Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Official Russian statements and Putin interviews as sources

An editor persists in adding references like official statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry and an exclusive Putin interview by a Russian government-owned website. Both are Putin’s word, i.e., OR, and we have several English-language secondary sources for the denials/categorical denials/rejections/denouncements mentioned in the article, including Peskov calling a report "garbage." As far as I can tell from the Google translation, the lengthy interview mentions the subject of this article only in this one sentence: "Instead of beginning to work constructively, we only hear groundless accusations of interference in the internal affairs of the United States." There are currently more than 300 sources on the reference list, and I’m removing these two plus the paywalled Financial Times that let’s you read only the headline without a subscription. Please, do not reinstate without discussing the merits of the references in Talk first. We do not have to give equal space to the "accused", and endlessly repeating variations of "no, we didn’t" isn’t an argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: We cite official US documents on multiple occasions, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. In this context it is not unreasonable to cite "official statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry" or "an exclusive Putin interview by a Russian government-owned website," especially since our article mentions Putin twice in the article headings, and repeats his name 65 times, before the references.

Furthermore, in this article we currently cite Radio Svoboda, which is funded by the US government. We also cite NPR and PBS. But while this article is titled "Russian interference..." I don't see a single reference to Russia Today, even though they've published extensively on this topic. At WP:RS in the section WP:BIASED, the text reads,

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

Given that we have 343 references in an article that purports to be about Russian interference in the US election, what percentage of these references should derive from Russia? and how many from the United States? How many should come from other countries (the UK, France, China, Germany, Spain, etc) with their own substantial media presence? -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE We don't choose primary sources to give equal weight to their POV and mainstream NPOV. I think this has been amply discussed on this talk page over the past many months. Let's deal with specific improvements rather than general discomfort about the mainstream narrative on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The classification of the views of the Russian government as WP:FRINGE is a statement of extreme political bias, and "their views have no place here" is a totally unreasonable position for an international encyclopedia. I'm asking a few specific questions: should we cite official US documents, but not official Russian statements or interviews? What percentage of sources should derive from Russia, Russia today, other countries, etc? -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's an observation of the amount of weight their views are given by reliable sourcing. If Russia wants more respect, they could start speaking the truth. Unfortunately their viewpoint appears to be (here comes my OR) that because they have 20,000 or so nuclear warheads at their disposal, they are therefore worthy of the same respect that any other gets no matter what absurd things their propaganda outlets say or how many foreign territories they annex. Luckily, the Wikipedia guidelines would have to be considerably revised to accommodate that point of view. Geogene (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Where's OJ's denials? #implausible denial per RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene and SPECIFICO: What you're proposing - that we dismiss the statements of one government (Russia) while taking the statements of another government (the US) essentially at face value - is very disturbing from the point of view of WP:NPOV and writing an international encyclopedia. I hope your editing here is not motivated by political animus towards Russia and Wikileaks, but from your comments on this talk page, it appears to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clearly siding with US intelligence in particular instance. Therefore this article will be biased in that direction. It's disingenuous of you (and some others) to read anything more into it than that. I'm sorry that the Neutrality policy disturbs you, but this is not something that can be negotiated. Ultimately it will become a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statements from editors implying that 100% of official documents cited here should be American, and 0% Russian, or that 0% of sources should derive from RT or other (presumably) "pro-Russian" sources, ignore the WP:RS stipulation that

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

They also ignore the WP:NPOV guideline that we present

"fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Where in WP:RSN has it been demonstrated that Russia Today is a fringe publishing outfit, and that they not only should be used with caution, but should not be used at all? That was not the conclusion of this RSN discussion, for instance, nor this one. How, based on the topic of this article, and RSN records, can we maintain that neither official Russian positions, nor RT statements, are so trivial as to not constitute a "significant view?" -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the editor that took the lead in defending RT in the two discussions you linked to has been indeffed. Two other editors supporting RT as RS in those discussions have also been blocked, one indeffed and later suspected of heavy socking, and the other a one-year block. Having said that, there is no ban on RT as a source. Just use with care as it is a voice for Putin. The U.S. intelligence community is clearly not a mouthpiece for our current President as he so often disagrees with them. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'll also note that one of the users leading the charge against RT was indeffed (Sayerslle - an event that was long overdue). Some defending RT in some context (Viriditas, Ubikwit, Herzen) were and remain members of the community. Other editors - Gruban, Ian.thomson, TheBlueCanoe, CaroleMooreDC, Kmhkmh - argued it was a biased source, perhaps equivalent to VoR depending on who you ask - that might be used in certain contexts and not others. I think it's a biased source and should be used in some context. Also I'll note that most of the editors who argued vociferously against RT in those discussions - without any nuance at all - were a part of that EEML scandal where editors were emailing one another to edit war specifically against what they perceived as pro-Russian editors / viewpoints. In the discussions those who had nuanced positions definitely had the most interesting things to say, in my view. And nuance doesn't mean 100% of one thing, 0% of another. I'll ping @Bob K31416: below since in my view, their comment is below their normal standards. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, I was expressing, but not too well, my feeling that some editors were trying to suppress Russia's views, which reminded me of reports of Russia suppressing dissenting views in their country. In situations like these, I think of Orwell's Animal Farm, where the animals took over the farm from humans and claimed that two legs bad, four legs good. Then when they were in power, the dominating pigs started standing on two legs and said four legs good but two legs better.

On another point, I think that there are too many editors here who don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example misusing terms like fringe, undue, reliable source, and OR. So I don't think it's worthwhile for me to edit here. It's too much work for the amount of article improvement that might be obtained. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Bob K31416 In general I've felt the same way about this page - that the hostility level is too high to have productive editing, and that there isn't much concern for application of policy. Anyway I'm traveling so I won't be able to edit here for a while either. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, ad hominem thinking is unproductive and corrosive and is not consistent with WP site policy. Do you have a substantive editing concern. Otherwise step back and let others voice their views. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was responding to Objective3000's comment that some editors arguing in favor of using RT as a source had been blocked. I pointed out that many weren't, and some arguing against RT had been blocked, including for EEML in the past. What's alright with their comment but wrong in my response? Your comment otherwise appears conveniently hypocritical. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I've noticed this sort of hypocritical accusations to be somewhat of a pattern on your part. For example, after MPants launched a series of vulgar personal attacks on me above, and I reported those attacks to GoldenRing, you piped up not to condemn MPants' personal attacks but to ... wait for it ... attack me, the target of the personal attacks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "proportionately" and "reliable sources". Where are all the reliable sources that make the positivist claim that Russia did not meddle in the election? There are none! Therefore.... Geogene (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I've noticed you state this before. However, "did/didn't interfere" does not represent the broad spectrum of human ideological positions that exist for an unproven but possibly true allegation. For instance, I've pointed out that two of the most respectable news outlets in the world - Reuters and the BBC - remain consistently agnostic on every single one of their platforms. They don't do this for simple facts: rather, just for the allegation or possibility (their terminology) that Russia interfered in the election. Also, your comment doesn't address the fact that the Wikipedia community has never concluded that RT is such a biased source that it cannot be used. -Darouet (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The US Intelligence Community isn't a journalistic outlet. It's a collection of US government agencies, which may have their own political agendas. RT is a news source that one can use with caution. US Intelligence isn't a news source. There's a clear distinction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant because we're using reliable sources that consider the IC credible. If you want some kind of false equivalency between the US and RF viewpoints on this, then you need to take it up with the sources. Complaining about it here is a waste of time that should have ceased months ago. Again, this is a core policy that is not negotiable. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Some sources are more credulous about US intelligence agency claims, some are less credulous. My impression from reading both American and international papers is that the NY Times and Washington Post are much more credulous than large international news agencies like BBC, Reuters, Le Monde or the Süddeutsche Zeitung (not to even mention Russian news agencies). What I really object to is the blurring of lines between US intelligence agencies and reliable sources, which several editors here have been engaging in. If reliable sources agree on some point, then that's fine and it can be treated as factual. If reliable sources report that "Senior US intelligence officials said X," we can report that "Senior US intelligence officials said X." However, we absolutely cannot go from that to claiming that US intelligence agencies themselves are reliable sources, that their claims should be presented as fact, and that anyone who disputes their claims is WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, or any of the other acronyms regularly used to exclude such material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Calling RT biased is fair game, they don't even pretend otherwise. Calling them fringe is absurd. They may have been fringe 5 years ago but they have stepped up their game as a news channel, they have received journalism awards and they now command a significant audience worldwide; that doesn't happen by chance. The only reason to exclude them systematically would be ideological bias. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting off-topic sub-thread which doesn't add to the discussion. Jdcomix (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like some editors are suggesting that Wikipedia editing should move towards the approach used by the Russian government regarding news. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) This comment has no content and doesn't address or answer any point I raised, including any point about policy. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Do you honestly believe that RT is a reliable source under the Wikipedia definition? Just trying to determine what exactly you are trying to argue. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC) My actual position is similar, I think, to Ubikwit, Gruban, Ian.thomson, TheBlueCanoe, CaroleMooreDC, Kmhkmh. I think that it's a biased but important source. Personally, if I were writing an article and RT were relevant as a source, I would consider it as a source capable of conveying the official or semiofficial position of the Russian government, or various/powerful Russian interests, as a source possibly containing reporting that Western outlets would not, or could not cover, but also as a source that is likely to be biased, especially considering points 1-2. I think this is more or less consistent with what has emerged as a consensus from RSN discussions in the past. Part of this consensus is that if RT's reporting is in doubt, but there's reason to cite them (there isn't always), then RT should be used with attribution. I think when RT is relaying statements from Russian officials, there's no reason to doubt the veracity of the fact the statements were made, even if the statements are questioned by us or others. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I don't understand point #2. Are you saying that the Western press is unable or unwilling to report on some viewpoints? Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) @Objective3000: Both - that in some instances RT might be physically/infrastructurally capable of reporting on something that the Western press cannot, and that in other instances it might report report on something that the Western press (or most of it) chooses not to cover. Obviously in both these cases, depending on the event / claim at issue, RT's coverage might be too controversial, impossible to verify, and therefore might not be used. If the claim was picked up elsewhere it might be used but briefly and with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Can you provide sources that the Western Press has failed to report stories of interest to an encyclopedia that RT has covered? Objective3000 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting nonsense. Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is beyond absurd, a general assertion that RT is a good source completely leapfrogging the concrete article improvement issues at hand. Citing unrelated RSN threads from the distant past is cute. I mean, RT is a great place to write serious journalism, as long as you don't get shot, poisoned, abducted or have a garbage bag tied over your head. And I for one am sure I could still type on deadline gasping with a bag over my head. SPECIFICO talk This is a place to discuss article improvement. You can take comments like the one above to your political discussion board or chat room of choice, but hyperbolic such comments just clutter up the thread here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

New report in The Nation

Lawrence, Patrick. "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack", The Nation (August 9, 2017): "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news. Belongs in that article. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's being discussed elsewhere at Wikipedia, see Talk:2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#New_Report. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it was unbonked. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg. There is no indication that the story is fake, nor, AFAIK, a reliable source saying it is fake. As you have already been warned on the other discussion, please refrain from POV pushing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality I don't see how it is promotionally worded, but if you think it is, then please contribute to the encyclopedia by rephrasing it instead of removing the content (same goes for claim of not addressing a supposedly fringe characteristic of the view). Why is it WP:UNDUE? It would be extremely WP:NPOV for this article - already one-sided - to not present an alternative view by experts in the area, covered by a reliable source. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not "new". It's not a "report". And "The Nation" is just an opinion piece by one guy who's got a long history of Putin-apologia ("US organized the "coup" in Ukraine" and other idiotic nonsense). It's WP:FRINGE. It's gibberish. It's based on some conspiracy website claiming they know some guy, who's anonymous, who assures them, anonymously, that s/he found something, that no one else has been able to find, because they "peeled through the top layers of meta data" or some shit like that. It's an embarrassment. There's no reason to include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim was made by a group of experts in the area, and was reported in a reliable source (see discussion in this section). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I seriously doubt whether inclusion in this article would be due weight at all. VIPS is best known for its fringe claims (denying that Assad used Syrian chemical weapons) and just plain wrong predictions (e.g., warning several years ago that Israeli strike on Iran was imminent).

But, even assuming for the sake of argument that some form could be included, the text as inserted was terrible and just plain false.

• The Bloomberg report is an opinion column ("Bloomberg View") not straight news, but was presented without attribution.
• The wording in at least one case was straight-up not supported by the cited source ("Unlike previous intelligence professionals who served as sources for media reports, VIPS professionals are open about their identities" - appears nowhere in op-ed, and in fact contradicted by it - note that article says that sources for the VIPS claims went by "pseudonyms")

• Seriously, shame on people for adding and then restoring(!) something flatly incorrect.

• Fails to make clear that VIPS claim is a fringe one (WP:EVALFRINGE - we should accurately explain the level of acceptance of a view when we present it).

--Neutrality^talk 01:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia for all of the above. Objective3000 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that really a fringe view, or just an alternative one (made by experts in the area in this case; see below)? And one of the two possible outcomes of the process of predicting something is getting it wrong. I don't see how the text was "plain false":

• The assessments were duly attributed to the group who made them (diff)
• I think you misinterpreted the sentence (or perhaps it was bad wording on my part). Some quotes: Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names ... VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials ... Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter, has pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refute that Guccifer's material constitute the spoils of a hack. To me, the text seems to reflect that. If you believe it doesn't, you could have mentioned the pseudonyms or merely removed the phrase, which isn't central to the text that was added.
• Again, I fail to see what as incorrect, given the clarifications above. Saying (again) that "it's wrong!" only wastes both yours and mine time.

Thanks for your input, though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone actually engaged in hard science would be incredibly unlikely to say that "...hard science demonstrates..." anything. Mostly because scientists know this little secret; there are different kinds of science. A report by anyone with actual expertise would say something more like "...forensic analysis of logs of several events associated with the transfer indicate with a high degree of certainty that..."

Plus there's the fact that I highly doubt these guys have access to any of the logs they'd have had to examine to make that kind of determination. And of course, that's assuming they even exist (I'll tell you this much: they wouldn't exist if I'd been the one who took them, and I'm about as much of a hacker as I am a potato). And of course, there's the problem that these guys have a history of just stealing random conspiracy theories off the web and claiming them as their own... Yeah, this is pretty much the definition of a fringe view. That being said, given the size of this article, a fringe view might merit a single sentence.

A short one.

With an appropriate mainstream response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a critique of the prose is relevant here. As for the existence of the people, please see William Binney (U.S. intelligence official) and Scott Ritter. How are the views of these people or professional affiliates from the group fringe, when it concerns their area? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the key indicators of Fringe in current events is when people start advocating to mention that one source that says something weird or contradictory to the entirety of mainstream opinion that hardly any other source cares about. This is a textbook example. It's fringe, as well as a minority viewpoint that is too small to even merit mention. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, as already explained. Moreover it's not necessarily that "no other source cares about", but rather that it goes against their narrative (there has been a clear and open agenda by different segments of the media - both pro Republican and pro Democrat - ever since the candidates were announced). This lack of reporting is also mentioned in the Bloomberg article (also here), although the report has been getting some attention; MSN picked it up (attributed, again, to experts), and includes a reply by Wikipedia the DNC calling it a conspiracy theory. Fox News also picked it up and attributes it to Bill Binney, former NSA technical director (pff, who cares about these guys right?). But even if we were to concede to a somewhat fringe characteristic, as long as it is explained that it is a minority viewpoint (possibly with reply by the DNC), and as long as it is attributed it is fine, and it is my view that it should be at the very least mentioned. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Puh-leeze do not trot Ritter around the track again. What does snooping for bombs have to do with electrical engineering and data encoding? And btw, it's former "experts". Not everyone who works in the butcher shop is a chef. Anyone with a web domain can flash their resume. So what? If this were a significant view it would be widely covered and would be endorsed by multiple vetted individuals with the expertise to make such claims. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Puh-leeze, read the discussion and the sources more carefully to know who are the people involved.Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you would find getting agreement easier if you resisted taking partisan shots. Just say that unless the story gets wider coverage it lacks weight and in the meantime the few sources that have commented on the report have questioned some of its assumptions. TFD (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see how a critique of the prose is relevant here.

1. I did not critique the prose. I critiqued the competence of the author based on the wording.
2. Aside from actually composing text, our biggest responsibility here is evaluating sources. If you aren't interested in the community's evaluation of this source, then don't propose or defend it as a source.

it's not necessarily that "no other source cares about", but rather that it goes against their narrative Simply being a fringe view does not make it notable enough to be given an undue level of weight; that is utterly nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was notable because it was fringe, and no one so far evaluated the source for the information (experts on their area). Bloomberg, MSN and Fox News reported on it. Those are all reliable sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You were told that it was undue, you responded by pointing out that it goes against "their" narrative. If that's not arguing that it's notable because it's fringe, I dunno what is. Furthermore, the consensus on this is clearly against you. For you to go ahead and add it back in with the edit summary "Per TP..." is disruptive and dishonest. So far, I've been your only "supporter" here in that I advocated for a single short sentence with an appropriate rebuttal. But you're really starting to convince me that this is a POV push, which is only going to make me more resistant to including it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was told that it was undue, yet no one explained why a report attributed to experts in the area and covered by Bloomberg, Fox, MSN, (below the NY Post and The Washington Post) is undue. The closer to an explanation was: "Only a few sources sources". I responded to that, that some mainstream outlets may not wish to publish it because it goes against what they have been reporting on the case so far. As for the edit summary, I did not intend to be dishonest (I presume you assumed I was pointing out to an unexisiting consensus?), but rather to indicate the discussion regarding editing the text to point out it is a minority view as editors said it should be pointed out in the tp, as well as the response by the DNC that I mentioned here and in the edit summary. As for the support of a mention, I would rather have it because the content merits a mention regardless of who is proposing it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It was explained why; Neutrality linked to WP:EVALFRINGE which provides guidance on this. Furthermore, as TheTimesAreAChanging pointed out in their followup edit, any such inclusion would need to include a rebuttal. The problem with the state of the text as of TTAAC's edit were merely that it gave too much WP:WEIGHT to this fringe view. I might remind you that "Bigfoot is real" is a fringe view that is covered in literally thousands of reliable sources; that does not mean that we present that view with any undue weight at Bigfoot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was this ridiculous report added back to the article? I don't see anything close to consensus for this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I did include a response by the DNC and mentioned it was a minority view... Perhaps using the text from The Washington Post that says it goes against the current consensus would be better? I tried to adjust it in other ways also, see below.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for this either. Neutrality^talk 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't added back, as the edit summary showed the text was modified to point out it is a minority view, the critical response by the DNC was added, as well as extra sources. No editor has yet provided a valid reason for removal, a report by experts in the field including the former director of the NSA which got covered by reliable sources not only is due weight, not including it leads to serious neutrality issues in this article. I intend to start a request for comment for the community if we cannot reach a compromise on this. It is ridiculous that this is not even mentioned in the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that it should be included (and I don't make that assumption), it is incredibly WP:UNDUE for it to get its own subsection, directly following the subsections for "Dismissal of FBI director James Comey" and "Investigation by special counsel." That is simply ridiculous. The firing of Comey and the special counsel investigation are highly significant, groundbreaking, historically rare events that received sustained and detailed news coverage. This poorly received report by a small group is not even in the same galaxy of significance. Neutrality^talk 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's a matter of placement or text length then that's easy to adequate, and I welcome any suggestions. Although I think the sources added were sufficient, here are some more that covered the report: New York Post, The Washington Post. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That WaPo link doesn't do you any favors, it says the story is subject of a "post publication editorial review" at The Nation (ie, might be subject to corrections/retraction) and notes that the story's author subscribes to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory (ie, probably is unreliable and/or heavily biased on this subject). All of this adds to the "red flag" nature of the claim. Absent broader evidence and coverage, this obviously shouldn't go in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it and I don't see how any of that - a contributer to The Nation not involved with the report believing in X or Y, and the fact that that paper wishes to review the article - is relevant to the merits of the report itself, from experts in the field and having received coverage in rs. The argument is still "not broad enough coverage". Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @The Four Deuces: SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Except The Nation and Bloomberg, there's also an article in Salon dedicated to this. --S. Roix (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So now the story is that The Nation is now having second thoughts about whether they should have published that fake news in the first place? This is pretty cut and dry for our purposes. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed (reworked) text

After editor's feedback mentioning that this wasn't worthy of a section (I can agree with that), that it failed to point out it was a minority view (I mentioned it, but perhaps not stressed it enough) and that initially there were not enough sources (there are many more now), I believe all these issues have been addressed. Consider the following addition under the exisiting United States Intelligence community subsection (seems fitting). I also added another rebuttal (besides the DNC's) as suggested by another user:

A group of former intelligence professionals including former technical director of the National Security Agency Bill Binney claim, against the current consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, that the emails stolen from the DNC could not have been downloaded remotely from a location in Europe, suggesting a leak rather than a hack. The DNC responded to the group's allegations calling them "a conspiracy theory". John Hultquist of FireEye stated: "The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims."

This gives more emphasis to the rebuttals than to the claim itself. Yet, the claim was made by professionals in the area and received a fair amount of coverage, in my opinion being more than worthy of mention under the United States Intelligence community sub-section - to the point that not discussing it would be an omission. What do editors think about the proposed text at the proposed place? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

May I assume there is no opposition to the proposal? Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fair and balanced to me. — JFG ^talk 09:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --S. Roix (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE omit. SPECIFICO talk 11:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Does not belong in the article. Numerous people pointed out above why the report is UNDUE, and your proposed text is still misleading. Eg, you should not be using Bill Binney to lend authority to this when he's a regular guest on infowars lately... All signs point to this being a very unreliable "report," unworthy of inclusion. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Violates WP:UNDUE. Jdcomix (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now. This got some news coverage right after being released, but it doesn't look like something that will have any lasting relevance. It doesn't make sense to put in a paragraph about a highly criticized fringe report unless it really does turn out to be influential or important in some way. If this keeps turning up and being talked about in the future, then it should be included. But as is, it hasn't even been two weeks and this story seems to be dead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree. Just yesterday it was covered by Washington Times. --S. Roix (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You might be right. I just think it's worth waiting a bit longer to see if this story is actually something with persistent relevance. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Time helps with these things, I agree. That's why it's often pointless to dive too deep into news events. Eventually the truth becomes clear. In this case, I'm pretty sure it's fake news. It's definitely of no intrinsic merit, but it's conceivable that it is good-faith error. I think the great thing about WP is that it gives us the principles that we can use to reject fake news. Problem is that there are the small minority of folks who are snared by it and when we lose sight of policy there are endless discussions until their position eventually becomes so clearly untenable that it's decisively rejected. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's now also on Philadelphia Media Network and The Federalist. The story doesn't seem to be dying off really. --S. Roix (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So we have three opposes and three supports (myself included). Anyone else has anything to say or perhaps suggest some alterations to the text? The story is being discussed for at least 20 days now. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's being discussed for 20 days due to the insistent repetition of various non-policy-based arguments. Just like "there's no Russian interference" has been discussed for 9 months. In neither case does the obstinacy of the discussion make up for the lack of reasoned argument. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to agree if it didn't seem like everything written about this was either a quick reaction to the Nation or just an opinion piece (including the ones in The Federalist and Philidelphia Inquirer). Of the few actual news stories written in reliable sources, almost all of them appeared within a week after the Nation's article, and a large portion of them questioned its premise, some even stating that the Nation considered retracting it. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the language in your proposed text, but it still seems like this would be giving too much credence to a fringe theory, something that made some minor waves when it initially came out, and is currently disappearing into obscurity. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. 🌟🌟🌟🌟

• Leave it out. There is no reason to cite a minority opinion, from people who are speculating and don't have access to any actual data, even if we ironically expand their coverage by including a couple of responses saying their comments are BS. The way to deal with BS is to leave it out. We keep being offered non-reliable sources as if they might give this minority opinion some credibility. So far it isn't happening. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a very important and elucidative point. That is how fake news works. Many many nonsense sources make nonsense narrative familiar to casual or uninformed readers. WP site policies are very well-honed to keep this stuff out of the encyclopedia. There are no extenuating circumstances that will make us better off deviating from site policy. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You've made this argument a number of times, that only the views of people with "access" (i.e., those who currently work within United States spy agencies) should be represented here. I think that would be a really incredible stand for Wikipedia to take. The report by VIPS has received enough coverage that it deserves some mention here, even if you personally think it's BS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt I have made that argument a number of times. That's because I do happen to believe that people who are working with actual data are more likely to be accurate in their assessment than people who are just theorizing. You have made the counter argument a number of times also, apparently because you feel all opinions need to be included, even those who are winging it without data - or because you have some kind of built-in assumption that "spy agencies" cannot be trusted - or both. As for the "coverage" of this report, in Reliable Sources it was mostly dismissive (so it's not just my opinion that it's BS), leaving non-reliable sources like the Washington Times and various op-ed pieces which keep being cited here as if they carried some weight. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

New Lede

A proposal. I expect somebody to revert it, but please give some specific objection here.

Full text

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the Russian government or its agents supporting Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Allegations of interference included hacking DNC computer servers, coordinating with Trump campaign officials including Paul Manafort, and disseminating fake news on social media. On October 7, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of e-mails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process.The hacks included those of the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. On October 31, the Barack Obama administration directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face serious consequences. In December, president Barack Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. 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. Several investigations about Russian influence on the election have been underway: a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI, hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and inquiries about possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump associates, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. On May 9, 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, citing in part dissatisfaction with the ongoing suspicions of his presidency because of "this Russia thing". On May 17, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the investigation.

Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, Manafort's not been convicted of anything yet, and the support of Trump was just one of the aims (the other being to undermine faith in the system). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph states a whole series of allegations as if they were established facts, in the authoritative voice of Wikipedia. That would be a massive violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of stating first what the Russians did, because that's the purported subject of the article. Unfortunately we don't know that much with certainty, so that whatever accusations must be prefixed by "US intelligence says so". In particular, there is zero indication at the moment of "coordinating with Trump campaign officials": on the contrary, practically all of the suspicions cited in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials have resulted in "no collusion found" conclusions. People keep digging wider and deeper until they find something: the typical fishing expedition. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've changed sentence two from "The interference included" to "Allegations of interference included". Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Even the first sentence isn't sourced, and most sources I've read claim not that Russia was attempting to support Trump, but that Russia was attempting to sabotage Clinton - especially in the last several months, where they anticipated she would win and so were working mainly to reduce her legitimacy by sowing doubt about the election. There is too little information about Russia - no mention of repeated denials by the Russian government, or Russian response to sanctions. There's no mention of the widespread propaganda campaign except one line about fake news (which isn't really the same thing), and no mention of the hacking attempts against state and local election databases. And while Paul Manafort and the rest are being investigated, none of them has even been charged with a crime, much less found guilty in court. Describing the allegations as "coordinating with Trump campaign officials including Paul Manafort" feels conclusive on the wrong side - it reads as though Manafort's crimes are already known, and only the Russian participation is unclear. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any of those sources? And a long list of denials is something I'm interested in explicitly not including. They did it, or they're alleged/accused of doing it, or don't mention it at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As a separate suggestion, instead of a lede sentence of "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections refers to the Russian government or its agents supporting Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign.", it could read "This article describes various allegations and investigations regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Power~enwiki (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, and Casprings: for some other opinions. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems like yet another attempt to put in as much "alleged" as possible into the lede. We've had this conversation. s. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This is an attempt to put in whatever it is they were alleged to have done. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's an attempt to be accurate, and not to state something as fact that we don't know to be a fact. It's not that complicated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see how this is superior to our current version. Neutrality^talk 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." is, in my opinion, the worst lede sentence in the entire Wikipedia. Why can't the nature of the interference be mentioned? Or its effects? As it is, we simply have "The US government said X and the Russians denied it. The US government also said X+Y and the Russians denied it." Power~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty decent lead sentence. Of the Five Ws, it hits four (who, what, when, where). As to "how" — that can be (and is) discussed later on in the lead section and the article. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really hit the "what" question. This is a general problem I see in the article. What was the alleged interference? It's primarily the claim of hacking emails and promoting the spread of "fake news." The lede should give some context - the email release, which hurt Clinton's campaign. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine sentence. It's grammatical. It's crisp. It gets right to the point. It's easy to understand. I wish more Wikipedia article lede sentences were written like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To me, looks like a classically well put lede. Introduce the reader to the pertinent points of the article, succinctly and accurately. Objective3000 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that "Russian interference" is the object of the sentence, not the subject. The subject-verb part is "US Intelligence Community concludes." The sentence shouldn't be about the US government saying that the subject of the article definitely is a thing that really exists, it should be about the subject of the article. Which means a sentence saying "Russia interfered in the election by doing X", or "Russia allegedly interfered by doing X". Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion of Russian interference wrongly attributed to "United States Intelligence Community" at large, in opening paragraph.

On May 23, 2017, former CIA Director John Brennan revealed to the House Intelligence Committee that only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment, relying on analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the oversight of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

John Brennan said the report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies..."

Wikipedia's opening paragraph misleadingly states — I quote — that "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Both Wikipedia's opening paragraph and the reference to The Washington Post article, dated 10-07-2016, are outdated and incorrect (and most certainly misleading) in light of John Brennan's more recent report (dated 05-23-2017) on the topic.

Quidnovis (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The Office for the Director of National Intelligence directs all US intelligence agencies. It speaks on their behalf. This has been discussed in the talk page before, and nothing has changed since then. I'd suggest reading that thread, since it addresses an argument identical to yours. Additionally, this article summarizes the arguments very well. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the relevant section of the article gives details about who produced the assessment. But the fact remains that it is the official assessment of the US intelligence community (if you read it, the document itself refers to the author as "the Intelligence Community" and it's titled an "Intelligence Community Assessment") and which specific agencies produced it are only details. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is misleading. Furthermore, the three agencies were not actually involved, but the NSA head hand-picked members from them for the report. The wording is reminiscent of the "Coalition of the Willing," where numbers are used to overstate support. TFD (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed misleading. And, with all due respect to Red Rock Canyon, "specific agencies" cannot be considered "only details", very specifically not when the term "United States Intelligent Community" in Wikipedia's opening paragraph on that page is highlighted to link to another Wikipage that defines "United States Intelligent Community" as "a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together...". And most certainly not, when "United States Intelligence Community" on that Wikipage is presented with a note to a Los Angeles Times' article by Nina Agrawal stressing - I quote - that "There's more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community." There is no denying that such a narrative is at the very least, extremely misleading, and not up to par with Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. The fact that section 4.6 of the Wikipage belatedly gives details about who produced the assessment does in no way excuse the equivocating opening paragraph.Quidnovis (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please do note that both the the AP and the LA Times considered the clarification important enough (and not just "only details") to warrant the publication of a "clarification" on the part of AP, and a "correction" on the part of the LA Times.Quidnovis (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've read those corrections. They say "We were mistaken when we wrote that this is an assessment of all 17 agencies". Nowhere in this article do we claim that this is an assessment of all 17 agencies. An earlier version did claim that, and when corrections from newspapers were issued, that text was removed - thus responding to the corrections. What we do claim is that it is an assessment of the intelligence community. The ODNI directs the intelligence community. Its conclusions are the conclusions of the intelligence community. When they put out a document claiming to be an "Intelligence Community Assessment", with the author described as "the Intelligence Community", they are speaking on behalf of the intelligence community. Here is the current Director of National Intelligence explaining that "there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election — despite comments by his boss, President Donald Trump, that have seemed to cast some doubt about the unanimity.... the reason only four of 17 intelligence agencies signed onto the January assessment describing the Russian effort is that the other agencies were not involved in gathering and analyzing the intelligence."

Yes, the intelligence agencies work "separately and together". This was a case of them working together. You simply do not understand how the intelligence community operates. The Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and Energy Department's intelligence agency don't contribute to writing about Russian interference in an election because that's not their focus, not because they disagree with the conclusion. Besides all that, and most importantly, reliable sources call it "intelligence community assessment". Often they also describe which agencies produced it, but most of the time when it is mentioned in newspapers and such, it's just called "intelligence community assessment" or some equivalent thereof.

Business Insider: "The US intelligence community has been unanimous in its assessment that Russia did indeed interfere."

USA Today: "Even as President Trump continues to equivocate on Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, his new chief of staff as recently as last week took a strong public stand affirming the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that the Kremlin tried to influence the election in favor of Trump."

Politico "Now, to the further frustration of some intelligence officers, there is little indication that, for all Trump’s bluster, he’ll be tougher on the Kremlin. In his first months in office, the president has signaled a willingness to work with Moscow on several fronts, and has pushed back hard against his own intelligence community’s assessment that Russia actively worked to elect him to the presidency."

CNN (quoting the current NSA Director, who presumably knows how the intelligence community operates and the correct terminology for assessments): "The NSA director said he stood by the intelligence assessment that Russia used hacking in an attempt to influence last year's election, something Moscow has repeatedly denied. 'I stand behind the intelligence, intelligence community assessment that we produced in January,'"

These are from the last month, long after newspapers issued corrections about the "All 17 agencies" line. Yes, the document was produced by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI. But it was produced on behalf of the entire intelligence community, its findings represent the entire intelligence community's assessment, and everyone calls the "Intelligence Community Assessment". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not change it to "the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI concluded that...no other US intel angencies offered comment on it's veracity".?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily wordy and less accurate, as most sources say "the US intelligence community concluded". There definitely is place in this article to discuss the details of who wrote the assessment itself, but that shouldn't be in the lead. These are the conclusions of the US intelligence community as a whole. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's called compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be making the article worse due to a single person's unfounded complaint. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't bend over backwards to accommodate a bad suggestion. ValarianB (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC

I appreciate slatersteven's suggestion — thx. Contra Red Rock Canyon, it's more accurate, not less; and it's more than "a single person's unfounded complaint”. It fits quite well with my intent in raising this issue earlier. Humanengr (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

From the sources I linked above:

• 1) The principle document released to the public is titled "Intelligence Community Assessment".
• 2) The current Director of the NSA refer to the allegations of Russian interference as "the intelligence community's assessment", the current CIA director said "I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community", and the current Director of National Intelligence said there is "no dissent".
• 3) Reliable sources generally refer to Russian interference as the conclusion of the intelligence community - without adding exceptions or clarifications.

The current language in the lead, "The United States Intelligence Community has concluded" reflects primary sources, secondary sources, and the opinions of experts. The language "no other US intel agencies offered comment on its veracity" is a gross distortion - it's undue as it implies that one would ordinarily expect them to comment, which is simply not how these agencies operate. However, I agree that there could be more information about who produced the January assessment and how, in the body of the article, as currently there's only really half a sentence about it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The title of the principal document is not "Intelligence Community Assessment"; the title is "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". "Intelligence Community Assessment" is a document category, not a title. The term "Intelligence Community" is not used in the body of the report. The body of the report begins: "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." Anything else is unwarranted muddling shorthand. Humanengr (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The false implication of the wording is that all the agencies reviewed the intelligence and came to the same conclusion. In fact no agencies reviewed it. It's not good enough to say it does not explicitly say that if that is the impression readers will take away. It's not the purpose of the article to persuade readers about what happened, especially through misleading them. TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see an issue with the current wording. It is basically word-for-word what a vast number of RS say, and there's no real evidence of officials within the intelligence committee casting doubt on Russia's role anyway (quite the opposite). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It’s ‘basically’ misleading shorthand and not what the official WRITTEN REPORT says. Humanengr (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I do understand Red Rock Canyon's concern here, "no other US intel agencies offered comment on its veracity," while objectively correct, does indeed imply more than is warranted. I also do understand Quidnovis's point: "United States Intelligent Community" does link to another Wikipedia entry dedicated to the said Intelligence Community, which is presented right off the bat with a note directing the reader to a Los Angeles Times' article by Nina Agrawal stressing that "There's more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.", all of this, while also being "objectively correct" does also imply more than is warranted, and is misleading. Section 4.6, to which both Red Rock Canyon and Quidnovis referred, does address the issue by making it clear that "the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI" are "the agencies" that "concluded", but the clarification does come a bit late and is buried into the body of the article. An easy fix could possibly be to turn the word "concluded" in the lede into an hyperlink to Section 4.6. Veratessa (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I severely object to the current lede, but not on these grounds; using "The United States Intelligence Community" metonymically to refer to 4 agencies as opposed to 17 is fine from my point of view. Attempting to explain that distinction in the lede sentence is impossible. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not impossible. Easy (by shortening slatersteven's suggestion): "the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ODNI concluded that …" Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the vast majority of RS say though, and it's not our place to reject what they say because of how you interpret the WRITTEN REPORT (as you so helpfully capitalized it above). Also, the original DNI and DHS statement literally started by saying that "the US intelligence community is confident that..." There's not much to debate here. Where are the sources saying that any part of the intelligence community isn't confident? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The October letter was updated by the January report and should not be relied on as authoritative. A strong case can be made that it has no place in the lede. (Btw, I quoted; I did not 'interpret.) Humanengr (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read through past discussions, including archives ones, before bringing up issues that have been previously discussed to death. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss it or was slatersteven's suggestion discussed? Humanengr (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps anyone who claims issues currently under discussion have been previously discussed should provide specific pointers rather than trying to quash. Yes, the lede sentence has been discussed. But afaics neither slatersteven's suggestion nor my derivative has been addressed. (Others have introduced pertinent dimensions that, again afaics, have not been discussed; but for starters I continue on the instant one,) Humanengr (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove Oct 2016 statement from lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page is listed at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national with a banner: "Archived Content: In an effort to keep DHS.gov current, the archive contains outdated information that may not reflect current policy or programs." Humanengr (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's boilerplate, it goes on all kinds of archived govt pages. Should not be interpreted as a sign the content is inaccurate. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

OR that indicates words have no meaning. To be consistent, I propose we ignore all words used by these agencies. Humanengr (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oct 7 2016: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

Jan 6 2017: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

Confidence was upgraded to 'high confidence'. Oct 7 is outdated. Citing it in the lede sentence is a blatant misrepresentation. Humanengr (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The way I read it, the lead says that on Oct 7 the ODNI and the DHS were "confident" that Russia was interfering with the election. Later, with more research and analysis, the Intelligence Community upgraded their confidence level. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all. We're reporting what they said early on as well as what the current assessment is. Also, the Oct 7 report isn't cited in the lead sentence - it's cited in a sentence about the Oct 7 report. As far as I can tell the Oct 7 report is only cited in a sentence about the what Oct 7 report says. Even if it is out of date, and policy has been updated, it's still relevant as a record of what policy was at the time. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Is the article about an (alleged) act(s) or an investigation into such act(s)? Humanengr (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Both.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article title identifies an act; the lede sentence refers to an investigation. At minimum, that is confusing. Humanengr (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Only to the same degree as any article about an (alleged) criminal act will be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Stays in lead, recommend Humanengr be warned against OR. Geogene (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment - How is it OR? He provided a reliable government source. Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misconstruing a primary source to support one's own minority viewpoint is textbook OR. When it's part of months of civil POV-pushing, it should be actionable. Geogene (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so. Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@slatersteven: A google search for <site:wikipedia.org "intelligence community has concluded that"> yields only Democratic National Committee cyber attacks which has a lede:

The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks took place in 2015 and 2016, in which computer hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network, leading to a data breach. Some cybersecurity experts, as well as the U.S. government, stated that the cyberespionage was the work of Russian intelligence agencies.

In that article, the title refers to an act; the lede sentence to an act. Consistent.

A google search for search for <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "federal bureau of investigation" OR fbi> yields Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack which has as lede:

Several official investigations have been completed, are ongoing, or are under consideration, regarding the 2012 Benghazi attack.

In that article, Title: investigation; lede: investigation. Consistent.

Google searches for <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "central intelligence" OR cia investigation> and <site:wikipedia.org "has concluded that" "homeland security" OR dhs investigation> yielded no articles with an act identified in the article title. Humanengr (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You are using google searches as evidence? I think we can close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Corresponding WP advanced searches yield the same results. Do you have a counterexample? Humanengr (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not need to provide a counter example, as it would also not be a valid piece of evidence. Searches do not provide any clue as to anything other then the specific search criteria you have put in (and unless you check every hit (have you?) you cannot be sure that the search results reflect what you think it does). Your point is that this page is confusing because it is both about the crime and the investigation, all out entries on a specific offence tends to be both about the crime, the perpetrators (unless they achieve notability outside of the one notable crime) and the conviction (as well as the sentence and release). I see no reason why this should be any different (and your search hits for a term do not make one jot of difference to this, we are not arguing about a term, but how we write articles about criminal allegations).Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I raised the issue of what the article is about in the context of discussing the lede sentence and your helpful suggestion re that. [Adding:] The incongruity of the lede sentence with the article title is a problem I noted in considering your 'Both' "Only to the same degree as any article about an (alleged) criminal act will be" response, by which you made an assertion regarding other pages. Humanengr (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

re "Your point is that this page is confusing." To be clear, my point re 'confusing' is not on the page in its entirety but on the lede sentence in relation to the title.. Humanengr (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a condensed version of (and a reflection of) the page. It is clear there is no consensus for this change, so I think this is just now wasting time. Lets close it shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’

https://nyti.ms/2wbW0ni

“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

Needs to be added here.Casprings (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

needs updating

[5] [6], there's more out there obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm losing sight of what this article is about. Is it about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election, or is it about every news story that mentions "Trump" and "Russia" together? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "getting elected" not part of the election in your opinion? I think a number of people (pretty much everyone else who knows what an election is) would see it differently. I can't imagine how anyone could fail to see the connection, here. IMHO, this still should wait a few days because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, but the claim that this is unrelated except through "...mention [of] "Trump" and "Russia" together." is just bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A businessman tried to pitch Trump on the idea of building a Trump Tower in Moscow, arguing that it would make Trump look like a savvy businessman and thus help him win election. How is this related to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 US Presidential election? I'll grant that the headline on the NY Times article is easily misread. "Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Business Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’" suggests that the plan might have involved the Russian government helping to "get Donald Trump elected," but if you read the body of the article, that's not what it's about. Sometimes newspaper headlines are misleading, either because they're too short to be unambiguous or because the editors writing the headlines are not the same people as the journalists writing the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This does seem to be linked directly the the election.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Linked to the election, yes. But how is it linked to the alleged Russian interference? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Errr, they were talking about getting aid to win it, thus interference?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Aid from whom? The NY Times and Washington Post articles are about a businessman trying to get Trump to license his brand to a real-estate project in Moscow. That businessman tried to argue that if the project were successful, it would reflect well on Trump, helping to win the election for him. The articles don't document any Russian plans to interfere in US elections, and I don't see how they're relevant to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election. The only relevance seems to be that the articles mention the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Mr. Sater said he was eager to show video clips to his Russian contacts of instances of Mr. Trump speaking glowingly about Russia, and said he would arrange for Mr. Putin to praise Mr. Trump’s business acumen."

“If he says it we own this election,” Mr. Sater wrote. “Americas most difficult adversary agreeing that Donald is a good guy to negotiate.”

Well reads to me like this is a claim that he would try to get Putin to make comments designed to aid Donny. Now to be fair it also seems like he was overstating what he could so. That does not alter the fact he said he could arrange it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Sater told Trump that if he licensed his brand to a real-estate deal, Sater would be able to get Putin to come to a ribbon-cutting ceremony and make some generally positive comments about Trump's business. What does this have to do with the alleged Russian interference in the US elections?

The supposed connection gets even more pathetic when one looks at the outcome of Mr. Sater's business pitch:

"There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov’s direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

"The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later." -[7]

Unless there's some connection with the accusations that Russia tried to interfere in the US Presidential election, this content is unrelated to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it’s too early to add this anyhow. With additional clarification over time, the degree of election connection may become clearer. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What Thucydides411 said: off-topic unless something more juicy emerges. — JFG ^talk 19:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Thucydides411 and JFG. Any connections here are tenuous at best. There's no evidence this story has anything to do with actual Russian interference in the election, planned or carried out. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• The connections are made explicitly by the sources, if nothing else. The argument that there's no connection between Russian interference in the election and an individual attempting to use Russian connections to steer that very election is spurious enough, but the refusal to acknowledge that the sources are making the connection (for the blatantly obvious reason I just gave) is enough to pretty much make it clear that this is going to be another POV pushing contest. That being said, I still think it's too soon to be throwing this in. We need to give it time for both sides of this inevitable (if ridiculous) debate to play out in the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Attempting to use Russian connections to steer" the election doesn't describe the story in the articles at all. Mr. Sater said Putin might say some nice words about Trump - hardly "steering" an election.

The NY Times wrote a headline that's easy to misinterpret. Maybe that was an oversight on the NY Times editors' part, or maybe it reflects the biases of the newspaper. Regardless, what the article describes doesn't seem at all related to the accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.

The connection is only "blatantly obvious" if you think that every mention of Trump, Russia and election should be included in this article. Someone said a long while back on this talk page that this article was becoming "Russia, Trump, you connect the dots." Including the Mr. Sater story would only make it more so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mmhh I feel a move request coming: Russia, Trump, connect the dots has quite a nice ring to it! — JFG ^talk 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Second-guessing NY Times' editors and lobbing charges of bias will only ensure that you're taken less seriously in this discussions. There may not be enough coverage out there to warrant mention right now, but it is likely coming soon. ValarianB (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL I doubt anyone is going to take this "logic" seriously. I know I sure can't.

@JFG: Honestly, I think Trump, Russia, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! is the best name, but I suppose I could get behind that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you don't actually respond to any of the points raised. You just leave an insulting comment. You should have been permabanned long ago. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway. Go ahead, make it happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Include A trump associate works with the Russian government over a business deal and states in an email that this could get Trump elected. I think the connection is clear and it belongs in the article. Casprings (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least Felix Sater needs to be mentioned in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there some other issue that he's involved in that is relevant to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but this is enough [8]. Are we gonna play the "I'm gonna pretend I can't see what's in the sources" game now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a game. There doesn't appear to be any connection between this story and the alleged Russian interference. I didn't chose the article title, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," and you know I think it's highly POV. But that's the article title, and it seems completely unrelated to Mr. Sater's apparently fruitless email to Mr. Peskov's public email account about getting help with Russian government approval of a real-estate project.

If you want to include this material, I suggest you go ahead and formally propose we rename the article "Russia, Trump, you connect the dots." There appears to be some support for that title change, given the above comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The title of the source is "Felix Sater Is the Third Potential Channel of Trump Collusion With Russia". The first sentence of the article is "There are three known channels for potential collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russian influence operation on its behalf". And you're saying that there's "no connection between this story and the alleged (sic) Russian interference". So the game's afoot, eh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is clear that this is relevant to the article and should be added. However, I don't think there will be consensus without a formal RFC.Casprings (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As a general point, I think it's unfortunate that what could be a perfectly fine article about Russia's alleged influence operations during the 2016 election cycle, the forensic and other circumstantial evidence that supports those allegations (as well as any skepticism/rebuttals), and the broader history of American and Russian attempts to influence foreign elections around the world contains almost no substantive information about any of the above. To the contrary, this article is a WP:COATRACK of unrelated accusations directed primarily against Trump, not Russia, along with political bickering from many sides. That the "Russian involvement" section is among the shortest sections of this article is really rather disgraceful; if anything, our presentation actually understates the evidence for Russian involvement by asking readers to merely trust the CIA/FBI/NSA and carefully avoiding a detailed account of the findings of cybersecurity professionals. Our approach may seem convincing when preaching to the choir, of course, but skeptical readers will likely come away with a distinct impression that "Russiagate" is a politicized witch hunt and that the only real "interference" was Trump preventing Clinton from assuming her rightful place as President—which, to be clear, doesn't negate the very real evidence against Russia. The paragraph I authored on "Russian interference in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election" is almost unique in concisely laying out specific ways that Russia is alleged to have interfered in a foreign presidential election, and the evidence supporting those allegations, with minimal editorializing. That should be the model, but until we, as a community, are capable of writing so dispassionately about an election that deeply affected all of us, Thucydides411's proposal to change the title to Trump, Russia, you connect the dots is one I am ready to support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This should absolutely be included. It easily meeds WP:DUEWEIGHT and is entirely relevant to the article subject.- MrX 22:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude The article does not say Russia interfered in the election in fact in this case they failed to help him in the slightest way. TFD (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

off-topic nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Russians be messin' w/ his mind -- it's their specialty. According to RS, that is. Interference doesn't only mean stealing the ballot box. The Russians be messin' w. Trump's mind. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Russians be messin' w/ his mind -- it's their specialty. According to RS, that is. Interference doesn't only mean stealing the ballot box. The Russians be messin' w. Trump's mind. By compromising a US candidate, a foreign adversary can influence that candidate's behavior. That is what's known as "psy-ops" and while the other details have yet to be revealed, that was clearly reported in the current instance. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the source, "We do know that the principal figures in all of them took the premise of accepting Russian help for Trump’s campaign as an obvious backdrop assumption." and "Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." It seems to me that third party attempts (known to Trump's own lawyer) to get Russia's help with getting Trump elected falls well within the scope of this article. Sources do not need to say "Russia interfered" (although most everyone knows they did).- MrX 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Interference takes many forms and RS convey the understanding of Russian methods to influence the behavior of native actors such as those in Trump's circle. This article is not about boots-on-the-ground Ivan stole the ballot box interference. That really seems so widely discussed in RS reporting that it's hard to know where this thread could possibly end up excluding this bit of news, which RS treated as highly significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: In this story, as far as has been reported so far, the Russian government did not even take any action. How can it be related to "Russian interference"? It looks like a story about a business associate of Trump arguing that getting a real-estate project off the ground in Moscow would help Trump's image. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: That sort of off-topic, colorful language about "Ivan" and "be messin' w/ his mind" is really disruptive here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you don't understand the issues here, please try to contribute on points where you can help advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Salting your posts with derogatory terms for Russians and rambling about Trump being under mind-control doesn't have anything to do with advancing discussion on article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: We are well past establishing that the Russian government took actions. It's rather absurd to suggest otherwise. - MrX 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Can you cite from a news source on that? All the reporting that I've seen says that Mr. Sater's email went unanswered. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note that Casprings is simultaneously arguing that "a business associate of Trump arguing that getting a real-estate project off the ground in Moscow would help Trump's image" is a form of "election" "interference" by "Russia" and that the Clinton administration arranging a carefully timed $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan to ensure Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election (among other initiatives) is not "directly about the US interfering in the election ... is not WP:N and ... apprears (sic) to be WP:OR." Requiring different standards of evidence for accusations against Russia versus accusations against the U.S. is an example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you think there's some sort of contradiction or inconsistency there? No such thing. Details are pesky things, they require structured interpretation. These are not "different standards" and RS do not support your POV on this. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A rough draft of some suggested wording.

In 2015 and 2016, Trump's company pursued a plan to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump's business associate, Felix Sater, attempted to negotiate the building with the Russian government. Sater wrote a series of emails to Cohen about his relationship with Putin and stated “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it...I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

References

Casprings (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your proposed wording that has to do with Russian actions to interfere in US elections. The phrase "attempted to negotiate [...] with the Russian government" could give the impression that Russia replied at some point, but the reports that I've seen indicate that Russian officials did not reply to Mr. Sater. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) that this was (and still is, because it's ongoing) a two-way operation of collusion, cooperation, and conspiracy between Russians and Trump campaign officials. They have repeatedly lied about many proven meetings, and they have been caught in those lies. Why lie if it all was a nothingburger? This isn't just about a one-way, Russia toward America, operation. It involved parties on both sides of the Atlantic.

RS describe how this all began years before the election and continues as a cover-up. ALL such material belongs here. The only reason some of it isn't in the article already is because we exercise caution and deliberately stay "behind the curve".

This article has essentially the same scope as the Mueller investigation, and it deals with politics AND business. While we will likely break it up in a couple articles, anything related to plans and efforts to subvert and affect the election is fair game. To understand why we would even be concerned about Trump's business dealings and see any connection to the election interference, one must realize that, for Trump, this is not political, but purely business. He is a businessman, not a politician in the traditional sense. That's also why Putin has dealt with him on a business and monetary basis. (Illegal Russian bank loans and money laundering have kept Trump afloat for years, and the 19% of Rosneft, $11 billion, is the promised reward for lifting the sanctions.) The politics is for improving business. This presidency is about personal profit. That's the picture described by RS. Fringe/unreliable sources won't tell that story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the lengthy political essay above, but this article is titled, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." If you want to expand the scope of the article to issues beyond the alleged Russian interference, then I seriously suggest you propose that formally. Such a change should go along with a change to the name of the article, to reflect that the article is about all accusations of any interaction between someone connected with Trump and someone connected with Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not going to respond to the lengthy political essay above" - dude, that's not a "lengthy political essay", that's a well thought out and detailed comment. Another editor took their time and trouble to address your concerns in good faith in a respectful manner and you can't be ass'd to read it after YOU brought it up? I'm sorry but if you're not even gonna bother reading other editors', obviously good faithed and constructive, comments, then just don't edit this page. It's simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, I'm sure it is purely confirmation bias and not bad faith that causes you to cherrypick only the sensationalized Sater quotes and ignore the thrust of what the RS are actually stating, but here are some additional choice quotes from The New York Times article on this matter:

• "The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin. He predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump's savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his candidacy."
• "There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries."
• "The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later."
• "The emails obtained by The Times do not include any responses from Mr. Cohen to Mr. Sater's messages."
• "In a statement on Monday that was also provided to Congress, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater's comments as puffery. 'He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to "salesmanship,"' the statement said."
• "The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails."
• "As a broker for the Trump Organization, Mr. Sater had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen."
• "On Sunday, The Washington Post reported the existence of the correspondence between Mr. Sater and Mr. Cohen, but not its content." (In other words, Wash Post omitted Sater's hyperbole altogether—maybe we should take note?)

The Sater quotes have no encyclopedic value and are, in context, being used as a form of synthesis to heavily imply something contradicted by the sources themselves. I'm sure that Casprings and Volunteer Marek can write a summary more in keeping with the RS before this goes to RfC—as I suspect and hope it will.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's just stick with the quote that The New York Times used in in the lead of the article and in a pull quote. Their emphasis of the quote id further emphasized by use in many other sources [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. In fact, almost every source repeats this same quote. Did you do any research at all before you recklessly reverted Volunteer Marek's edit?- MrX 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

While we are at it

• Russian lobbyist testifies to Mueller grand jury
• Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe

Casprings (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

MrX I've reverted your addition for now, agreeing that the content doesn't describe alleged Russian interference in the election, and not seeing consensus here for adding the material. I'm not 100% against inclusion - I actually think this is a minor point compared to the many bigger problems this article has - but it isn't right to add the material without consensus, given the emphasis that's been placed on that procedural policy here over the last 1/2 year. -Darouet (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that "no reinstatement without consensus" restriction has long since been removed from this article (after extensive discussion) and so it's just garden-variety edit-warring to remove it a second or third time. I hope you'll consider a speedy self-undo in light of your evident respect for comrade X. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

With that consensus required removed it would default to WP:BRD would it not? PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy, but "don't WP:EDITWAR" is a policy. Anyway, since Darouet removed RS article content, cited and discussed on talk, Darouet's repetition of the removal against consensus was not constructive and did not support collaborative editing or article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's why we have to work hard for nice things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

But yes, this is reliably sourced with wide coverage, and the only place where people are making the patently absurd claim that it's unrelated to the Russian interference in the US election is this place right here (I don't know, maybe the Crazistan on twitter is too). All sources that report on this link it to Russian interference since, you know, it sort of wouldn't be much of a story without that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid and related emails to Trump’s lawyer?

Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid in which he wrote "Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." and material about Sater's series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen?

See above discussion for further background.- MrX 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Support

• And move to Trump: A Russian agent. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Clearly relevant to the subject and needed per WP:DUE.Casprings (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• When the logical connection (an attempt, or at least an offer to use Russian Government officials to -directly or indirectly- aid a US election) is this obvious, and when the sources themselves are explicitly making the connection in their voices (note the use of the plural there), then this is a no brainer. Hell yes, we should include it. But if we're going to include it now, we need to find sources critical of those making the connection to balance. If we can't wait until we're using hindsight to examine the issue, we can at least try to be as balanced about it as we can. Also, we shouldn't be stating anything in wikivoice unless it's something that both political sides agree on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• The article scope is alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. Based on current reporting, the Felix Sater story doesn't seem to involve any Russian interference in the US elections. This article isn't a WP:COATRACK for all stories involving the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." If there is a strong desire to include the Mr. Sater story in this article, I suggest a name change: Trump, Russia, you connect the dots was only half in jest, since it's what some editors seem to desire out of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Two minds, whilst I think it shows that there were some with (very) tenuous ties to the Trump campaign seeking Russian assistance it is also true that this was not his campaign directly (or even indirectly) doing this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Cohen, being Trump's lawyer, is a pretty direct connection. Also this source puts Sater "at the heart of the Trump-Russia inquiry".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It also doesn't seem to involve any actions taken by the Russian government. Russian actions are, after all, the topic this article purports to cover. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Saturnalia, please read WP:POINT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)