians interfered in multiple down ballot Congressional races, as well. Sagecandor (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? Which ones? Oh, you mean the report that a Florida candidate solicited and received information from Guccifer 2? I don't think we have anything about that in this article, do we? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ETA: Changing my !vote pending clarification of from MelanieN about "several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed". What do you consider to be off-topic or loosely related?- MrX 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were not my words, those were JFG's. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry MelanieN. I should read more carefully.- MrX 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I was referring to several "breaking news" stories about whatever is deemed controversial about something Trump tweeted or some meeting a dude he knows attended. Sure, some of those stories are noteworthy and should be mentioned but many are just fluff which can only be connected to the article topic (election interference by Russia) through mental gymnastics of the most speculative kind. Wikipedia is not meant to be a live detective story… — JFG ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• putting aside the options, the Russia investigation (no matter how it originally began) now definitely now covers questioning of Trump players vis-a-vis Russia. That is what the current discussion has extended to. This fact needs to be mentioned, even in brief, in the lede. I do agree though that the article is getting too long, and that the issue of hacking etc has been basically settled and that a separate article for "collusion" or coordination with the Trump team is worthwhile. This is what the current discussion is all about. It seems that that is where the current investigation is going, with hacking etc being a basically settled issue. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. You can't separate the question of Russian interference in the election (hacking and other stuff) from the question of whether that interference included actual cooperation/collusion from the Trump campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I also do not advocate splitting the materials, especially as the issues are closely related. I'm saying that that connection should be mentioned in the lede and not be treated as a side issue. The deleted summary lede paragraph should be restored. I would also suggest changing the name of the article to "the Russia investigation" as the investigation is now past merely the election period, and includes attempts to shut down the investigations, besides other controversial actions such as dismissal of an FBI Director, officials recusing themselves, appointment of social counsel, etc. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the lead paragraph was a bit nonsensical. "Interference" is not synonymous with "investigation". The interference was much more complex than simply "attempts to influence president candidate Donald Trump" et al.- MrX 01:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think we need to take more care about changes and additions to this article. Recent revelations are both unbelievable and believable at the same time. And, they are coming out in rapid fire. WP:Recentism applies more than any other article I’ve noticed. When events are curiouser and curiouser, WP should err on the side of caution. Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree with that. There's a lot of POV stuff and UNDUE stuff that is put into newsy articles but is not really worth the trouble to dispute. Soon enough, the central mainstream narrative becomes obvious. For example, we wasted weeks on marginal comments, nitpicks, and cherrypicked sources when the JAR was released. A lot of this is really wasted time because eventually the mainstream view was accepted by the consensus here. NOTNEWS really does free us to work on more important editing tasks. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence

The section above is about the scope of the article, which I don't think was at all what was intended with the recent (now reverted) addition of a lede paragraph to the article. Letting that discussion about the scope of the article go on (as far as I am concerned the scope of the article is fine as it is), I would like to work together to come up with a proper lede sentence, Wikipedia-style, explaining what the article is about - rather than simply jumping in with the story without any introduction. Anyone have any idea how to do that? --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of brainstorming, here is a proposal to get the discussion moving.

• Version 1. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was discovered by U.S. Intelligence agencies, resulting in further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

- MrX 00:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good start. The first sentence should mention [104] [105] the unanimous high confidence conclusion of the entire United States Intelligence Community that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need that detail in the first sentence, but do you have a proposal for how that might be worded?- MrX 00:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It was actually "discovered" by the DNC or its consultants at Crowdstrike. TFD (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair observation.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's even worse that what is there now. We should very definitely NOT privilege the opinions of the intelligence agencies (as we do now and as people seem to be suggesting above) and should certainly not say they "discovered" interference as if it is a given fact. As has been pointed out, the lead sentence needs to explain broadly what the topic is, not simply highlight one aspect of it or one published claim by one set of actors about it. The point is there are allegations of interference, with dispute as to whether it happened and to what extent, and whether the Trump campaign was complicit, and ongoing investigations into all those things. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest something like, very broadly:

• "Allegations that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election are currently being investigated by [the FBI, congressional committees etc]. Russia has been accused of undertaking cyberattacks, disseminating fake news, making inappropriate contact with members of Trump's campaign team [and ....] in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favour."

That sets out what this is actually about and what Russia is alleged to have done, and actually defines the topic – as any normal WP intro should – rather than just launching straight into telling us what the US intelligence agencies happen to have said about whether this as-yet undefined thing happened. That can come in the second paragraph, which can also do more chronology as to how the story unfolded (which is slightly jumbled and repetitive as it stands). N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We're way past the alleged stage. You may want to review other discussion on this page where 'alleged' was firmly rejected and the accompanying source analysis. Also, Russia didn't attempt to interfere. They actually interfered.- MrX 11:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to review them, I participated in some of those discussions. As I pointed out then, something can be "concluded" by one party but remain an "allegation". As others pointed out, probably most of the media, especially those removed from the partisan frenzy surrounding this topic in the US, continue to report these as "allegations". Yes some people denied that, but I can't do anything about wilful blindness. You can be as sure as you like personally about exactly what happened, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, exact phrasing is obviously open to debate, but what about the more fundamental point in my suggestion that a WP page should actually define what it is talking about first? N-HH talk/edits 13:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please watch terms like willful blindness. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for any other explanation, but happy to accept one. N-HH talk/edits 13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I already responded in the relevant discussion. Not doing it again here. Objective3000 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, you didn't actually make a substantive comment in this discussion, where the sources were discussed in depth. Also my point is that the justifications people purported to give for rejecting the research there didn't stand up, so there must be something else behind it. N-HH talk/edits 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. X's version is good. 1. Sentence starts with the subject of the the article. 2. It completely captures the scope of the article. 3. The word discovered is neutral. Casprings (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I give up. 1) US intelligence assessments about this are not the subject of the article. 2) It "captures the scope", even though it fails to define the alleged interference or explain what it supposedly consisted of? 3) "Discovered" is neutral? N-HH talk/edits 13:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't give up. 1) The sentences that I proposed do not establish the intelligence assessments as the subject, they merely establish a major milestone in the overall event. 2) The first sentence cannot possibly detail all of the complex elements of the interference. 3) "Discovered" is not really non-neutral, but it is inaccurate as pointed out by TFD.- MrX 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Casprings. Here is another proposal, primarily to address TFD's concerns:

Version 2. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawning further investigations by the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

- MrX 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Documented" is another can of worms for the deniers, because the intelligence determination was not publicly "documented" to various pundits' satisfaction. This will give rise to another round of tail-chasing which essentially disregards RS accounts in favor of memes about WMD, etc. I understand why you propose to start with the bolded title of the article, but I don't think this is a subject like Graperfruit or even Grape-nuts or Great Dane where that format works for the lede. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Determined" or "identified" could work as alternatives for "documented". We don't have to include the title in the lead sentence, but I struggle with how to summarize the scope of the article without including "election interference by Russia" in some form.- MrX 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "determined" is actually what they did. It's rich in meaning in the sense of accumulating and evaluating a sufficient amount of data such that no other conclusion was possible. I don't like "election interference" because it is passive and, whether by the dictionary or its sense in common usages, suggests a conclusion that is less determinate. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think version "1" by MrX is fine if to replace "was discovered" by "was investigated", i.e something like Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was investigated by U.S. Intelligence agencies, the FBI and the U.S Congress ... My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Good proposals overall. Option 2 is more accurate than option 1; I would support that. I would also suggest to replace "2016 United States elections" with "2016 United States presidential election" which is the actual scope mentioned in intelligence reports and which gathered 99% of the RS coverage. The only non-presidential thing that was cited is usage of some leaked DNC documents by Republicans in Florida, something they would do regardless of the leak source. — JFG ^talk 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice. How about:

Version 3. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by three U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned investigations by both the FBI and the U.S Congress into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials. Casprings (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is better.- MrX 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I am thinking about it, let's bring down the words some:

Version 3a. Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections, documented by U.S. Intelligence agencies, spawned FBI and Congressional investigations into possible collusion between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.

Just another thought.Casprings (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 4. Better yet with two sentences:

The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly documented Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. Further investigations were started by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, looking into suspected collusion between members of Trump's presidential campaign and Russian government officials.

— JFG ^talk 19:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I like the idea of the first words of the article being the title and written in active voice. Also, keeping this discussion to one sentence might be worthwhile.. It forces you to craft a sentence about the article that is short and captures the essence of the article. Clearly we can have another sentence, but agreement on one sentence to start out on might be a worthwhile exercise. Just my thought.Casprings (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I support N-HH's wording proposal, per the treatment of the subject by reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, as very clearly shown above. MelanieN I'm curious what your opinion of that proposal is. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• To make N-HH's proposal more concrete,

Allegations that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election are currently being investigated by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have accused Russia of undertaking cyberattacks, disseminating fake news, making inappropriate contact with members of Trump's campaign team in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favour."

-Darouet (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this have to be added to every section of this page? Is nothing ever settled? Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate all of the comments here in an edit of the first paragraph of the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted. It was inappropriate for you to insert your own, undiscussed version into the article while discussion is still ongoing here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not always the practice here, but you might at least have copied it here if you prefer that process. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My reaction: I see merit in parts of several of the proposals. How about combining aspects of several of them? I do like the first words of the lede to be the title, although that isn't always a requirement. I don't want "allegations" in the first sentence, we have long since reached consensus that these reports are more definitive than "allegations". I don't think really we can keep it to a single sentence. I like N-HH's second sentence. I like Capsprings third sentence (except I would say investigating "the possibility of" collusion rather than "suspected" collusion, which is a little stronger than the current state of knowledge). Let's see if I can combine several of these proposals. Call it version 5.

Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections has been reported "with high confidence" by U.S. Intelligence agencies. The interference, in a bid to influence the result of the election in Trump's favor, included cyberattacks, data thefts and leaks, disseminating fake news, and social media trolling. Ongoing investigations by a Special Counsel and multiple congressional committees are trying to determine whether there was inappropriate contact or collusion between members of Trump's campaign team and Russian agents.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can we please have the first sentence not be passive voice? Casprings (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. I'm not a fan of the passive myself, but in this case I thought it made the sentence more understandable. Open for discussion, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton and to promote the candidacy of Donald Trump.[1][2][3] The U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe later stated that they had found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015.[6]

SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to start off with the bolded title in the lede, then the first sentence would best contain a definition rather than a statement about the subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am good with that, but the second sentence should be about the ongoing FBI and congressional investigations. That is really the most important thing about the subject.Casprings (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec x2) OK, now it is here and we can discuss it. Call this option 6. My own preference is for option 5 at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: this is basically the same as the existing lede paragraph, except that the lede sentence has been modified to define the subject matter. Correct? --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I was surprised you reverted it. I do agree with you and others however that there should also be a sentence about the ongoing investigations by various agencies. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption personally ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton.[1][2][3] In December 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a highly classified report which stated, with “high confidence”, that Russia had used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton.[4] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Several European nations and Australia had shared intelligence information relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015.[6] A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.

SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The goal of the discussion was to clarify and shorten the lead paragraph; your proposal crams too much detail into it + it's not neutral. — JFG ^talk 00:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please number all of the versions here and let your colleagues make the decision. Pre-emptive exclusion of several versions can only sustain the uncertainty and prolong the process. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't change any numbering, just bolded what was already numbered. You are free to assign a number to your own proposals. — JFG ^talk 06:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a new one, with some elements by MelanieN and Specifico, call it version 6:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump, notably by attempting to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. In response, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington in December 2016. Extensive investigations were started by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents. Reports of inappropriate contacts have led to the dismissal of Michael Flynn from the position of National Security Advisor.

I think this packs a lot into a compact space: actions, intent, attribution, consequences, and ongoing investigations. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This misrepresents the sources, weasels up key details and brings in less important detail, such as the expulsion. I again ask you to assign a number to my version and to MelanieN's version. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

These last couple of versions (5 and 6) are too detailed for a lead sentence. Darouet's is completely contrary to what sources widely report and not an accurate summary of the article. Version 4 narrows the scope to only the presidential election and is a little too wordy.- MrX 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you think Darouet's version is contrary to what sources report? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:REHASH.- MrX 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where we've discussed Darouet's proposal above. What, specifically, is "contrary to what sources widely report"? That's a very vague criticism. There's no way to change what Darouet wrote in response to your criticism, unless you say what, specifically, you think is contradicted by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How about Version 9

• • • Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections through a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption. Russia used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media trolls in an effort to promote the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump and to harm Hillary Clinton. These conclusions were stated by the US Director of National Intelligence in December, 2016 and affirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017. Other nations had shared intelligence relating to communications between Trump's senior advisers and suspected Russian agents as early as 2015. A Special Counsel and several U.S. Congressional committees are investigating the Russian interference and the possibility that there was collusion between Trump's inner circle and Russian agents.

SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's too detailed and it's not one sentence. Clinton should not be mentioned at all, nor should the article start with Putin. Versions 2, 3, and 3a better conform to WP:LEADSENTENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support Darouet's proposed version. It is completely in line with what sources widely report and an accurate summary of the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it utterly fails to describe or delimit the subject of the article. It's a small off-center subset of what's published in RS and fails WEIGHT and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How does it fail NPOV? It's not easy for any summary to capture the full scope of the article, because it's completely unclear what this article is actually supposed to be about. The best approximation I can get of the content that's been added to the article is, "Anything having to do with Russia and Trump." Maybe we should start the article with, "A lot of stuff has happened involving Russia and Trump over the past few months." That would be the most accurate summary of what's actually been added to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think JFG's version may be the best yet, although like SPECIFICO I would leave out the sentence about the retaliatory expulsion. And in its place maybe include the sentence detailing the methods used, found in my version #5 and both of SPECIFICO's versions. I don't like putting "Vladimir Putin personally" in the lede sentence - and yes, I realize it is in the lede paragraph now; both of SPECIFICO's versions move it to a more prominent place than the name and its sourcing deserve IMO, and I'd like to get rid of it altogether. I don't like Darouet's version because it is all weasely; we are way past the point of calling these intelligence reports "allegations" and have had that consensus for some time. Otherwise let's keep trying, I do think we are going to be able to hash this out and come up with a consensus version. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and a couple of quibbles regarding JFG's version #6: Instead of "Extensive investigations were started" I would say "Multiple investigations are underway". And I would just say "several congressional committees" because there are actually four working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not getting any closer to a consensus here. This section started out seeking a lead sentence and now it's become a discussion about how much can be crammed into a lead paragraph. Maybe we should first get consensus on what we're trying to accomplish here, then a consensus on which major points we are going to include, and then consensus on the specific wording. - MrX 03:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with JFG's proposed opening paragraph is that it states Russian interference in the Presidential election as a fact. That's not supported by reliable sources, as has been repeatedly established in previous discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that Thucydides411 and Darouet have acted as a tag team since 2011. They might know each other. They seem to be in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:881C:5500:2992:54FA:E30A:398D (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and next it will be claimed half the editors here are paid by Putin and the other half by Soros… We can't tolerate WP:ASPERSIONS coming from an anonymous IP user posting their only ever contribution to the project. Say who you are or shut up. — JFG ^talk 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're a sock of Azul411: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azul411. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking into account feedback on version 6 by MelanieN, MrX, SPECIFICO and Thucydides411, here is version 7:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. In response, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington. Several investigations are underway by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents. Reports of inappropriate contacts have led to the dismissal of Michael Flynn from the position of National Security Advisor.

Two people said Clinton should not be mentioned, so I removed that. I replaced the "extensive investigations were started" by "several investigations are underway"; I kept the full list of known investigations: FBI, House, Senate and Special Counsel, I don't believe there are any others (Melanie?). I chose to keep the expulsion of Russian diplomats because that and Flynn's demise are the only concrete consequences of this saga so far; the rest is merely an ongoing political feud. Sure, we have more than one sentence, but the article is complex enough; I think this lead paragraph provides a fair definition and overview of the subject matter. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For people who would prefer a shorter intro, here's an alternate version 7a:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption aimed at favoring Republican candidate Donald Trump. The FBI, CIA and NSA intelligence agencies have jointly attributed the interference to hackers and propaganda outlets controlled by Russian intelligence services. Several investigations are underway by the FBI, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a Special Counsel, to determine whether members of Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents.

This version keeps only the main sequence of events: hacks and propaganda, intelligence assessments and ongoing investigations, without listing consequences. I still prefer v7 but I can live with 7a if a shorter paragraph gets more support. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anything that begins with "Russian government interference in the 2016 United States elections was a campaign of cyberattacks and other disruption" is basically declaring "Russian interference" in the elections to be a fact. As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I understand your concern, but what else can we do to convey the distinction between facts and accusations? As long as the article is titled "Russian interference", we are bound to reflect what RS have said about this "Russian interference", even if parts of it may not be Russian and other parts may not be interference… This version is more neutral than the current lead, because it immediately clarifies that such misdeeds were attributed to Russia by the U.S. intelligence agencies. This is the closest I've ever seen to standing a chance of gaining consensus among editors holding different viewpoints, and indeed various sources being more categoric or more doubtful. We can't just prevaricate for years until the "true story" emerges. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As every review we've done above has shown, that's unsupported by reliable sources, and it's a serious violation of NPOV. You keep repeating this. It's simply false. I can only find one source, the BBC, that still uses the term allegations. Reuters has stopped using the word. Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: We've gone over this issue several times, and each time, the result was that most reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation. There were some editors who didn't accept this conclusion, but they didn't present sources to back up their views. Do you have sources to show that Reuters' editorial stance of "Russian interference" has changed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I oppose both 7 and 7a. First, a lead sentence should consist of a sentence, not two or three. The first sentence should state in general terms that there was interference in the 2016 elections and that investigations ensued. That's it.- MrX 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The discussion is trying to provide a proper introduction to the subject matter, which is too vast and delicate to be distilled into just one sentence, although I agree the lead paragraph should be kept brief and to the point. Do you have an alternate wording to suggest? — JFG ^talk 12:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm not opposed to doing just that as a second step. Trying to bite off so much at once is failing, as is evidenced by this divergent discussion. Add to that the exhausting WP:REHASH about "alleged" and we end up at an impasse.- MrX 12:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact of life on this article that some discussions about one word have failed, some discussions about one sentence have failed and some discussions about whole sections have failed too. Nevertheless, we must persist, as the saying goes… This particular discussion doesn't look like it's doomed to fail yet; with a little bit of good will from everyone, we should be able to improve the crucial introduction to the subject matter, to the relief of our confused readers. Shall you play? — JFG ^talk 12:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to persist without me. Please ping me when it looks like consensus is building around a particular version and I will gladly comment then.- MrX 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Delicate?" Putin? Trump? CIA? SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse both 7 and 7a, with a preference for 7a. Thank you, JFG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. On further research,[106] I find that other committees (such as Senate Judiciary) are holding some hearings on the matter, but the formal responsibility is with the Intelligence committees so I am OK with the wording you have. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. Reading them again, I now prefer the shorter version. I would still suggest one amendment: "other disruption" is very vague, perhaps we can replace it with "propaganda efforts", which sums up rather well the combined effect of document leaks, fake news and online trolling, all aimed at discrediting Clinton. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 15:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegations

Many people dispute the Russian intervention narrative including anti Trump progressives. Shouldn't the article be more neutral. There isn't really any conclusive evidence of Russian hacking and this is a polarizing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.54.222 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere will always dispute everything. We just use the reliable sources. WP:IRS Objective3000 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources refer to it as allegations by intelligence which is what we should do. No reliable sources dispute the intelligence, they just agree that it is at this point just allegations. TFD (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, D.C. police are investigating IT staff employed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other Democratic members of Congress for security breaches and theft of computers. TFD (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have an RS for this, it may be a BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See "House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation" Heather Caygle, Politico): "Alvi, Awan and three other House aides, including Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, relatives of Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, are all linked to the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the probe." TFD (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Tried to follow it three times; but kept running out of breadcrumbs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure of classified information to Russia

I think the whole Disclosure of classified information to Russia section should be deleted as it does not go to Russian interference nor the investigation of officials. Enthusiast01 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

During the meeting, Trump told the Russians he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. That is why it is there and that is why it is important.Casprings (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: If we keep the 2 sentences about Comey, as I suggested below, are you OK with deleting the rest of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Enthusiast. This article is expanding well beyond its scope and is just shy of adding a kitchen sink to being an all-out position paper against Trump. Trump was talking about collusion, not interference, with his meeting with Comey. It is not the subject of this article and its presence here is highly prejudicial.LedRush (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The disclosure of classified information was related to the effort to defeat ISIS, and I'm not aware that had anything to do with Comey, the 2016 election, or the Russian effort to defeat Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is largely off-topic. It should be reduced to a brief mention in the section about Comey's dismissal. — JFG ^talk 07:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Comey related stuff definitely belongs in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, it is not really related.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the disclosure of classified information is irrelevant to this subject. I suggest that we transfer this sentence to the Comey paragraph - In a May 10 private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved "great pressure" on him. He stated, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," adding "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." - and delete the rest of the section. MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Disagree with deleting the rest. There needs to be some mention that in the meeting he also disclosed classified information, as that is also mentioned in every RS that discusses this. Moreover, it is important to the event. In a meeting which he disclosed classified information, he decided to also tell the Russians this.Casprings (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have MAJOR non-related events?

Should this article have major non-related events? It seems like that would provide some context when reading a timeline. For example a SC justice being sworn in, health care, or a new war. I just think it would help the timeline because you would understand the other ongoimg Casprings (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is already far too much superfluous and tangentially related information in this article.LedRush (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No. People who want to read about other stuff can just click the relevant links… The joys of hypertext! — JFG ^talk 07:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it would detract from the main content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, as they are unrelated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized I posted this on the wrong article. Meant for the timeline related article.Casprings (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)|

Time to form sub articles ?

This article is getting big.

Time to form sub articles and then to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here? Sagecandor (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposed split was rejected by most editors. It distinguished two phases: the election interference proper and its immediate aftermath, up to the expulsion of Russian diplomats over Christmas, then the 2017 developments around the Trump administration and former associates, with new inquiries and revelations. There would be a clear cut date between the articles, and they would prominently refer to each other. Got a better proposal or adjustments to that one? — JFG ^talk 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not too big. We could trim it a little, for example by removing the "disclosure" section as discussed above. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Many sections could be shortened, actually. For example, the Comey story is fully detailed in two separate articles (Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos); the essential points could be trimmed to a single paragraph here. — JFG ^talk 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The section "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" is a laundry list of detective clues, which kind of begs to be forked into its own article. Many of the reported contacts are indeed related to Russia but unrelated to the election interference. — JFG ^talk 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)