Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

At a December 23 press conference, Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election: "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity." Does Putin's response belong in the article? (I am doing this as an RfC because the existing discretionary sanctions on American Politics effectively give anyone veto power over any material merely by deleting it, regardless of how flimsy the rationale for deletion may be—although in practice this is constantly abused and inconsistently enforced.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Survey – Putin response

• Support adding Putin's response. This material was deleted as "wp:undue" by User:Volunteer Marek, but it's hard for me to imagine how WP:UNDUE could apply to Putin's own response to allegations that he personally interfered in the U.S. election.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This direct quote by Putin directly pertaining to the issue (in an article devoid of quotes by Putin) certainly is appropriate under the "Commentary and Reaction" section, the "Russian Government" sub-section, as originally entered by TheTimesAreAChanging. There currently is no direct quote by the man directly implicated in these actions and this one is notable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a distraction. Obviously, Russia denies this and is trying to make this about the election and not about the violations committed by their intelligence and disinformation agencies. - Scarpy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You have cited a political, but not an encyclopedic, reason for excluding the statement of an alleged perpetrator of the action the article is devoted to. Your guess as to what Putin's motives are is irrelevant. The direct statement of the alleged perpetrator of the activity the article is devoted to is 100% completely relevant and 100% deserving of inclusion in the "Reaction and Commentary" sub-section. Marteau (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously US politicians and officials never do this. That's what makes their opinions so reliable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to respond here. I will remind you to assume good faith, and to pay close attention to comments before responding. If you'd like to have a two-sided conversation, I'm all for it. If you want to go off on tangents, there are other contributors to this article what will likely indulge you. - Scarpy (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is clearly one of the more notable statements in the "Commentary and Reaction" section. It has received more than enough enough coverage in the non-Russian press. This despite the fact that (a) it's very recent (b) national media coverage is necessarily skewed toward reporting on statements made by domestic politicians (i.e. not Putin), something which has to be taken into account per wp:systemicbias. If it were up to me, the "reaction" section would be down to a paragraph, and a lot of the less-than-informative commentary (including this taunting by Putin) would go. since that does not appear to be in the cards, Putin's statement from his major annual press conference must be kept per WP:DUE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I think we have to include a brief mention of this based on the widespread coverage in reliable sources, even though it's empty posturing and diversionary.- MrX 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a little bit more specific about what you mean by "brief"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We can simply summarize what he said. For example, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat". Quoting him directly is just lazy writing.- MrX 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, especially since we weren't quoting him directly but rather giving a translation of what he said in Russian. (There's a different translation with essentially the same or similar meaning on the President of Russia webcite.[1]) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Statement is obviously relevant, and widely cited in RS, Volunteer Marek's POV notwithstanding. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – It wasn't specified what "all fronts" meant. For example, one of those fronts could be the war in Syria. Putin's comments about the elections accusations came a little later in the reliable source.

" Putin dismissed suggestions Moscow had helped Trump to victory in any way however.

  'It's not like that,' he said. 'All of this (the accusations) speaks of the current administration's systemic problems.' "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416: You should really withdraw your oppose, as it is based on false pretenses. "One of those fronts could be the war in Syria." No, Russia actually is involved in the war in Syria. In context, Putin was quite clearly referring to the U.S. elections: "Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere. They need to learn to lose with dignity. The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress. ... Is that also my work?" (Or use Russia's official translation: "The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? ... This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues.") More importantly, none of our reliable sources thought to misinterpret Putin's words in the highly creative manner you suggest, as I will document below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote you just gave, together with his point elsewhere about the the substance of the leaks being more important than the identity of the leakers, is IMO more substantive and measured than the stuff about politicians not being "graceful." The latter is too close to the shrill rants from ex-spies about the "hideousness" of Trump's treatment of their courageous colleagues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with your RfC proposal because the given source doesn't clearly indicate that the quote is about the elections. The fact that you had to go to other sources, seems to admit that your given source is inadequate. You might try making a proposal that is correctly sourced by using material from the sources in your recent message above and we'll see if it works. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea that the one source I gave could be so misconstrued, or that we were going to be this pedantic. I have replaced Reuters with the Washington Post of the same day, which uses the same Putin quote but is even more unequivocal regarding its meaning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose While it would be appropriate to include a well-sourced statement that Putin denies Russian involvement in the hacking, that is not what this RfC would provide. This RfC promotes the clearly UNDUE and irrelevant fact that Putin denigrates the Democrats. Per my statement and others in the discussion section below, editors should oppose this WP:POINTy RfC and we should instead follow policy to include appropriate accounts of Putin's denial. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose to including as direct quotation. This should be mentioned, but only briefly summarized as the fact that Putin denied the claim. I do not see any reason for including direct quotation here. He is not a Cicero, and the statements adds nothing to the simple fact of denial beyond disparaging other people. The only reason to include quotation is to disparage democrats, which is not the purpose of WP.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also not the purpose of Wikipedia to exclude quotes just because they disparage Democrats. If the quote is notable enough, it should be included, either in direct or paraphrased form. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

So, why exactly anyone would consider this quotation notable? This is just a slander that provides zero information. Saying that, I realize that certain slander can be notable (e.g. "shoot the rabid dogs!" by Andrey Vyshinsky or "kill them in an toilet" by Putin) as described in numerous books. However, I do not see why that particular slander would be notable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If the Russian President makes a public statement on alleged Russian hacking, then it's inherently notable. The evidence for that notability is the wide press coverage Putin's remarks have received. It doesn't matter if you consider the content of those remarks to be "slander that provides zero information." A lot of people think President Obama's statements on the issue, and the statements of his intelligence agencies, are also slander that provide zero information. But they're notable, as evidenced by the press coverage they've received. The only possible reason to exclude this information, that I can see, is political. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the claim (the denial) is notable or at least deserve to be noted on the page. However, the quotation is not notable. It might became notable in a year from now (just as in two my examples above) if it will be mentioned in books on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support: These statements have been widely reported, and they deal directly with the content of this article. I think it's obvious they belong in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose including the quotation, which is undue. Of course Putin's denial of involvement, properly sourced, should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Could you please help me understand your reasoning behind invoking WP:UNDUE on this? "UNDUE" is of course very broadly writter, and it is not clear to me what aspect of the "undue" policy you think including this quote violates. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. This isn't an article about "Putin's opinions about the Democratic Party of the United States". Which makes inclusion of this quote POVFORKish. Like I said, his denial of Russian involvement is of course DUE, but his opinions about the Dems, is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If this is "undue" for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek et al., so is roughly 90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state. Editors are being highly selective--per wp:systemicbias--in what they consider "undue." Putin's other point was that it's not who stole the emails, but what's in them. Remember that Putin himself tried push the same "our enemies did it" line as the Democrats when the Panama papers came out, to distract from the contents of the docs. Would pointing that out also be "undue"? Remember that this article is about Russian "interference in the election", not Russia's "interference in the DNC's IT infrastructure." Therefore the broader political issues can't be dismissed, and in fact are not dismissed by RS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ummmmmm.... that's actually not true at all. Blatantly not true. Can you *specifically* which parts of the "Reactions" section have "little to do" with the Russian interference in the US election? Because when I read it, it looks like all of is precisely about that. (And seriously, trying to distinguish between "Russian interference in US election" and "Russian interference in DNC structure" is just silly) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Former CIA director Michael Morell said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat and called it the "political equivalent" of the September 11 attacks". Let's see: an ex-spy saying "its 911!" is wp:due and relevant; a sitting president saying that the Democrats have used the "Russian interference" angle as a distraction from their political mistakes and from the content of the emails is off-topic. Did I get that about right? Finally there is nothing silly about the distinction: Russian "interference in the election" encompasses everything from hacking to fundamentally compromising the electoral process. Some others (rough irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 60% baseline): Trump on WMD (60%); Trump on China (100%); ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (100%); ex-CIA Harlow on Trump's "hideousness" (100%); Clinton on Putin's personal vendetta (50%); McElvaine calling for intervention by the electoral college (50%) because it's the worst scandal ever (a year ago, the worst was "Benghazi-gate", if memory serves); probably a few others I was too lazy to cite. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You said, quote, "90% of the "Reactions" section, which has little to do with the narrow question of whether or not the hackers were employed by the Russian state". You haven't actually managed to substantiate that at all, just made up some numbers. Here, let me respond (irrelevance score, with Putin's remarks as the 87.456% baseline):

Ex-CIA director (3.455%), Trump on WMD (8.334%), Trump on China (actually barely mentioned) (100*(sqr(2)/5.7)%), ex-CIA Little on Trump disrespecting CIA heroes (actually disrespecting CIA assessment of the hack) (2x+y=2.8, x=y, .01*x%), ex-CIA Harlow (actually not Trump's hideousness, but that the dispute is hideousness, please read that correctly) (.01*(e^2)/2*e^1.1%), Clinton on Putin's vendetta (.01*lim (x--> inf) (5*(x^4)+6)/(6*(x^4)+3*(x^3)+2x)... %), McElvaine calling for intervention (4.9494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949494949439494949494%).

See how that works? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, it doesn't look like the two of you are discussing your issue in terms of the policy WP:UNDUE, which begins with,

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support including mention of this. However the 'quote' is not a quote, but a translation, so it doesn't really seem to belong. I think we can describe his statements as blaming and criticizing the Democrats and denying the Russia's involvement (as opposed to simply saying that he denied Russian involvement), but any English version of what he said cannot, by definition be a quote. We shouldn't try to present it as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, MrX suggested above, "Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

* Support including the citation as proposed by TheTimesAreAChanging. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to whether Putin personally or not directed the hacks. He has responded to these accusations, which makes it relevant, and he has been quoted by a number of WP:RS. It's a no-brainer.XavierItzm (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support but shorten. I agree with Volunteer Marek about WP:UNDUE. Half of this quote isn't really about Russia's involvement in the U.S. election but a snarky comment about Democrats' dignity. And the remaining part can probably be adequately summarized without quotation. Putin denied Russia's involvement and criticized the Democrats for casting blame. That should do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Since we have an entire article devoted to an unproven allegation against Putin, it is due weight to include the few sentences where he responds. TFD (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support As Trump and Putin are the two main accused, any statement by them is relevant. JS (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support but shorten (significantly). I agree with Dr. Fleischman & Volunteer Marek re: UNDUE. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support but paraphrase per MrX suggestion above (Putin accused Democrats of seeking someone to blame for their defeat). Pincrete (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (summoned by bot) as an aspect of the incident that has been widely reported, but ideally with the quote shortened or paraphrased. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

References

• WP:DUEWEIGHT has nothing to do with who made the response, and everything to do with the extent of coverage in reliable sources. If you would like to convince other editor that this material should be added to the article, you might start by showing that other reliable sources are treating it as important and that it helps readers understand the subject.- MrX 03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay—I gave you Reuters—here's Huffington Post, Slate, Business Insider, CNN, Fox News, and USA Today. A Google search for "Putin sore losers" gets 263,000 hits. And this story just broke a few hours ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ... Washington Post, Daily Mail, Politico, CNBC Marteau (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm changing the RfC title from the highly argumentative "Is Putin's own response UNDUE?" to "Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?" PEr Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the question presented in an RfC should be brief, neutral, and specific. The original title was none of these. And TheTimesAreAChanging, you should put your argument/perspective under "survey" or "threaded discussion" — not under the question presented. These are pretty simple and important rules for RfCs.

Separately but relatedly, it's also incorrect to frame the issue of whether "Putin's own response should be included" — his response already is included, under "Reactions: Russian government," we clearly and specifically note what Putin's representatives have said (denied that Russia participated, termed accusation "nonsense") and additional quote Russian foreign minister Lavrov as well. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be preferable to cite only "Putin's representatives," but not the man himself—especially when a CIA-connected journalist told ABC Putin was "personally involved"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In light of the malformed presentation, I suggest somebody archive this and that if OP wishes to pursue the RfC a properly stated and formatted version be presented. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Only in American Politics, folks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If you move your argumentation out of the question section (to the comments or threaded discussion section), that would in my view fix the problem. This is a pretty simple thing to do to follow pretty simple RfC rules. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We're only going to have a problem a month from now if this RfC is not properly set forth. I am going to post on AN asking for assistance. The cherrypicked statement by Putin on the 23rd is not about the hacking, it's another in his denigrations of the Democrats and by implication Sec'y Clinton, for whom he has longstanding animosity. There are RS accounts of Putin denying Russian involvement in the hacking and it's appropriate to say Russia denied the conclusions of the US Gov't, but this RfC is misstated and cites Putin's off-topic dissembling on a different subject. This needs to be closed and a proper RfC or edit -- on the topic of this article -- added to the talk page or article. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The premise of the RfC that "Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election" with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source. Presentation of Putin's response to accusations came a little later in the reliable source, as indicated in my comment in the survey section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why this RfC is a hot mess. Even if the putative outcome were "support" it would not relate to the relevant matter, namely that Putin has denied involvement. So any supporting !votes here are supporting an undue off-topic and irrelevant statement. That's why we need to shut this down and mount a properly stated RfC, although frankly, as others have stated, the posting of this RfC seems like an argumentative and WP:POINTy reaction to @Volunteer Marek:'s appropriate reversion of the off-topic content. Is there an Admin in the house? Please can't we get this straight? OP has been asked to edit, but at this point we have responses and it is too late for OP to correct this. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if admins intervene in this type of situation. In the meantime, you might consider adding your opinion to the survey section and hope that more will see the problem with this RfC and oppose it --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you, but I will also challenge any close that purports to endorse off-topic article content due to the disruptive malformed statement of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As documented below, Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are playing with fantasies rather than facts, and SPECIFICO is the only one being disruptive (while threatening further disruption). Putin's remarks are apparently so damaging to the narrative these editors seek to promote that they find it easier to assimilate them into their worldview by assiduously denying that Putin said what everyone else heard him say (Russia's official transcript be damned!).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of alternate universe Bob K31416 and SPECIFICO are living in when they claim "The premise of the RfC that 'Vladimir Putin responded to claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election' with the given quote, is not supported by the reliable source." Here is Russia's official transcript of the press conference:

• Yevgeny Primakov: Our western colleagues often tell us that you have the power to manipulate the world, designate presidents, and interfere in elections here and there. How does it feel to be the most powerful person on Earth? Thank you.
• Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard. We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the "vestiges of a 17th century chapel," but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting. ... The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

And here is how this was reported in reliable sources:

• "Putin to Democratic Party: You lost, get over it," The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladi­mir Putin has a message for the White House and Democratic leaders who accuse him of stealing their candidate’s victory: Don't be sore losers. That was how Putin answered a question Friday at his nationally televised annual news conference about whether Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. The Democrats 'are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame,' he told the nearly 1,400 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall for the nearly four-hour event. 'In my view, this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity.'"
• "Putin says Democrats are being sore losers: 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully'," Business Insider, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that top Democrats are being sore losers by, in part, looking to blame Hillary Clinton's stunning election loss on hacks said to have been orchestrated by the Kremlin. 'They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame,' Putin said. 'I think that this is an affront to their own dignity.' 'It is important to know how to lose gracefully,' he added, suggesting Clinton's loss was a result of a 'gap between the elite's vision of what is good and bad' and the 'broad popular masses.'"
• "Putin reaches out to Trump, while thumping Dems," Fox News, December 23, 2016: "Russian President Vladimir Putin followed up a warm letter to Donald Trump with a more terse message for U.S. Democrats Friday: Don't blame me for your November drubbing. ... 'Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere,' he said. 'They need to learn to lose with dignity.' 'The Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections, but elections in the Senate and Congress. ... Is that also my work?' he said. He went on to ridicule Democrats for never-say-die efforts to overturn the Nov. 8 presidential election, first by calling for recounts, then trying to get electors to flip. 'The fact that the current ruling party called Democratic has blatantly forgotten the original definition of its name is evident if one takes into consideration unscrupulous use of administrative resource and appeals to electors not to concede to voters' choice,' Putin said, according to the Russian news agency Tass."

Do I really need to go on? There is no serious argument that this material has nothing to do with "claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election"; as both the official transcript and the cited RS make clear, Putin chose to respond to the question about interfering in the election by emphasizing the Democrats's need for an external scapegoat. The real argument is simply that some editors don't like how Putin chose to respond, citing WP:NOCRITICISMOFTHEDEMOCRATICPARTYCANEVER,EVER,EVERBEALLOWED—red link very much intended.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. Maybe my recent message responding to you in the Survey section might clarify that. [2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand. How is this content off-topic? Putin discussed the hacking scandal - isn't that directly relevant to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marteau:It was not the Democrats accusing the Russians of this or that. It was the official intelligence assessment of the US Government, accepted by both parties in Congress and just about everywhere else except the Trump team, who endorsed and requested Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It is not our task to judge the correctness, or incorrectness, of Putin's statement. It is his opinion and his reply to the accusations he has faced, and it belongs in the "Reaction and Commentary" section. But besides that, the Democrats certainly DID accuse the Russians "of this or that". They actually made quite a big to-do about it, as I recall. Marteau (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But my point is that his "accusers" are not the Democrats, it is the US Government. Only the Trump campaign and associates deny this. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Obama administration accuses Russian government of election-year hacking" Marteau (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to your statement above that Putin's derogation of the Democrats is on topic for this article because it was the Democratic Party that accused/determined that the Russians hacked. But it was not the Democratic Party, it was the US Government -- the Obama Administration for the executive branch based on the National Intelligence Assessment, and a broad bi-partisan array of US members of Congress. So Putin's snarky put-down presumably of the campaign of Sec'y Clinton, whom he despises, is not relevant to this article. It might be relevant to an article about Secretary Clinton's campaign, since it is a meme that various talking heads on the cable networks have also presented. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Marteau (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please specify the disagreement. Do you doubt that mainstream RS all report that it was the US Gov't intelligence assessment that Russia hacked? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Russian interference in the election. Democrats, using US intelligence as a basis, have in fact accused Russia of interference. Putin has addressed Democratic criticism. I feel that these issues are worthy of inclusion in an article about Russian interference in the election. I think it has foundation and rationale for inclusion based on policy and guidelines. Thats my stance, you disagree. Now, I'll resume agreeing to disagree if you don't mind :) Marteau (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If we treated the U.S. government like any other government—for example, the former Soviet regime—we would be far more skeptical of official U.S. government statistics on GDP, inflation, or anything else—and we would be particularly cautious when reporting on classified CIA intelligence analyses anonymously leaked to CIA-connected journalists working for CIA-connected newspapers with no supporting evidence. If we were capable of looking at the U.S. government objectively, we would recognize that it has the same feuding power centers and careerist incentives to the tow the line as any other state—that the CIA is perfectly capable of fabricating intelligence to suit the needs of the incumbent administration—indeed, that the CIA has a long history of doing exactly that. Recall, for example, Richard Helms's bowing to pressure from LBJ to reduce the CIA's estimate of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troop strength: "At one point the CIA analysts estimated enemy strength at 500,000, while the military insisted it was only 270,000. No amount of discussion could resolve the difference. Eventually, in September 1967, the CIA under Helms went along with the military's lower number for the combat strength of the Vietnamese Communist forces." (That illusion was, of course, shattered in spectacular fashion next January.) (SPECIFICO even recently cited "George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD 'intelligence' was a lie"—but I'm sure that could never happen today!) The publicly available facts are as follows:

• As of October 31, 2016—just days before the election (and at a time when pundits were still postulating a 90-98% chance that Clinton would win)—the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that "even the hacking into Democratic emails ... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Donald Trump." This assessment was radically altered following Trump's surprise victory (and shortly before the Electoral College voted), but—so far as is known—the intelligence community has not acquired any new information on Russia's actions or intentions since October 31.
• On December 9—the same day that President Obama ordered a full investigation into Russia's alleged role in the election—the CIA leaked its apparently predetermined conclusion that Russia intentionally helped Trump to its favorite newspaper—The Washington Post.
• After leaking these shocking new claims to the press, the intelligence community refused to share any of the underlying evidence with Congress—citing the ongoing review ordered by Obama! In another hate fact purged from this article, Representative Peter T. King called the intelligence community's conduct "absolutely disgraceful," adding: "It's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States." (The CIA has violated its charter to manipulate U.S. public opinion many times in the past—and has a history of rigging democratic elections across the globe, from Italy to Chile.)
• Whatever the current official U.S. government position, the U.S. "free press" unquestioningly towed the government line in a coordinated and Orwellian manner, resulting in headlines such as the following: "No, the presidential election can't be hacked," CNN, October 19, 2016. cf. "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?," CNN, December 10, 2016.
• Finally, on December 23, Putin pointed out the obvious: Claims that "Russia hacked the election" look suspiciously like a trumped-up (pardon the pun) attempt to obfuscate the Democrats's stunning repudiation by invoking a sinister foreign bogeyman as the scapegoat. This is consistent with the above facts, as well as the broader psychological phenomenon of the Western Left incessantly blaming "the Russians!" for its continual series of defeats. (See, e.g., "Russian hackers 'probably swayed Brexit vote', says Ben Bradshaw MP," Sky News, December 14, 2016; "Russia Pushing Migrant Rapes': Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim," The Sun, December 14, 2016.)

Because Putin's remarks are so profoundly damaging to the current official U.S. government position (itself likely to suddenly, inexplicably change yet again after January 20, 2017), editors are pretending that Putin didn't really say what the official transcript says he said, or couldn't possibly have meant it—and, in any case, doubting the accuracy and integrity of the CIA is inherently WP:UNDUE, or something.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The last point too accurate to be said out loud. I can't wait to see what will be considered "due" and "reliable" for this article after January 20th, 2017. US officials say... Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I frankly can't believe that we're arguing over whether a widely covered statement by the Russian President on the hacking scandal and election is relevant to this article. Even more than that, I can't believe that there are people who are arguing that it isn't related to "2016 United States election interference by Russia." I feel like I've stepped into an alternate reality. Really, can we just step back and try to approach this article with less blatant POV battling? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The thrashing and wailing accompanying the proposed inclusion of a quote by the man directly accused of involvement in this issue, in the "Commentary and Reactions - Russian Government" subsection is becoming ludicrous and at this point I have to believe POV pushing is involved. The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement; it ascribes a purported motive and is something anyone who hopes to fully understand the dynamics of this issue should be exposed to. His words also capture the tenor of the issue and the animosity present beyond which what a sterile paraphrase can capture. That this statement is Putin's POV is clear, and any bemoaning about how it casts Democrats in a bad light insults the intelligence of the reader... the source and his bias is obvious and the reader needs no protection from such a quote in a "Commentary" subsection. Marteau (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Re "The proposed quote does more than simply deny Russian involvement" – If you read it carefully, it does not deny Russian involvement. Here it is for reference, "[The Democrats] are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame. In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You have to know how to lose with dignity."

Also note that it is not a quote of what he said, which was in Russian, but rather a translation. It differs from the translation given on the President of Russia webcite, although it essentially has the same or similar meaning. Here it is for reference, "They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully."[3]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Putin's comment could be more properly considered a comment, or reaction. Which actually makes it perfectly appropriate material for the "Commentary and Reaction" section, which is of course what this RfC is about. Marteau (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Russian trolls' support for Trump" Section Biased

In this section, articles only from the Guardian and Daily Beast are cited. Both are well-known to be "progressive, liberal" sources of news, and to make things worse, the sources are unreliable. For example, source 44. Go there and read its claims that "RT" and "Sputnik" promoted "fake news" about an incident in Turkey. Now ACTUALLY GO READ THOSE ARTICLES ON RT AND SPUTNIK (they are still there), and the articles DO NOT claim that there was a 2nd coup attempt, but only say that there is speculation that a 2nd coup attempt may have occurred, and they specifically report that they asked a Turkish official what happened and that he denied a 2nd coup, and said it was just a security check. The article on RT DOES mention the protest, as well, in conjunction with what U.S. Government sources claim occurred, no one claims another coup occurred, only that there was speculation about it because of the 7,000 police forces that surrounded the base, and there is an open and on-going dispute about whether those police forces were there or not. The U.S. says "no", RT says "Yes", and the Turkish official appears to side with RT, claiming they were there but only doing a "security check". The numbers are also in dispute, whether it was 7,000 or fewer, but the problem here is that The Guardian and Daily Beast stories, used as "credible references" in this Wiki, are not credible because those particular stories claim that the RT article is one-sided and claims there was another coup atttempt, when it does not. It merely speculates that might have happened, but reports that Turkish officials deny it. The Guardian and Daily Beast also claim that, because the Pentagon said it didn't happen, then it factually did not happen. There are a number of high-profile cases of the Pentagon claiming something did not happen, or making statements that allude to something not having happened, when in fact it did happen. The Guardian and Daily Beast should be reporting that the Pentagon claims it was just a protest and did not happen, while Turkey and RT both are reporting the police did show up, and the facts are disputed. Just because you are a U.S. newspaper doesn't mean the U.S. Government always tells the truth (Iraq WMDs, claims that Iran and not Iraq gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq w/100% certaintly during Reagan's tenure, then flip-flopping and claiming it was Saddam w/100% certainty during W.'s tenure, etc., etc.).

Bizarre title

The article title implies the facts are established even though the allegations are presented without any evidence! Only on Wiki.....Sarah777

Republicans also hacked by Russia

According to FBI's Comey.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source. They're intentionally spreading fake news on the Russia hacking. See accusations that Donald Trump stayed in a hotel room that the Obama's had stayed in so that he could hire prostitutes to perform a golden shower show on the same bed the Obama's had slept in. How more extreme do you have to get before CNN is not considered a reliable source?

Regardless of the reliability. The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline: "Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked." So this is just more CNN fake news. 2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source. The community here strongly disagrees with you. I could point out what's wrong with your specific claims, but I suspect there's no point. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline. You call that reliable? 2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The body of the article directly refutes the false claim made in the headline.No, it doesn't. Your inability to understand the well-defined temporal distinction made explicit in the article, combined with the necessary preconceived notions about CNN to make such a broad claim based on such an obvious error do not, in any way impact the reliability of CNN as a source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."" 2601:47:4180:7953:95ED:A1D:6EE4:3FA3 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you genuinely missed the key statement from one of the opening paragraphs: "FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked." Lizzius (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In other words, the RNC wasn't hacked, but they're shifting the goalpost.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that two different things are being conflated:

1. The hacks of the DNC, for which we have abundant RS documenting and discussing it at length.
2. The years long cultivation (not hacking) of Trump by the Russian government, with their covert video taping of his activities. (We don't report on those reportedly salacious activities in this article, at least not until we have better confirmation.) Also of the Russian's more recent coordination with Trump's election campaign, with both Trump's team and Russians willingly involved.

These are two very different matters, but they potentially affected the election process and also Trump's vulnerability to blackmail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As this information was not released during the campaign what relevance does it have to the campaign, especially as it might well have been funded by American political parties and thus is not (beyond who supplied the information) a Russian endevour? (and yes I have been following this, I have just no commented until now).Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's established that the same perpetrators who hacked and published DNC material also hacked the RNC but did not publish any potentially damaging material they obtained, that's also a form of interference by omission. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That has not been established. Directory Comey testified under oath that the current RNC was not hacked per the source under discussion. 73.10.160.126 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Background section proposal

Historical intervention in foreign elections

The United States has a history of both interference in foreign elections and foreign interference in their own, for example the involvement of the South Vietnam government in the election of Richard Nixon, Iran in the election of Ronald Reagan, and potential campaign finance violations by China in the election of Bill Clinton. A 2016 study found that, among 938 global elections examined, the United States and Russia combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions. Russia in total, had intervened in 36 such elections, including the 1972 West German and 1977 Indian contests. The same study found that "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 US presidential elections occurring after 1960.

Notes

References

Rationale:

• It provides a larger context into electoral interventions by foreign powers into US elections. The article is currently myopic in this regard, and an uninformed reader would assume this was the first such instance, which it isn't.
• It establishes that such interventions are not limited to great powers, but in the last half of the 20th Century have been dominated by them numerically, making an intervention by Russia fairly predictable in the long view.
• It establishes that this likely had a predicable effect, but without disregarding that there are dissenting views. TimothyJosephWood 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as co-author and proposer. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Informative, balanced, well-sourced and concise. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• It's not neutral to focus on the 36 Russian interventions at the expense of the 81 U.S. interventions documented in the appendix. The U.S. is the world's leading superpower and the U.S. government just so happens to be more involved in the internal affairs of other nations than any other state, regardless of whether this hurts the feelings of American editors. One might even say it is false balance and WP:SYNTH to conflate the impact of the Iran hostage crisis on the 1980 election with the far more direct interventions documented by Levin—bags of cash to favored parties, extensive black propaganda, public threats of massive economic sanctions should the wrong candidate win, squalid attempts to bribe congressmen as in the Chilean election of 1970, ect. But if the focus must remain on Russia, we should probably mention the Soviet Union's 1984 intervention in support of Walter Mondale.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sauce? Specifically for Mondale? TimothyJosephWood 01:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's in Levin's appendix; I'm not sure as to the extent of it, but I assume it is related to the KGB memo discovered in 1992 in which Ted Kennedy requests Soviet aid in defeating President Reagan's re-election.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Overblown: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/apr/12/mackubin-thomas-owens/disputed-kgb-memo-sparks-mac-owens-claim-kennedy-t/ Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(Note: TTAAC has been subjected to a topic ban, and so cannot respond himself, anyone who wants may feel free to jump in for him) I just want to address the point raised above: It is neutral to focus on the fewer Russian interventions, precisely because this is a subject about Russian intervention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SOAP. This background proposal looks to me like a classic propaganda spin known as And you are lynching Negroes or Whataboutism. We interfered in your elections? Look at yourself! The subject might be of some interest, but it belongs to other pages. If this can be well-sourced, one could create a couple of additional pages, such as List of election interferences by state X. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My additional concern: text above misrepresents the numerous alleged interferences as a matter of fact. Some of them are indeed a matter of fact, but others are not. However, this is difficult to asses until we have List of election interferences by different countries. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

1)"Whataboutism" is as old as ideology itself, older than the USSR. It's actually as old as morality: see Jesus 2) We can ignore all this (it mostly leads to posturing here) and ask: do reliable sources consider it relevant to understanding the topic? answer's yes. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think one could actually include some cases of other countries interfering in US elections if reliably sourced. The interventions by US? No, this is different subject. Not on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To do that, you'd have to clip the sources like so. It's a great proposal, one that I'd wholeheartedly support. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"clip the sources"? Yes, sure. This is something we always do. For example, one can use a scientific review about proteins in general, but only use materials about one specific protein from this review if this is needed for sourcing a page about this protein. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COATRACK. There is no question that the USA has interfered, often violently and subversively, in the affairs of other nations, including assassinations of their leaders, but that is not the subject here. This is fine for another article (which we no doubt already have somewhere), but not here. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

But this isn't about "interference in others' affairs by the USA." This about interference in elections by Russia and the US. This history of interference is seen as relevant to the topic of the article by reliable sources. On what grounds to you deem it irrelevant? Personal opinion? Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub, no, this article is not "about interference in elections by Russia and the US", but about "2016 United States election interference by Russia." It's about ONE election, and about Russian interference in that election. It's not about Russian interference in other elections, or American interference in elections in other countries. Those are all interesting subjects, but are not part of the scope of this topic. You can mention them in other articles, if that hasn't already been done, or write another article on the subject. I'd welcome such a venture because it's certainly a valid topic and there is plenty of source material. This LA Times article, supplied by Darouet below, is a good one which mentions that topic. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Do you also think that newspapers like the LA Times are engaged in COATRACK when they mention other election interferences by the US and Russia globally [4] ? It's certainly something I'd be interested in knowing when trying to get an overview of the topic, including to judge the likelihood that the allegations are true -Darouet (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, only editors here can engage in COATRACK. See my reply to Guccisamsclub immediately above your question. These are all interesting topics, but not all are within the scope of this article. If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per BullRangifer - off topic POV whataboutism and coatrackin'. Non encyclopedic. Also a good bit of SYNTH going on (several of the source mentioned above pre-date the topic of this article and others only mention it in passing).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed addition is beyond the scope of this article which is the 2016 US election. Can't resist this comment on the proposed text: The allegation that the East German Stasi (not the Soviet Union, as far as I know) bought CDU vote(s) in the failed 1972 vote of no-confidence (not an election) against then-chancellor Brandt, which would have resulted in the opposing party's candidate becoming chancellor, is a rumor, "confirmed" only by the memoir of former East German head spy Markus Wolff. Extremely reliable source, NOT. Again: heck no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This content is far afield from the subject of the article and has minimal relevance unless we're trying to write a book on a broader subject. It also tends to skew WP:NPOV with its subtle appeal to hypocrisy.- MrX 12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The fact that the relevant history paints the US in a bad light doesn't change the fact that it's relevant history. And now for the periodic reminder: I'm a hardcore liberal. I'm a "Reagan was a crap president" and an "I might have given Clinton a hummer too, if I swung that way" liberal and a "Would have voted for Obama just because he's black and a Dem, even if I didn't like his politics" liberal. I just can't escape the notion that the arguments against this all boil down to editors having a problem with the implications. I would, however suggest that the first sentence of the proposal include Russia in it's declaration. Both states have that history, even if the US's is more extensive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants, I'm a liberal too, but it's irrelevant who gets painted in a bad light. We don't censor articles or write sales brochures here. I agree that "it's relevant history," but it's not on topic for this article. As I've just written above, we need to stay on topic. This type of stuff is very interesting and legitimate for mention in some other articles, and even for new articles. I welcome such ventures. Inclusion here would tend to dilute the subject and tend to be victim blaming, something both Putin and Trump would love, and a tactic Trump often uses... If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer: I'm a liberal too, but it's irrelevant who gets painted in a bad light. That's exactly my point.

I agree that "it's relevant history," but it's not on topic for this article. That's a contradiction. How can something be both relevant and off-topic at the same time? Look, I'm all for creating an article like Foreign intervention in Democratic Elections and simply summarizing the lead of that article in a sentence or two here with a main article link. I don't want to detract from the subject or muddy the waters: I want to inform the reader. And doing so means we have to give the reader a good sense of context for this event. That means informing the reader about the history of this type of interference in some way. A way that minimizes the POV shift to this article, and doesn't come across as a tu quoque argument would be ideal, but I've not seen a single proposal to do that. All I'm seeing are people saying "No" and not suggesting any alternative. Propose an alternative that does this, and I'll drop my support for this paragraph (it's not and should not be its own section, just an introduction to the background section) and jump all over that. Really, this proposal is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but I'm not going to balk if it means improving the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be done, but not in the way suggested above. It starts from "The United States has a history ..." on a subject of events where US appear to be a victim of foreign intervention. This is classic propaganda approach. Consider victim blaming as another example. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I meant "relevant history" in a general sense, not thinking of this article. During an edit conflict, I added the following sentence which might explain my thinking: "If we have RS which mention that this specific interference in this election by Russia was done as revenge for past interference by the USA in other elections, that can be mentioned, but it should not become a main topic." -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I understand what you're saying, but consider: victim blaming is a phenomenon that requires intent; after all, Donald Trump has been the 'victim' of a lot of attempts at character assassination (I'm referring only to false accusations here, for example [5]). Does that render him immune from criticism of his character? No, not for a second. His character was and remains highly criticizable. I couldn't honestly describe him in vernacular terms without committing a BLP vio. Criticizing his character only becomes victim blaming when I do so for the purpose of excusing the attempts at character assassination.

@Bullrangifer: I saw your addition after the fact, and I agree that such evidence would make this sort of thing more relevant. But that's not to say it's not relevant enough already. Again, I'm not suggesting (and this proposal doesn't consist of) a big write-up on the US's past similar crimes. Just a few sentences saying "Hey, this sort of thing happens a lot." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Timothyjosephwood, thank you for taking the time to put this together so nicely (and even finding a recent scholarly article). In general I'd support the text you've proposed, but I would suggest deleting the first sentence. I think it might theoretically be included at some point, but debate here at this time makes it hard. If you kept everything from the second sentence onwards, I'd suggest incorporating this article from the LA Times [6] to also note the number of elections the US has intervened in (81). I would support a formulation of that kind. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, yeah. I'm done. I'm just going to make a new article. There's far too many irrelevant policies, vacuous arguments, and far too little constructive discussion, or genuine attempt at collaboration here. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not just about attempts to influence elections, this is about illegal interference. It is not just about election interference, but espionage and hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Not that it matters at this point. I'd also support per My very best wishes only mentioning Soviet/Russian past interference, as a second choice. We can keep the sources but remove all mention of US interference, since some people think the US' conduct is particularly irrelevant to this article. (several others think neither is relevant) Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's a separate article. If Timothyjosephwood creates a reasonable article on the subject, it's fine for the "see also" section. Inclusion here is, as I'd already anticipated, WP:COATRACK which screams of halo as what is, essentially, the preface to the subject of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Foreign electoral intervention. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This addition is peripheral to the article's topic and WP:UNDUE. If anything, the US calling Russian elections unfree/unfair was more of a motive for Russian active measures than any past US election interference. Agree that something along the lines of Election interference by the United States could be an article though. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - it helps bring background for the relevant commenters (eg. Glenn Grenwald), who are skeptical of the US Intelligence Community, and the Democratic Party's narrative. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is off-topic for this article. It's COATRACK and SYNTHY insinuation that tilts the content away from the subject of the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. It really is a separate article and classic propaganda spin which seeks to create false equivalence between Russia's interference with the 2016 election -- which was largely enabled by Trump himself and implicates him in some sense, which is embarrassing for him -- and their past efforts hoping to make this look like it's not all that big a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.153.181 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Christopher Steele

WP:BLP1E, merge to 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Alleged compromising dossier on Trump 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier Widefox; talk 15:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC) (updated)

• Withdrawn - it's not BLP1E that's the overriding issue with the Christopher Steele article, but WP:BLP hindering inclusion in BLP Trump of this article (as it's not from Russia). The correct place for the dossier topic is in a dossier article which mentions the author per my A) or B) logic below. Widefox; talk 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be all hie is really noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. He was involved in investigations re: Alexander Litvinenko and FIFA. No doubt more. Lex Therumsdottir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

He may have been involved in other investigations - of course he was - but this is the one that made him a public figure. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep so notable for these other events that his page is...less then 24 hours old.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I haven't figured out yet how to propose an article for deletion or I would have proposed that blatant BLP violation of an article by now, including the obvious OR (where did the DOB come from?). For now: Oppose merger. Found no sources for other investigations. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:PRIVACY, WP:DOB, WP:NPF, WP:1E. Space4Time3Continuum2xSpace4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Although this is the talk page referred to on the merge proposal, there is also a discussion on this idea at Talk:Christopher Steele. I will transfer my comments from there to here and will suggest that others do the same. In any case, I would suggest that whoever closes the merge request look both places. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge I would really rather delete this article and not have a redirect, because of the nature of his work and possible danger to him in being a public figure. Unfortunately that train has left the station; he is publicly identified now, and we can't undo the publicity he has gotten. But the fact is that he was not in any way notable until this story hit the news. IMO this is a matter of WP:ONEEEVENT and he should NOT have a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose he appears to be notable outside of this leaked document. - Scarpy (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the contents of the Steele dossier are extremely inflammatory and currently unverifiable, I don't believe there's any way to tie them to the subject of this article in a BLP-compatible way. The allegations don't just impugn Russia but also amount to unsubstantiated allegations of treason by Trump and his staff. Tread carefully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not understand how BLP1E can apply here. Policy [7] tells: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."

Actually, none of these conditions was met. #1. No, he was involved in several other high profiles events, including FIFA corruption scandal and Litvinenko poisoning. #2 This is already a very high profile individual. #3. The event was significant, and the role was significant. This is plain notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't think it's that clear cut:

1. There's RS only in the context of this event, none before AFAIK. The issue of working on other topics is clearly under the radar ...leading to...
2. clear-case WP:LOWPROFILE "covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event" - clearly so
3. "not well documented"

If having to chose between an article on A) dossier or B) BLP It's always A) Widefox; talk 23:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

1. - No, he played an important role in many other high profile events, and this is well documented (see here). Yes, that was published only recently due to secrecy reasons, but that does not decreases his notability with regard to other events;
2. - Yes, you may be right; it is hard to tell what would happen otherwise,
3. - No, this is very well documented in WP sense: very large number of sources tells he did it; there is no controversy about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your original point about No. 2 is still valid. There is a crucial difference in that it is in the nature of his job in intelligence to keep a low profile, that is not the same thing as low profile. The fact that it has since been revealed that he was involved in a few other major events meant that none of the criteria for BLP1E can apply to him (he is therefore not "allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events" according to WP:LOWPROFILE). Hzh (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as the story broadens, it's clear the topic is reflecting more on the author (for now) and there's huge interest in the author, so in that way it's a news article. I agree that an outed intelligence officer is a strange one. Pulling out to big picture (with the caveat that I haven't followed the previous work), he's notable for this dossier. It's the dossier. I still chose A) not B). Widefox; talk 13:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• OpposeThe event and the man are each independently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - this article is long enough already, and there's reasonable evidence that Steele and/or his dossier are sufficiently notable for an independent article. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article provides useful background on him (ie with extensive intelligence contacts in Russia), that helps contextualise his role in the dossier Xcia0069 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge As I said he was not notable enough for his own article before this. It maybe that his dossier is not part of this (in which case I would oppose merger) but if it is part of this then this is all he is really notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it has been revealed that he may have played a major role in the investigations of other major events [8] (Litvinenko poisoning - [9], Fifa scandal - [10]), therefore BLP1E cannot apply. Hzh (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Steele appears to be notable beyond the dossier, as the cofounder of Orbis Business Intelligence and for his role in the FIFA corruption investigation. What we really need is an article on the dossier though, as we can't do it justice here. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Duplication between Steele & Dossier articles @Gobonobo: there is now a heavy overlap between Christopher Steele & Donald Trump Russia dossier that I suggest we can delete one of the two articles or merge both. What do you think? J mareeswaran (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Steele is notable beyond the dossier, there are lots of wp:rs reporting him prior to this issue. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Better target

There is now an article on the dossier itself: Donald Trump Russia dossier. That article is currently at AfD, but if it is kept, I am going to make a new merger proposal - that "Christopher Steele" be merged to it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump dossier - BLP

I blanked the entire section on the Trump-Russia dossier because I don't think there's any way to present content about the dossier in this article in a BLP-compatible way. It seems impossible to connect the dossier to Russian interference without conveying at least some of its contents, which amount to unsubstantiated allegations of treason by Trump and his staffers. Sorry if this starts a flame war, I'm only trying to follow BLP. In fact I have little interest in this article and I'm not even watching it. Please ping me if you want my attention here. And now I will duck and cover. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Biden just confirmed to the AP that he and Obama had been briefed on the Dossier. Per sanctions, this must now be discussed before it is mentioned in any capacity. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is one of cases when someone removes any content he does not like (no matter how important and well sourced) and then requires consensus to restore. Doing so I think is actually against WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and it is misuse of sanctions. However, if admins think this is all right, then who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly what is happenning. I do not support its removal of the basis of BLP. We certainly should not remove content because "it amounts to unsubstantiated allegations of treason". - Shiftchange (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• As long as the article makes it clear that these allegations have never been substantiated, I don't see how it's a BLP violation. See Pizzagate conspiracy theory for an example of unproven (in that case, obviously untrue, but still) allegations about a living person that no-one is suggesting violates BLP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the text. A wholesale deletion of that section is clearly against consensus. Feel free to discuss any particular changes you want to make, but in its current form the whole section looks well-sourced to me. Bradv 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, Brad. I was just in the process of composing an argument to say that restoring it would be OK under the DS, since half a dozen people on this page have already discussed the section - and there seemed to be general agreement to cover the existence or alleged existence of the dossier, but not to divulge any of its contents. In fact when someone posted some of the salacious stuff from Buzzfeed it was deleted and revdel'ed, and that should continue to be our approach. That will keep us clear of any BLP problems. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Although I am an admin, I participate here as a regular editor, and so my "argument" that restoring this would pass DS was just an editor's opinion, not any kind of official ruling. I will say, though, that if anyone sees any attempt to add BLP violations to this article or this talk page, holler for me or any other admin who happens to be online, and let's get rid of it as quickly as possible. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm back for a moment in response to a good-humored comment on my user talk from MjolnirPants. After re-reading WP:PUBLICFIGURE I'm changing my tune--this does not appear to be a BLP vio, my mistake. That said, I think we should use caution in how we approach this subject and, as PUBLICFIGURE suggests, avoid the more inflammatory / less necessary allegations. Also, folks, please try to assume good faith and play nice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

These salacious materials have not been verified to be accurate, and BLP would seem to indicate it should be excluded until the sources of the materials can be verified. Right now, these materials are unsubstantiated gossip. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged the section asking for more thorough sourcing of these materials. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The section already has 28 references. There is already a citation to a Reliable Source on virtually every sentence. Please specify what material you think needs "more thorough sourcing". If you cannot point to the statements in the section that you believe are inadequately sourced, I am going to remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So are we also going to remove the Pizzagate scandal from pages it is on ? after all it is just all salacious unsubstantiated rumor. Sorry, but this is highly notable (I.E. multiple RS have noticed it). It does not fail LP, as long as we make it clear this is an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a dubious document which is being attributed to a former intelligence spy, but there is no concrete evidence the document is even genuine. It's purported author has not come forward to verify he wrote it -- its just gossip in the press. BLP would direct that this garbage, fake news story be removed from this article until it can be verified as accurate. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Except the sources are not fake news sites, and many have said (explicitly) they have seen this dossier.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I previously stated, there is no concrete evidence that this document is genuine. It's attributed to anonymous sources, whether covered by the press or not, so since when do we allow anonymous sources of materials to pass BLP muster? Trump has stated its fake news -- I would think he would know since he is the subject of the document. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's attributed to Christopher Steele, which multiple RS have conformed. And as to what Donny says, he has never told a fib?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding a press quote from Christopher Steele taking credit for this document. Do you have a reference with an interview by the press where Steele assumes responsibility for writing this document? I have read this document cover to cover and it reads like it was written by a high school teenager, not an intelligence operative. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The tag does not serve any useful purpose. It might be needed to bring attention to the section, but it already got a lot of attention. In addition, contrary to the tag, the section is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. MelanieN clarified the BLP stance on this document. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Our approach here has been that we do not report anything about the alleged contents of the report - since it is unverified and a good deal of it would probably constitute a BLP violation. What we ARE reporting is the existence of a report saying that the Russians have information about Trump, and the various public reactions to this report. The fact that such a report exists is not gossip - it was reported by U.S. intelligence agencies. It has been front page news for days and there is no way to suppress its very existence at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is very reasonable approach. I concur with your assessment. I have read through these sources and I am having a hard time accepting this document is a formal report from MI16 -- it may be a fake or it may be genuine, time will tell. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is NOT a formal report from MI16. It is a report from a private investigative firm, headed by a former MI16 operative. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. BTW, when exactly this report was headed to the FBI? I thought it was earlier than on October 31, 2016. Was the date of the initial distribution published somewhere? This date is probably important to note. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too: "when exactly this report was headed to the FBI?" David Corn wrote about the report ("dossier") in an article published on 31 October 2016 (A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump) but did not publish its contents. In that article, someone whom Corn later identified as Steele said that he gave the report to a contact of his at the FBI in early July 2016. Steele was first retained by the political consultants in Washington D.C. to write the report in early June 2016. All we know with certainty is that Senator John McCain gave the report directly to James Comey, the FBI director, in "late 2016" according to McCain's official statement on 11 January 2017. I am not sure when the FBI first received the report. It could have been in July 2016 (from Steele), or in September 2016 as that is when Corn said that Democrat Harry Reid was complaining that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton but not Donald Trump.--FeralOink (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, this story is big enough (and it's still growing) so that

1. We probably do need a separate article on it.
2. In one way or another we do have to discuss in the article what's actually in the dossier. Of course we shouldn't rely on the dossier directly but should use secondary reliable sources (not BuzzFeed) which discuss the contents.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, something like this ("US intel sources warn Israel against sharing secrets with Trump administration") needs to be somewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More relevant and notable info missing from the article: "active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file (said) that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature". [11].

Or "Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign."

Then there's the whole thing about the rejected FISA application. ("three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.")

Likewise, strangely, the fact that the source has been deemed "credible", which was emphasized by most sources reporting on the dossier (for example, BBC) is absent from the article.

Basically, every reliable newspaper out there is reporting this up, down, sideways and diagonally, but we're still talking about whether to mention it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand from the other editors the existence of this document can be verified but the actual content of this document and its salacious content cannot with certainty be verified as factual and would probably violate BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The source, Steele, may be credible, but there are at least two problems with his report/dossier. First, it contains errors, although the significance of those errors is unclear. More importantly, the salacious content is not verified, nor verifiable (according to most news media, including BuzzFeed). So, the document exists, but we don't know if its contents constitute factual evidence of Russian influence on Trump and the 2016 election. I suppose we need to wait until the FBI or the Senate's investigation releases a statement about the veracity...?--FeralOink (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know! Let's do what CNN was planning! First we will report the true statement that "US intelligence agencies presented evidence Trump has been compromised". This is true of course but the key is this: Second we will hide behind BLP to prevent releasing the contents of the "compromising information" that any rationale person would consider ridiculous and implausable. That way we can slander Trump by saying "[...] Trump has been compromised" without allowing anyone to challenge or refute the validity of the evidence (because that would be a BLP violation). LOL. 73.10.160.126 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think sarcasm is the best way to make your point here. It seems you might have a valid concern about this article, or a helpful proposal on what to change, but it's hard to determine what that is because of your conversational style. If you have something to contribute, please do that in a straightforward manner. Bradv 17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is simple. You can't say "documents indicate Trump was compromised by Russia" unless you're also going to say "the documents are implausible and ridiculous". A rationale human being may believe that Russia has compromising information on Trump... but no rationale human being believes Trump rented a hotel room and hired hookers to urinate on the bed specifically because Barack Obama had stayed there. If you're going to include the dossier it should be explicitly called out as ridiculous. There are plenty of credible sources who have called it exactly that. It's amazing to me that some guys from 4chan make up the most egregious fake news they can, pass it off to the media and opposition research groups, and just because CNN puts it in print the people on wikipedia are claiming it is from "a reliable source." What is reliable about printing unvetted allegations from opposition research groups?

Let's be real: There is no reliable source for this information. Just because CNN is a "reliable source" generally does not mean it is a reliable source in this case. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

IP, I agree with your overall point, but the stuff you're saying about CNN is both ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. They never credulously reported on the contents as if they were verified truth. No-one has, outside of a few far-left-wing sources that we wouldn't trust, anyways. Also, the dossier was produced by Christopher Steele, not "some guys from 4chan." 4chan is pretty much entirely pro-Trump, anyways. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that CNN did not report the contents even though they had them. CNN knew that the contents were not credible yet decided to report half the story anyway: They reported that there was evidence Russia had compromising information on Trump and then they withheld the details. That's skeezy. At least when Buzzfeed reported it they provided the actual dossier so a critical reader could determine for themselves that the claims were incredible. If not for Buzzfeed having released the entire dossier, CNN would still be reporting as fact that "17 intelligence agencies" had presented evidence that "Russia has compromising information on Trump". That's real skeezy. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically what they were reporting was true: There was evidence that Russian had compromising information on Trump. But CNN choose to withhold additional information from their readers: That the contents of the report were not only not credible... but they were ridiculous.

At least when Buzzfeed reported the story they provided the actual dossier. This allowed a critical reader to come to their own conclusion. And I think most reasonable people would conclude that the "evidence" is ridiculous. If not for Buzzfeed having released the dossier, CNN would still be reporting, as fact, that "17 intelligence agencies" had presented evidence that "Russia has compromising information on Trump".

How can CNN be a credible source when they intentionally withheld information? Whether intentional or not, their reporting had (or would have had) the effect of creating a false impression among their consumers that there was credible evidence that Russian had compromising information on Trump. There is no such credible evidence. The dossier is incredible.

As to 4chan, they were the ones who leaked that story to Ricky Williams which is how Christopher Steele got it. From him it went to McCain and then to FBI Director Comey and beyond. It's actually very disturbing. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion

What do people think about the recently added Public opinion section? I think there is a place for such a section, but I'm not sure that the current material is suitable or relevant to this article. Only one cited poll relates to the subject of this article; the rest are just about the opinion that "Russia is a threat to us" which IMO is not directly related to this subject. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The three polls mentioned were conducted to gauge American sentiment following the allegations of Russian interference, which makes them relevant here. - Scarpy (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

They would be more relevant with a little context - because there is nothing tying them to the allegations. Are these results any different from what people said a month ago, or a year ago? --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would mention the poll that relates to the subject of this article in the Public Opinion section. I would recommend removing the other two polls about Russia being a threat to the U.S., as that is nothing new nor more relevant now than in the past.--FeralOink (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur. It might be relevant if we had any evidence that public opinion toward Russia has CHANGED as a result of this subject, but the percentages given tell us nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The two off-topic polls have been removed.- MrX 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Still need to get rid of "alleged" and "briefing" from heading

Since there has been no response to my comments above, I'm starting a new section to reboot the discussion.

1. The "alleged" needs to be removed. The dossier is not "alleged". It exists. It is the "veracity of" the contents which are "alleged".
2. This is about much more than a briefing, which occurred long after the original October article by Mother Jones. Therefore "briefing should be removed. It's a remnant from the stub beginnings of this section. The section includes much more now.

If we are going to keep "alleged", then how about this:

• Dossier about alleged Russian connections

That's a much better description. It also needs its own section. It's not logically part of the section it's in. The previous content in that section is about hacking. This has nothing to do with that. We need to get this right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree and done.Casprings (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. A dossier contains, by definition, a collection of facts about a person. If this 'dossier' is a work of fiction, and if the more outrageous "facts" turn out to be made up, it is not actually a dossier, is it? Marteau (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No, a dossier contains documents about a person. And "dossier" is what reliable sources are calling it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Marteau, RS and experts do not consider it a "work of fiction". "Unverified" does not imply "less than true", nor does it diminish the possibility that the allegations are 1,000% true. The degree of trust we place in the content is totally dependent on at least three things: (1) The impeccable reputation of the author; (2) The character and history of Trump, which makes this type of behavior totally in character; (3) Outside verification from numerous independent sources which say this is true, and that there are other witnesses and videos, including from other cities than Moscow. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

California Secessionist movement

Seems something that also cold be added to the article as multiple WP:RS are reporting Russian links. See here. I would think in an effects section that details further Russian efforts?Casprings (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading that source, it seems to be just about Russia's preferences for California. There is no hard evidence in that article that Russia is interfering in California, which is what this article is about. Bradv 04:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't take that talk too seriously. It's petulant, joking, talk, but if Trump were to visit California, he'd be met with protests. The only areas where he might be met in a friendly manner are areas where his large stature would still be hidden in the tall pot grows behind the meth labs. Hillbillys in Northern California like him, you know, the areas where the gene pool is very limited, and the "toothbrush" was invented (if the people living there had more than one tooth it would be called the "teethbrush"). Even in those red counties, he didn't win by a large margin. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New McClatchy report confirms some key details.. need integration in article.

Article here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

• Here's the key point from McClatchy report:

• Investigation of Trump/Russia connections pre-Steele Dossier
• investigators interviewed Steele in Italy
• Report confirms BBC report that a look at Russian financial connection to Trump began in April: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

I think all 4 points should be in this article and the Steele Dosier article.Casprings (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Steele is in hiding from the press and refusing to answer any questions or report on his sources, his dossier is worthless unless he reveals his sources and provide some actual evidence. The fact that he met some unnamed CIA person in Italy and gave him unverified details of what he was selling is laughable and unworthy of any report anywhere. All of the stuff you want to add is trash, laughable. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WSJ article on Flynn

More details on ongoing counterintelligence investigations on Fynn. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-eyes-michael-flynns-links-to-russia-1485134942

Casprings (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Marginal commentary"

Regarding the commentary by Jeffrey Carr and Scott Ritter, which were recently removed, I'd like to ask, "what constitutes 'marginal commentary'?" Is it commentary an editor dislikes? Is it commentary that was made in the margins of a page? I'm just curious, because looking through the history of this page, the only pattern I can see is that "marginal" views seems to always coincide with views editors applying the label personally disagree with. I'm wondering, for example, why a HuffPost piece written by Robert McElvaine is not "marginal," while the views Jeffrey Carr, cited in Harper's Magazine, are "marginal." If someone has a better explanation than the one I've proposed, please enlighten me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. By the same token, comments by Glenn Greenwald have been refuted, claiming he was "not an expert". Well, if Greenwald is not qualified commenting on US intelligence, then neither are 80% of cited commenters. I shall now restore this material. — JFG ^talk 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort on this page to remove criticism of the US government or intelligence agencies under the guise of "UNDUE". However, UNDUE is part of NPOV, which tries to represent all major viewpoints of a topic published by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source publishes an opposing view, then it's our job to report it with proper attribution. That said, I've removed nonspecific criticism like "cybersecurity services may overstate their conclusions," though more specific accusations can be included. ^Falling_Gravity 09:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the misuse of WP:UNDUE. I don't think, however, that the "overstate" claim was non-specific - it was made directly in the context of the Russian hacking allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as Greenwald goes, "widely known" is not the same thing as "qualified". He's not. Not an "expert". Seriously, it's like everytime Greenwald sneezes some starry eyed fan of his has to run over here to Wikipedia and try to cram it into some article somewhere. I'd say Carr and Steinberg are borderline. Ritter also not credible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about Greenwald doesn't change the fact that he is one of the major global media voices at present. This looks a lot like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence based arguments to remove Greenwald's commentary? -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's more like every time anyone cites the Intercept for anything, someone throws a tantrum. The only argument is that the Intercept sometimes reaches different conclusions from the Daily Beast or the Wash Po. Therefore it's "undue". How on earth is this an argument? As for Ritter, he's obviously fringe. Remember the time he spread the conspiracy theory that Bush was overstating his WMD allegations? Thank God, RS like Judith Miller told us the "mainstream" view (mainstream for about 5% of the world's population). Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"I shall..." shows admirable resolve -- but it is not apt to make any denials go more smoothly if there's an AE discussion about reinstating disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: VM's reinstatement of your edit, after it was challenged by reversion, is a clear violation of WP:ARBAPDS. You are also running dangerously close to breaching these sanctions by edit warring to keep your edit - despite the fact that it was challenged by reversion - by repeatedly threatening all who disagree with you. Stop threatening other editors, stop edit warring, and use the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bass Ackwards, m'lady. Please review the policies and Arbcom decision and sanctions. That will save the talk page from a lot of clutter. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through that case, I have no sense whatsoever that you are right to reinstate your preferred version, while others are prohibited from doing so. On the other hand, the very bad editing environment that the case describes applies, perfectly, to this situation. The issue of consensus and good faithed editing behavior will be especially difficult for all of us to resolve on our own, given the acrimony that has been seen on this page. SPECIFICO there is plenty of blame to go around for that, but your constant accusations and threats go a long way to creating a battleground atmosphere here.

I think maintaining mainstream voices who are skeptical of definite Russian involvement is very important to this article. The recent RfC, in which a majority of editors preferred to not include the word "allegations" in the title, nevertheless showed that many editors thought it should be present (the official RfC result was "no consensus"). Given the editing history here, I'd proposal mediation to resolve the question of whether Ritter or Greenwald can be removed from the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page asking you to back up your disparagement with some diffs so I can understand. I think you must have me confused with somebody else.

somebody else

-- I don't edit the article much here and I don't see any time I reinserted the same text twice. Anyway, the article talk page is not the place for personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in this particular instance you removed article commentary by Carr and Ritter (on the 23rd), and your edit was reverted by Thucydides (same day). Casprings reinstated your edit (same day), and was this time reverted by FallingGravity (same day). A day later, VM again attempted to reinstate your edit, and I reverted him (24th).

I see that MrX had originally tried removing Ritter's view on the 18th, and was reverted by Guccisamsclub (same day).

On the other hand, I see that Carr's view was added on the 14th by Tobby72, and reverted on the same day by you. Carr was quoted by Andrew Cockburn in Harper's Magazine: a major political commentator in a major magazine. For that reason your one-word edit summary, "undue," is aggravating to other editors because it's clearly non-obvious, and therefore comes across as partisan. SPECIFICO, do you understand why editors would respond poorly to one-word removal of carefully sourced statements to major magazines/contributors? Nevertheless you were removing Tobby's added material (I haven't seen that it had been there earlier), and so you're technically correct that this material may be removed according to the general sanctions. I'll self revert on that point.

You're correct that you haven't edited again (in recent history) on this particular content - though I wrote "repeatedly edit warred" because the last time you threatened me with DS, I saw that I was in fact reinstating content you yourself had added. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet, Thucydides411, and JFG: This is getting tedious. Why not let the other editors "have at it"? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, let's keep calm and find a dignified way: I would approve mediation or WP:DRN about the credibility, balance and weight of various sources used in this article. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: what do you mean by "other editors" and "have at it?" I'd like to avoid POV-driven removal of mainstream criticism of this whole story. I also think it'd be helpful to find some context in which a productive conversation can be had about content, sources, where editors trust one another to edit constructively. I think that's possible and should be a goal. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

kay, just a thought. you guys may have too much integrity and diligence for your own good. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know every one of Wikipedia's policies, but I know enough about the five pillars to know that good editing practices, rigorous scholarship, and civility don't violate, but are rather the backbone of Wikipedia policies. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to look like I am ignoring this, since the title heading seems to come from my edit. That said, just have been busy.Casprings (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's disruptive to put these personal attacks on an article talk page. And it's tendentious to repeat the same mistaken accusations without reading the policies, guidelines and Sanctions you keep misinterpreting. No more of this on the article talk page, please. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

words unrelated to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPECIFICO: in response to your accusations, I provided diffs showing that VM violated the sanctions you've invoked. You have provided no evidence. What is your response to the diffs I provided? If you are seriously interested in going to AE, either take me or VM there, or stop making empty and inflammatory threats. If you have any commentary on content whatsoever, please provide that. I am tired of threatening remarks. They begin to look like a pattern of personal intimidation: that would not be tolerated in a professional environment and I would be amazed if we had to put up with it here. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)