Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

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

---

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)

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

"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

Article move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia"

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

---

The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Adding "alleged" does not deny the accuracy of the one-time claims by the CIA, it simply acknowledges this is an allegation and there is not a consensus concurrence in the same way there is with things like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support It would also be more in line with the tone of the article itself, which is neutral Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support The RS cited in the article present a fairly mixed opinion that may not be accurately represented by the article's current title. LavaBaron (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

LavaBaron - per suggestion, I've opened a requested move discussion, below. If you'd like, please re-register your !vote there. BlueSalix (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you think the article should be moved, start a requested move discussion. Or don't, since this has already been proposed and rejected many times. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Requested move 4 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, pretty much for the same reasons as last time. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 18:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia – The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the RfC is malformated as the issue is not presented in a neutral manner. You want to have your say - that's what your "support" below is for. The RfC itself should be strictly factual. Please strike and reword.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Adding "alleged" does not deny the accuracy of the one-time claims by the CIA, it simply acknowledges this is an allegation and there is not a consensus concurrence in the same way there is with things like gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. We should be exceptionally cautious about sourcing social science articles to claims originating from secret police agencies and add appropriate caveats when we do. BlueSalix (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Again, is more in line with the tone of the article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been discussed and rejected many times over, most recently less than a month ago here. All editors who participated in that discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The RS cited in the article present a fairly even opinion that may not be accurately represented by the article's current title. LavaBaron (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per BlueSalix. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Situation seems to have evolved since last move discussion and may support a move. BobLaRouche (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a dead horse that, as Rob says above, has been discussed and rejected many times over, including less than a month ago. Moreover, all of the editors who participated in that discussion must be notified. Neutrality^talk 17:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First, as noted in my OP, additional RS have published since the last move discussion which changes the situation considerably. WP is not a print encyclopedia, nor is it carved into a stone tablet. As the situation changes, we change. Second, while moves to POV-pushing titles have been proposed, a move to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia" has never been proposed. I would actually oppose the previous move suggestions. BlueSalix (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in the last three weeks that show that "the situation has changed considerably" in the way you seek. Quite the opposite, in fact. Neutrality^talk 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You should probably look harder then. [4], [5], etc. You should, in fact, be concerned about ensuring articles are NPOV and accurate rather than policing WP articles to ensure they're "Rah rah! Team America!" as your compatriots, below, seem to be concerned about. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking editors, as you have done at least 3 times in this thread to 3 different editors. (Accusing other editors of acting in some sort of nefarious concert ("your compatriots"), baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias, nonsensically comparing editors to adherents to the John Birch Society and Infowars - these are all things that fly in the face of common courtesy.).

As to your links, they don't help your case as all. The study summarized in The Hill merely says that fake news may not have changed the result of the election. The article and the study do not conclude that interference didn't exist, or that the Russians weren't involved in it. Nor did it deal with the hacking affair. As for the opinion piece by Carden, the executive director of the "American Committee for East-West Accord," here's what's been said about the group: "Like several other analysts, however, Khrushcheva voiced concern that the group’s potential positive role was compromised by some of its members' knee-jerk tendency to blame all tensions on the West while excusing the Kremlin’s and Vladimir Putin's actions" (link). That kind of source is a very thin reed to base your argument on. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"baselessly accusing editors of pro-American bias" --> "anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions" [6]

The fact you are claiming this is "baseless" - when its veracity is directly diff'ed (above) - is either a personal attack by you against me, or you've simply been blinded by Old Glory waving in the wind. This coupled with the POV-entrenched, Americentric position you're taking across this set of networked articles - largely in support of newly churned and IP editors - has left your nic, "Neutrality," as something of a Machiavelian hoot. BlueSalix (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Continuing these personal attacks while refusing to respond substantively is, simply put, unproductive.

The bottom line is the reliable sources indicate that the Russians did interfere in the election. Experts (e.g., Michael McFaul, "the leading scholar of his generation, maybe the leading scholar, on post-Communist Russia") conclude that—while there's still a lot we don't know, including the particular aims of the Russians and whether it ultimately affected the outcome of the election—the Russians did engage in disinformation and interference. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that a majority of RS on this 90-day old topic claim there was interference, and a large minority (all the sources that have recently been deleted from this article) claim there was not. WP is not a winner take all system. BlueSalix (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notifying users of previous discussions is not required and may be a form of inappropriate canvassing. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly not the case. As the policy says, notifying "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" is an appropriate notice, so long as the notices are sent without regard to opinion. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has already been discussed and settled. The verifiability of the RS is very clear, and the intelligence community has, if anything, made even more clear that they stand by their evidence and published statements. That "agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging" does not indicate they are backing down or are any less certain. On the contrary. They have settled the matter, and they feel no need to continue kicking a dead horse, and that's exactly what this RfC is doing. It's absurd.

  Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions, and without any good evidence.

  This isn't a conspiracy theory (with conflicting opinions and no good evidence) where we have to couch the title in modifiers. This is a firmly settled matter, and until multiple RS find new evidence that totally upsets the apple cart, the current title is good enough. Editorial doubts should not be included in the title. That would violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions"

That is nonsense, see the commentary and reaction secton. William Binney is an exampleApollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Only Trump, his Russian friends, and other anti-American forces seek to cast doubt on their conclusions" ... So the Stanford University and NYU studies, Glenn Greenwald, Masha Gessen, The Nation, Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. - all of which reject the conclusions - must be part of this wild conspiracy you think exists? LOL. Also, screaming "Anti-American! Anti-American!" - while it may be an argument in a John Birch Society debate - is not an argument in a WP move discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of fact - the Stanford University and NYU studies did NOT "cast doubt" on any conclusions. You are just pretending that they did. And you are also making personal attacks by comparing commentators to Bircher's, or for that matter accusing them of "screaming". (For the other ones, Greenwald, Wikileaks and Russia itself certainly do qualify as "anti-American". And Gessen also doesn't quite say what you claim she says) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The mainstream view is that the Russian interference with the election happened. 'Alleged' is a WP:WEASEL word best avoided when there is no credible doubt as to the veracity of situation. I agree with BU Rob13 that editors who participated in the previous discussion should be notified that the discussion has been re-opened.- MrX 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The view of the U.S. secret police services does not = the mainstream view. The mainstream view is the consensus view of reputable and neutral parties. At present, there is not a consensus view, due to the fact that Stanford University and NYU studies have questioned the U.S. secret police conclusions, as have mainstream journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Masha Gessen, The Nation, Wikileaks, the U.S.' foremost expert on Russian media at Duke University, etc. Your position is based on dismissing Stanford, NYU, The Intercept, Duke University, The Nation, Politico, etc. as "not credible." Your distrust of academia and the mainstream media may be shared by Coast to Coast AM or InfoWars, but not generally by experienced WP editors. BlueSalix (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"U.S. secret police services"? Seriously? Neutrality^talk 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

BlueSalix, the U.S. does not have a "secret police". That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in moving discussion forward and tends to discredit your entire argument.- MrX 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are "secret police conclusions" and why do you keep raving on about'em? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

According to RS including Democracy Now [7],ComputerWorld [8], Roger Nash Baldwin [9] and NBC News [10], the FBI is a "secret police" service. I know that kind of language doesn't jive with "Freedom! Apple Pie!" and so forth but please understand, not everyone who edits WP is a U.S. citizen committed to promoting the narrative of American utopianism like you and Neutrality seem to be.

We should be careful with articles that are sourced entirely to claims originating with secret police agencies like the FBI, KGB, State Security Ministry, and so forth. The perspectives of independent sources like mainstream media and academics, should be given discursive dominance. BlueSalix (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First, those cherry-picked articles do not support your ridiculous claim that U.S. secret police services exist. Nice try though. As concerns your personal attack, I am not a person known for "promoting the narrative of American utopianism". On the contrary; I'm openly critical and suspicious of my government.- MrX 20:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support For full disclosure - new editor, long-time reader of this article, so don't know if my opinion counts. However, the argument that "only anti-American forces" [sic] question the conclusions, therefore questions about the conclusions should be dismissed as fringe - meanwhile it's been shown, as above, that those who question the conclusions include peer-reviewed studies, mainstream media, and such - I have trouble assuming that those opposing this move are really doing so in good faith. BrandNewEditor2017 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Very new editor - a total of three edits from a brand new account. Welcome. Please tell exactly which "peer-reviewed study" concludes that Russian interference did not occur. Neutrality^talk 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support While not being American, I do have to say that the sources provided give no definitive proof that Russia did anything physical to interfere with the election. Alleged would be much better as the current title gives a level of POV to the accusations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Most reliable sources are treating "Russian interference" as an allegation. The various allegations may or may not be true. "Alleged" is a neutral term to describe such a situation, and it's used by many reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That's just not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What's not true? That most reliable sources treat this as an allegation, or that "alleged" is a neutral term? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support We should not show greater certainty than mainstream media which routinely says that these are allegations with which American intelligence have a high degree of confidence. It is not in the same category as the findings of the 9/11 or Warren Commission where the authors expressed certainty which was reflected in mainstream reporting. So news media routinely say Oswald was a lone gunman or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 without qualification or mention of the commissions that made the determination. Anyway be patient. In due course if conclusive evidence is presented we can move the article back. TFD (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The intelligence community, which has access to sources that journalists and others don't have, is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election. For journalists to complain that they didn't show us their evidence - well, of course they didn't! Telling us the sources of their information could affect national security as well as endanger the lives of sources. Nominator cites the Stanford study, but it does not deny or disprove that the Russians attempted to interfere with the election - it only concludes that one small aspect of the interference, the "fake news", did not affect the outcome. But the intelligence sources never claimed that Russian interference affected the outcome of the election, and neither does this article. The hacking, and the carefully timed public releases, remain on the record. To weaken this title with an "alleged" would do a disservice to our readers. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you point to the policy which says we should weight should be based on unpublished U.S. intelligence sources rather than reliable secondary sources? BTW I just provided the example of 9/11 where intelligence provided evidence. They also provided evidence against Saddam Hussein if you remember, although some of it was held back. TFD (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless you've seen it or had it described to you, classified intelligence is simply not a source. Forget about "reliable", "primary", "secondary", "published" etc: it's not a source in any way shape or form. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: Read what you wrote: The intelligence community […] is convinced there were Russian efforts to interfere with the election. This actually makes the case of move supporters, because US intelligence is convinced and other people (inside and outside the USA) are unconvinced. — JFG ^talk 11:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I am baffled by the argument from some here that we can't accept the assessment of the intelligence community (17 agencies in agreement as I recall) unless they show us their sources - presumably so that we can make our own (WP:OR?) assessment of whether we find the information credible or not. That is NOT how our Reliable Source guideline works. We define a source as Reliable if it is published and if the publisher/source has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". We accept reports from "reliable" media even though they virtually never show us their original sources (such as a transcript of the interview) and often use anonymous sources. We accept citations from a source like a news organization if the organization meets the RS standard - meaning it has a reputation, based on its overall track record, for checking facts and providing mostly accurate information. I contend that exact same standard applies to the intelligence agencies of the United States (and please don't belabor the point that they made a mistake a decade or two ago; even the NYT makes mistakes occasionally.) In addition to their classified briefings which we cannot see or cite, they have published an unclassified summary of what they have found and what they conclude. IMO that is a Reliable Source by Wikipedia's definition and should not be rejected on the grounds that they (for obvious reasons) don't tell us exactly what information they got from exactly what source. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The "unclassified summary" itself has had its validity questioned by RS media including The Intercept, The Nation and others. I understand, MelanieN, if you aren't aware of this fact. It was included in the article, however, Malek declared Glenn Greenwald (The Intercept) and others "Anti-American" and then deleted all the sources, therefore, a lot of people haven't seen these other RS. BlueSalix (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Statements—either declassified, leaked or public—by officials of any govt (yes, that includes US officials) are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:RS. This is POLICY. There is no ambiguity here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TFD. The vast majority of (non-opinion) reliable sources are simply relaying the claims of the US government, with a few saying point-blank that it's "alleged" (major outlets like CNN) and a few others insinuating it's more than alleged. Reportage can be construed as "endorsement", but doing so would constitute OR. Then there are opinion/analysis sources. The vast majority of these sources simply critique or otherwise evaluate existing claims, with a few going further and attempting to establish the truth positively (did Russia actually do it?). Of those that seek to establish the truth positively, most think it's likely that Russia did do it. But quality sources that seek to establish the truth positively are few in number. But even if that were not the case, saying something is credible or likely does not mean it's not "alleged" . Finally there's Crowdstrike, US intel, the Russian govt and Wikileaks. All of these are materially-involved WP:PRIMARY sources. What they say is completely irrelevant to this RfC. Until the preponderance of RS unequivocally state that Russia was responsible (as proven fact), Russian culpability will remain alleged, however credibly. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. Already had serveral long discussions on this. 2. WP:RS do not use allege. 3. This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality. 4. I had a move request closed by User talk:JudgeRM because the discussion was too soon before pervious conversations. I am unsure why this does not follow suit.Casprings (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"WP:RS do not use allege.. That's simply false. "US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality." That's actually the definition of alleged. Please read WP:RS. Also remember that there is such a thing as a "credible allegation". Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"This title is non-wp:n. US intel agencies came to the conclusion that Russia interfered and stated it. This title undermines that fact and minimizes that reality.": This is really the most disturbing aspect of this discussion - that a significant number of Wikipedia editors are declaring that public statements of US intelligence agencies must be treated as fact. I cannot imagine us even contemplating treating the spy agencies of any other country that way. What's next? Are we going to declare positions of the FSB as absolute truth? We go by reliable sources, and intelligence agencies are reliable sources only for their own opinions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The supposed WP:RS discovered via Google search link above has some issues:

1. [11] even the text of this Fox News report is consistent with other WP:RS such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico reporting on this issue.
2. [12] pertains to Russian hackers Evgeniy Bogachev and Aleksey Belan who were involved in schemes not related to this topic. In the entire article "alleged" is used once, but in-depth analysis (or reporting) about topic related US intelligence reports is not in this article. So, first, this is not significant coverage that supports placing "alleged" in this title. Second, we don't know the circumstances behind this reporter not reporting details about topic related Russian hacks.
3. [13] is saying this is "alleged Russian hacking" and "Trump has dismissed intelligence reports from both the CIA and FBI that claim Russia meddled in the election to help Trump defeat his opponent" -- but no WP:RS supports his opinion up to this date.
4. [14] This is a blog post.
5. [15] This also says "US intelligence officials have said that they are confident Russia was behind the US election hacks , which could have played a role in Trump’s defeat over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." Although the headline says "alleged" I don't see anything in this article that supports their use of this word in the title. I am guessing it is merely a headline grabber (click bate). It covers diplomat expulsions, sanctions, and so on.

It appears the sources recount US intelligence agencies and US security agencies findings - but are unable to show support for meager use of the word "alleged" - such as one instance in an article. I don't think this would equal significant coverage in a relevant discussion. Hopefully this is one of those relevant discussions. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been given ample recent consideration and it feels disruptive to ask editors to come back each time that the same thing is proposed for fear that it will appear to have consensus when the highly motivated editors on one side jump out of the woodwork for another go-round. The Russian interference is a fact that's been confirmed by every government agency that's reviewed all the evidence. And academic studies or polls of public opinion have nothing to do with WP sourcing the RS consensus as to the facts. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

When you write "all the evidence," I presume you mean classified evidence as well. Is that correct? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the third !vote based on unspecified classified "evidence" (inherently unsourceable) and the conclusions of US intel (not RS). These !votes can't be considered valid because they are asking us to flagrantly violate WP:V. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been litigated to death and there is just no support in sources for this title. Furthermore, the issue has been discussed repeatedly and this is bordering on (intertemporal) WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Finally, the RfC itself violates guidelines as it is not properly formatted and it is not worded neutrally. Some editors just need to learn how to WP:DROPTHESTICK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(And did I ever mentioned that only six month old and older accounts should be allowed to !vote in controversial RfCs?)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this policy or just a recommendation? Also, bringing the same/similar issue on the same page is NOT WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. How many times do we have to go through this? A slightly different version ("Intelligence reports" of Russian interference instead of "Allegations") of the proposed title was proposed by JFG on December 29 and rejected. Another slightly different version ("Allegations of" instead of "Alleged") was proposed by JFG on January 7 and rejected. The article is not based solely "… on official [noun missing], U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period …", but also by and in numerous other sources long before US agencies ever issued any statements. None of any of them have been retracted, AFAIK. This dead horse has been flogged so many times it’s a pile of mush by the side of the road. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In the first few weeks of this story, there was a rather strong polarization in sources, some of them defending the agencies' assessment as unassailable, some of them expressing doubt on various grounds (technology, politics or secrecy), and both sides said "hey, proof will come out soon enough" as Obama ordered a report to settle any doubts. Since that report came out two shifts happened: the "pro" sources started to consistently qualify the allegations, and the "contra" sources became much more assertive in expressing their skepticism. Therefore, the balance of sources today has shifted universally towards calling those allegations what they are: allegations, accusations, innuendo, inferences, whatever you want to call it, they are not unattackable facts. A rename is ever more justified, and we can't accept the "dead horse" argument without looking at how coverage of the story has evolved. — JFG ^talk 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - If this is over, shall moratorium be proposed? George Ho (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, because it's possible that facts about the story may emerge, which allow to state it actually happened or was a hoax or error. TFD (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Are you saying the hacking was a hoax or error? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose reliable sources have been covering this for months until recently. In unison they report 17 intelligence agencies, the FBI, and Homeland Security say the hacking by Russians did occur. The agencies also ultimately say that there was a purpose behind these activities. The purpose or intent was to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. It is pretty clear this did occur and the Russians intended to influence the elections.

I think saying that US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are not to be believed appears to indicate some wide spread conspiracy is afoot - which cannot be credible - even on its face. I also think, saying US agencies are not believable is also a good excuse for discounting WP:RS, which is a foundation for WP:GNG and our content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V.

Also, for those who noticed it - please excuse my edit on the main space page. I didn't realize this RFC is exactly related to that edit, and probably not appropriate at this time, so I self-reverted. Don't need admins admonishing me due to my bad timing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:The RfC is only about moving the article (AGAIN), so I just removed one of the numerous mentions of "alleged". The hacking itself has been established to have taken place, I think, just not who's responsible, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: You make a very good argument for inclusion of the word "alleged." As you say, reliable sources report that US intelligence agencies have alleged Russia interfered in the US elections. Going from the fact that US intelligence agencies have made those allegations to a statement that those claims are correct would, however, be WP:OR. You can have a personal view on whether or not the CIA, the FSB or any other intelligence agency in the world is trustworthy on any given issue, but unless reliable sources (e.g., reputable newspapers) on the whole state something as a fact, we cannot do so here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: please do not mischaracterize my post (what I said), and please do not do this again. This is considered disruptive editing and contravenes WP:NPA. I am not here to defend against mischaracterizatizing my words. Please do not be presumptuous enough to tell me what what I mean either. Please be attentive to the Arbcom DS restrictions template above This is fair warning. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I don't see how you read a personal attack into anything that I wrote. I addressed your argument, not your person. You actually did make a very good argument for including the word "alleged." It's simply that after laying out the reasons why "alleged" is appropriate, you came to the opposite conclusion. US intelligence agencies have alleged Russian hacking, as you laid out above. But you're now making the astounding argument that the FBI and CIA are reliable sources, which would be a really unbelievable position for Wikipedia to take. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Accusing another editor of a personal attack, when no such attack occurred, is itself a personal attack and a violation of DS. I suggest you either provide a diff for your allegation or strike it before you're blocked. BlueSalix (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 and BlueSalix OK. Let's drop this for now. I attribute it to a misunderstanding (or miscommunication). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: These "17 agencies" are neither independent nor WP:RS. We don't know what exactly their conclusions are based on, besides the findings already made public. Some of the public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts. Lots of these sources have been deleted recently, so you may need to check google or the page history to access them: but they are indeed numerous. As you say, the media has mainly been "covering" what US officials have been saying. This probably means that most sources agree that the allegations are newsworthy and credible, but coverage does not equal endorsement. Finally, it is a pretty orwellian to equate skepticism with conspiracism. A National Intelligence Estimate can be catastrophically wrong (note that this "bulletproof" evidence was also classified — now we see it for what it is), and no "conspirancy theory" is necesserary to account for this fact. PS: Your list of sources above is incomplete. It is indisputable that some RS (no, not TheBlaze) have used "alleged". But this is not the only point. The other points: is that it is WP:OR to interpret uncritical coverage ("officials say") with endorsement; governments (and even hired security firms) are WP:PRIMARY sources with conflicts of interest; "classified intelligence" is not a source. The same arguments could have been used in 2003 to pummel readers with how factual and not-at-all-alleged the WMD intelligence was. That's not to say that the intel community's conclusions are completely fabricated this time, just that proper attribution is at the very least warranted. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hatting side discussion about the Iraq war. Sorry, but this thread is already almost too long to follow. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Straw man. Red herring. Please review WP:RS. This is not a video game. The matter is settled until, as TFD says, Putin comes clean and admits it was all an elaborate hoax. Haha Good one. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Ha ha. La la. Boing boing. Tetris. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) It is clear, even from the source you cited, that Congress concluded the Bush administration overstated the value of that report. There was nothing wrong with the report - it stated facts (or assessments) garnered by intelligence agencies. I have to wonder if you read this yourself - because it does not support your argument? Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement - the Russians are behind the hacks intended to influence the 2016 US elections. Huh? What? O.K. It would make sense if there was a blunder and that some of these agencies would step forward and cry foul or disagree. But that hasn't happened. There are also some details that have been revealed such as the behavior patterns of these Russian military hackers, which are recognizable. We haven't been left totally left in the dark, as we were when the Bush surrogates were on all the political talk shows overstating the findings of the above mentioned report and other reports. Unfortunately they roped in General Powell who unwittingly presented their case to the UN. Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games. Yes, it is true they are not independent for our sourcing purposes, but each agency makes independent assessments in the real world. How much verification do you suppose has happened between 17 agencies, Homeland Security, and the FBI? This could be a new world's record on verification and coming to the same conclusion. Saying they are not are reliable sources is OK for Wikipedia purposes, as we tend to go for secondary sources. But there is no evidence to impugn the integrity of these numerous agencies - there is nothing to support it. So what we actually have is reliable sources reporting on information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies). In a manner of speaking we get two for the price of one - and that is a good deal. Again, I don't know why you cited this source - it refutes what you are trying to claim. It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report. There was nothing wrong with the report - the Bush Administration misused in the public forum. Classified information is a source - although we don't use it on Wikipedia - we use secondary sources that summarize available formerly classified information, and this seems to be more word games. Also, I would like to see which "public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts", even though you implore me to go on a Google quest. I appreciate the offer, but I have been covering this since the DNC was first reported hacked last year. I am not seeing heavy criticism within the mainstream and by experts" In fact, just the opposite. Expert after expert and news article after news article has been saying "Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers...to infinitude" from then until now. I love it when editors make disagreeing sweeping claims, as if I don't know what I am talking about. Also, my assessment above is quite accurate, but I don't know why you discuss it here. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I mentioned Iraq as an aside, but if you insist... "There was nothing wrong with the report" - "Apart from being influenced by policymakers' desires, there were several other reasons that the NIE was flawed," the RAND study concluded. "Evidence on mobile biological labs, uranium ore purchases from Niger, and unmanned-aerial-vehicle delivery systems for WMDs all proved to be false. It was produced in a hurry. Human intelligence was scarce and unreliable. While many pieces of evidence were questionable, the magnitude of the questionable evidence had the effect of making the NIE more convincing and ominous. The basic case that Saddam had WMDs seemed more plausible to analysts than the alternative case that he had destroyed them.". The report was titled "Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." "Anyway, you're citing one intelligence report from years ago to refute (now) that 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland security, and the FBI are all in agreement" - Yes, all Intelligence Agencies would contribute to a single Intelligence Community Assessment, in varying degrees (I'm sure the DEA and the Coast Guard had a lot of input). Same deal with National Intelligence Estimate. The ODNI represents 17 agencies, not all of which participated in the drafting of the hacking "assessment" (looks like just the NSA, FBI and CIA did). 10 separate agencies participated in the drafting of the 2002 NIE. I'm not using the declassified 2002 NIE to "refute" the published 2017 ICA. I am using it to refute the strange arguments I'm seeing on this page. "Saying these agencies are not independent and not R.S. seems like playing word games" - It's an simple fact, not a "word game". "Classified information is a source - ... for those who who've seen it. Neither you, me, NYT or anyone else without security clearance have seen it. We know absolutely nothing substantive about it, not even second, third or fourth hand. It's a void. Is this really so difficult to understand? "information released by reliable sources (reliable agencies)" - Err... WP:RS. Not seeing anything about "reliable agencies". Are you serious? "It says the Bush administration's spin did not agree with the actual report." - That's one of the point I'm making: when officials say they have "classified evidence" tucked away that allegedly proves their public conclusions, they might be deluding themselves and/or the public. "Russian hackers, Russian hackers, Russian hackers" - It may sound like that, but it's commonly prefaced with "officials say". This is NOT a minor point. OK, more than enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC) "Also, I would like to see which "public findings have been heavily criticized within the mainstream and by experts" -- If you look at the material that was "challenged" by Marek you'll see exactly which public findings have been criticized by mainstream media and experts. Our article doesn't currently contain that content (The Nation, The Monitor, Stanford, etc.), though, as it was challenged by process of deletion. BlueSalix (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC) The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report. What I meant by "nothing wrong with the report" is that it was what it was and not more than that. It gave an accurate assessment whatever was there. It didn't overstate any conclusions - it didn't overstate lack of human intelligence, it didn't say Iraq was directly responsible for the Anthrax attack, it didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes, it didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction, it didn't give a definitive conclusion there was an Iraqi and Al Queda connection. They reported what was in front of them. Of course they felt rushed - they needed to quickly assess what the "enemy" had. You are not even mentioning that. It is not black and white, cut and dried. The NIE report was flawed in the sense there wasn't enough time and flawed in the sense there were gaps in the intelligence - but through no fault of the agents on the ground. It was not flawed in reporting the information they actually had in hand. That is the difference here. The main point is the Bush Administration used an accurate assessment at the time, with all its gaps and shortcomings, and spun it like this was "bulletproof". The NIE report in no way claimed to be bulletproof or have bulletproof conclusions. It was not a misleading report. This is what I meant about "nothing wrong with the report". I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it. There will never be any time or any day when all the possible information there is to know about a situation is in hand - because time did not allow it. If the agents on the ground had 25 years or 100 years to gather all possible information then maybe it would no longer be "flawed". But then it would be of no use, because the circumstances, incidents, or war footing for which the information was required are long past. As an aside, these times are not like that. How many cybersecurity experts and espionage agents were and are working on this problem within 17 intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and private entities or contractors? I would guess thousands, because it seems to have that kind of priority. I have to say they probably have put together a complete enough and accurate enough picture - enough to kick Russian diplomats out of the country and apply more sanctions. And journalists have sources that are accessible to them, especially veteran journalists. They have done a good job of ferreting out the truth for quite a long time and very capable of it. If the mainstream press detected BS they would say so. They have had no problem detecting and reporting inconsistencies over these past two weeks and a half weeks. So, I think the same principles apply to this topic. The press is consistent in their reporting. Why would this topic be any different? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC) I am amazed at the audacity of a public figure trying to pass-off that report of 15 years ago, when they had much less technology, much less monitoring capability, and didn't have the all-seeing all-knowing all-plugged-in-NSA that we have today --- and equate that with this report garnered by 17 state of the art intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and private entities. This is worse than comparing apples to oranges. There is no there, there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Talk about "audacity".... "The major point is the Bush Administration filled in the blanks on that report." Yes that's true, and? "The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research also disagreed with the intelligence community's assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. The CIA's 25-page unclassified summary' of the NIE released in 2002 did not contain the State or Energy Departments' dissent."1 That's an argument for trusting officials when they say they have "slam dunk" intelligence but won't show a significant part of it? "it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making rockets out of aluminum tubes" Yeah, it said he was making NUKES out of them: "Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors—as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools—provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program." NIE pg6 The rockets theory was a dissenting word of caution from the DoE (who still agreed Saddam was building nukes)! (this was a serious report for internal use, so naturally there was a dissenting opinion from the DoE. Contrast with unclassified ODNI assessment on hacking, which is brochure, much like the CIA/DCI's summary of the 2002 NIE. Brochures don't contain significant dissenting opinions. "it (NIE) didn't say Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction" You appear to have not read the title and the first paragraph of the NIE. This is a shockingly ignorant statement. "I am guessing that every NIE report at any time on any day can be considered "flawed" in the way you have tried to describe it.". Take it up with the RAND Corporation—I've "tried" nothing. Or you can try this this summary from the Council on Foreign Relations instead: "most of the key judgments have since been debunked as inaccurate, false, or misleading". Why are you guessing anything? Again, pretty shocking. "17 intelligence agencies" (blamed Russia for hacking) Is 17 a magic number or something? The 2002 classsified NSE on Iraq's WMD was prepared by 10 different agencies. though that report was classified. The unclassified summary version of the same report was released by the Director of Central Intelligence (also head of CIA before 2005), who oversaw in the intel community as a whole. "The press is consistent in their reporting." Are you completely unaware of the nature of media coverage in runup to the Iraq war? Yes, the national press consistently report what the nation's "officials say" with little criticism, creating a kind of "truthiness". But at least the press properly attributes the claims. The real difference between '02 and today is that in 2002 there was a pressing need to manufacture a causus belli for an imminent war. There is no equally compelling reason for the CIA, the administration etc to lie about the hacks. While that still does not make spies reliable sources, this would have at least been a persuasive argument. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Is 17 a magic number or something?" The ODNI represents 16 members of the intelligence community (IC). 17 may be a typo or someone added the ODNI as representing itself, as well. Does anyone know? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC) The ODNI report actually carries the seals of 3 agencies: CIA, NSA, FBI (or "not all participated" as Time puts it) The ICA represents/oversees 17 agencies.] By contrast, 10 agencies participated in the drafting of the 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Oh, OK, now I get your argument: Since not all members represented by the DNI were involved in the drafting of the document, it carries less weight than the one drafted in 2002 (as long as we're nitpicking, that was a Reuters news report picked up by Time and others). When you're contemplating military action in Iraq, you would probably want input from all branches of the Armed Forces as well as from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the DIA in addition to "just" the CIA, NSA, FBI, so there's your 10 (just guessing, didn't look this up). When you are investigating specific cyber attacks or disinformation campaigns, what kind of information could you expect from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or Marine Corps Intelligence, for example? (Rhetorical question.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Yeah I brought up the same point earlier, though in the context of an incorrect statement, now corrected. I was just tired of hearing that this time we have a whopping 17 agencies (world record!?) so it must be true. The number does not matter, and 17 is a ridiculous exaggeration in any case. What does matter is that a 94 page National Security Estimate—written for internal use and containing dissenting opinions—was an infinitely more serious document than the ODNI's 14 page "assessment" brochure. This is the point Seymour Hersh made in his interview. The only thing the brochure has going for it is that there's not that much to be gained from falsely incriminating the GRU in the hacking. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Guccisamsclub There was one caveat that I avoided saying and that you correctly brought up. The pre-Iraq invasion press coverage was disgraceful. I think all U.S. mainstream news outlets just echoed what they were fed by any officials connected to the Bush Administration. I think during the early war years, the coverage was equally deplorable, still echoing the Administration's view. The press has done a huge mea culpa since that time. So, most of the time the press does indeed act like the fourth estate. But historically, during times of war, they put a muzzle on their investigative reporting and critical assessments of Government entities. This has occurred during war time, at least since WWI. I don't know about before that. As an aside, I'll try to verify if intelligence agencies were actually saying the aluminum tubes were intended for building nukes for myself. I was sure their use was inconclusive pertaining to intelligence assessments. Anyway, we should probably drop discussing this in this thread any longer - it seems off topic at this point. But I might visit your talk page to continue this discussion (evil laugh!), because this is very interesting - if that is OK with you. Steve Quinn (talk)

• Oppose. Based on coverage in WP:RS, the correct title is 2016 United States election interference by Russia. This is not something that is "alleged", and a title containing the word "alleged" would be just as blatantly POV as a title claiming climate change is "alleged". --Tataral (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support High-quality sources attribute the claim to the US government or government agencies, we should follow their lead. Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia is a reasonable approximation of '"US Government alleges Russian interference in 2016 US election." Allegations by non-government agents (without access to the full intelligence) are speculation and should be treated as speculation – good enough for attributed opinion, not for article titles. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose like last time - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support CNN, The Straits Times, and Fox News write alleged Russian interference. Wiki policy is to follow the reliable sources, not to inject our personal opinions on the subject. ^Falling_Gravity 04:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The headline of the CNN article says ,"Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns", i.e., the article is about alleged links between Russia and Trump campaign staffers. The article starts off with "The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election ...". Nothing alleged there. PS.: Is your vote in support of the requested Feb 4 move or the hatted request to postpone the move? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

riiight ... here's a quote from that CNN source: "joint statement that the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.". Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And another quote: "Burr and Warner said the committee will hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity ..." Aaand we've arrived back at the discussion in the first and second move RfC about whether the title is more neutral with or without "alleged"/"allegation" in it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The quote I gave shows that CNN did indeed describe the interference as "alleged", contrary to what you claimed CNN said. What exactly does your quote show? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe his/her point is that anyone can use your method and find the exact opposite. Here is another example from the CNN article you linked: "review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election will include a look at any intelligence..." There is no "alleged". Your approached is really very superficial and can't be applied in any definitive sense. EyeTruth (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor said "alleged interference" was not used by CNN, and I corrected them. Their alternative quote basically demonstrates that CNN did not want to overuse "alleged" in reporting on various govt investigations whose stated goal is to probe real (not alleged russian meddling). Interjecting with "allegedly" too much may look like interrupting the sources or putting words into their mouth. I don't think it proves the negative, since the attribution to the committee is still there: there is no declaration by CNN that Russians did it, quite the opposite. You can debate exactly how much weight should be given to this finding, but it's clearly greater than zero. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If editors think "allegations of" is too negative somehow (I don't), we could use "claims of". What we shouldn't do is substitute a kind of truthiness for a careful reading of the sources. It may appear to editors on an EL wiki that, regardless of topic, it is inherently mainstream, neutral and respectable to sympathize with the US government while criticizing its enemies (to a greater or lesser degree). It is in fact reasonable to expect that reliable sources—particularly the major news outlets we are dealing with here—will tend to conform to this rule. If most RS' sounded like Democracy Now, the current US govt would obviously cease to exist (every state requires consent). BUT this expectation/prejudice, however reasonable, has nothing to with the policies of this site. The correct approach in every individual case is to read off the bare facts and opinions from sources line by line and not go one inch beyond that by synthesizing or postulating a metanarrative. Here, this approach plainly leads to the conclusion that the sources are overwhelmingly reporting—with clear and abundant attribution—the fact that two WP:PRIMARY sources (Crowdstrike contractor and the government, by virtue of being involved parties very close to the underlying action) are saying that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking. It may be argued that the largely uncritical reporting of these claims by the news media constitutes an implicit endorsement, but this is plainly an unverifiable OR/SYNTH conclusion. It is therefore a clear violation of WP:V to drop the attribution and state the claims about Russian culpability in wikipedia's voice. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with geography. You could live in an igloo in Siberia, for all that matters -- the world knows that there was Russian interference. Who doesn't know that? Everybody knows that. How do we know everyone knows? Because they say so. Of course the Russians know, and they're not English language. Everybody knows -- that's what RS say 96.5%. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Everybody knows that. No. Show me one person who believes this and I'll show you two won don't. This assertion is WP:OR at best, hallucination at worst. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where do you get off making presumptions about what most Russians believe? Ever been there, read the local papers or talked to Russians? I'm guessing answer's "no" to all three, for all intents and purposes. When the Russian media pronounce judgement, they usually say either that the allegations are baseless or that there is a propaganda and intelligence war being waged against Russia. Most Russians agree with their media on this point to a greater or lesser degree, to the extent they know at all about it or care. They are not that different from the Americans, or anyone else. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Dead horses are dead and it's way too soon to try to get Dr. Frankenstein to jolt this one back to life. Very disrespectful that this discussion has been opened again so soon. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Move to Suspend Move Discussion and Restart Later

This suggestion didn't go anywhere. Hatting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article in its current form - after 6,000 bytes of sources and material from Stanford University, Duke University, The Nation, etc. were deleted - doesn't support a move. As it is, all new !votes are !votes on the article in its current form, not the article in the form in which it existed when the move request was opened. I recommend, as OP, suspending the discussion until such time as the purged sources can be restored and the article rebuilt. BlueSalix (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Support If I were !voting on the article in its current form I, too, would vote "Oppose". BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Nice try, but I believe the majority here would consider any attempt to beat the dead horse by starting yet another move discussion to be highly disruptive, and that the correct course of action would be to immediately close such a discussion based on the consensus on this talk page and the previous discussions we had. This issue has been settled after extensive debate, and we cannot rehash the same debate over and over and over again, every week, just because some editors won't accept the consensus. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I agree with Tataral. This is pretty obvious gamesmanship. The consensus has been settled, after extensive debate. We cannot and should not have a neverendum" here. That would be a huge waste of everybody's time. Neutralitytalk 22:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC) You need to familiarize yourself with the difference between "consensus" and "majority voting". There is no consensus in this Move - which is amazing considering the article was completely restructured to purge 9 different sources after the Move was opened. In its current form even I - the OP - can't support the move. There's gamesmanship going on but it's not from me. BlueSalix (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenging removal of material

• Comment There was a massive, unilateral and undiscussed removal of RS, including The Nation, Stanford University [16] and the Christian Science Monitor [17] by User:Volunteer Marek. All of the content removed is referenced higher up in this Requested Move, to support the Move; this is an apparent attempt to game the Move proposal in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. I have reverted in wholesale. Feel free to tweak any of this (or remove it after a discussion), but please don't just come through with a lawnmower and start cutting it down to game !votes. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that is an unwarranted accusation. The content was challenged by removal, it shouldn't be reinserted. That was a DS violation so I suggest you undo yourself. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't challenge unambiguously RS content by coming through with a hatchet and deleting it all. You challenge content by coming to the Talk page to discuss it. The fact that the deleted content was all specifically referenced in the Move discussion - and the Move proposal makes zero sense without it - makes this an obvious gaming attempt. As of now there has been no 1RR. I suggest Marek keep it that way. BlueSalix (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, thanks for the clarification. One might just as well assert that all of that off-topic UNDUE content was inserted by the video-gamer whitewash hordes. Let's allow the move poll to run its course to a sensible close. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is out of control. See this [18] and see below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction. There was a "massive, unilateral and undiscussed" POVing of the article by BlueSalix. So yeah, it got reverted. And per discretionary sanctions, since those changes were challenged they cannot be restored unless they get consensus here on the talk page. Numerous warnings and notifications have already been issued.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Under new management, let's remove their former titles?

I just noticed that the titles of the directors of DNI, FBI, and CIA were removed from the lede sometime in the last two days. Don't know if it was unintentional, along with several references that fell overboard, or if it's intentional, a case of "new management" in case of DNI and CIA. When Brennan, Comey, and Clapper said/concluded/stated what they did, they were the directors of their respective agencies, and one of them still is. If we want to point out that a person held a certain position at the time he did or said something but he no longer is, shouldn't we say "then-director" or whatever the title was? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x thanks for taking action on this. I'm glad this was restored. I was thinking of doing so when I saw your post, but since it is already taken care of...welll...

To me it does seem kind of strange that these removals happened in the first place. Oh well :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - I'll be happy to handle adding "then-". BlueSalix (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What the heck? You just removed the WaPo reference that I reinserted, did a whole lot of other stuff I haven't looked at yet, and then made the sentence pretty incomprehensible by adding "then-directors" etc. after the names, i.e., figure out yourselves who's who. It was just a question whether it's Wikipedia custom to use "then-director" for whoever held the title at the time. I'm changing it back to the previous version. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been done. Thanks, @Steve Quinn:. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Massive removal of RS reverted wholesale - feel free to tweak content or discuss adjustments, however

There was a massive, unilateral and undiscussed removal of RS, including The Nation, Stanford University [19] and the Christian Science Monitor [20] by User:Volunteer Marek. All of the content removed is referenced in the Move proposal , to support the Move; this is an apparent attempt to game the Move proposal in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. I have reverted in wholesale. Feel free to tweak any of this (or remove it after a discussion), but please don't just come through with a lawnmower and start cutting it down to game !votes. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Update Steve Quinn has now also joined the blanking, declaring that the process for "challenging" content is by simply removing it and that - once removed - it can't be restored without a discussion. I thought we "challenged" content by coming to the Talk page and discussing it? BlueSalix (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the template - removed material is challenged material ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. So let's discuss this and see what we can come up with. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I rescind my offer. This is out of control. See this [21] and see below. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

What "offer"? And what, exactly, is "out of control?" The material was UNDUE and I've challenged it as per the process you described. Further, by byte size, it was a smaller volume of material than Malek "challenged". We can now discuss it over the coming weeks and arrive at a consensus as to whether or not it should be restored. BlueSalix (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm speechless --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well if you regain your voice I would very much welcome you to join the discussions I've opened below. The more diversity of input the better. BlueSalix (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• BlueSalix, I hope you are not removing content because another editor removed content which you restored and which was again removed by another editor. Because you seem to indicate here that there is a direct relationship between this and this, and then this. Regardless of the merits of the individual removals, this is just incredibly disruptive. Marek warned you about DS, so I don't have to add anything to that--and this comment is not only incorrect but also very uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the case at all, Drmies. I strongly felt the content in question was UNDUE but had delayed challenging it simply due to prioritization of time and my misunderstanding that the process for challenging content involved opening a discussion and arriving at a consensus. When I was, subsequently, informed that the process of challenging content involved deleting it, and then opening a discussion as to whether it should be restored, it became somewhat easier to manage from a bookkeeping process. For the record, there's other content I'm planning on challenging in the next few hours, I'm just going through a process of double-checking the sources first to ensure that I don't wrongly challenge appropriate material. BlueSalix (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was wondering how you felt about the collegiality of this post. Thanks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh here we go. You keep repeating the same false thing (that the Stanford study is related to the topic of this article) over and over and repeatedly fail to address the substance of the issue - where is the source which links the Stanford study to the topic of this article? And since you can't produce such a source you eventually resort to complaining about the "tone" of others' comment.s This is classic WP:CPUSH - obstruct and frustrate the hell out of other editors, then when they use strong language (which by the way discusses content) try to get them in trouble on some technicality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've made exactly one comment on the Stanford fake news study. But that's not what I'm asking Drmies about here. Since they mentioned collegiality, I'm asking what they think about the collegiality you've shown in comments like this one, or indeed your comment directly above. This isn't "some technicality" - it's a basic question of whether editors behave civilly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Thucydides this comment of yours was the very model of modern non-collegiality, seeing as like how it insinuated your passive denial of Marek's already stated challenge to this nonsense. Non-collegiality par excellence. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Challenge of U.S. Senate section

I have challenged - by process of removal - the last five paragraphs of the section titled "U.S. Senate" [22]. I challenge it as WP:UNDUE. Per ArbCom sanctions, challenged content is not to be restored without consensus. I am opening a process for discussion here. Should the challenged section be restored in whole, should it continue to omitted, or is there an alternate opinion? BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Omitted as OP BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Restored by me as a POINTy removal. Discussion here in search of consensus can continue. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Restore as obvious gamesmanship with no rationale advanced beyond a wikilink. You have to actually explain how its given undue weight, and why the actual weight should be "zero", as you have set it to. Frankly, I think we should be looking into a topic ban from American politics after repeated POINTy actions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• RestoreFailing to see why this is undue, given that the US senate is one of the two legislative branches of the US government their opinion of an election and how they react is highly relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• The section as written is undue because instead of summarizing who said what it uses the proof by assertion fallacious argument. In other words by repeating numerous believers we are trying to convince readers of the truth of their belief. In fact, John McCain fell for false intelligence about Iraq while Graham brought a false prosecution on impeachment against President Clinton. None of these people have good records for reliability. TFD (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Counter-challenge of Malek's Removal of Sourced Material

Should Malek's massive removal of content source to The Nation, Christian Science Monitor, The Hill, Stanford University, etc. be sustained or overturned? This discussion pertains to all mass deletions taken by Malek during the period 07:38, 5 February 2017‎ to 08:02, 5 February 2017. They cannot be individually listed here due to the massive volume and scope of the deletions that occurred, but can be referenced in the edit history.‎ BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Revert and Restore - All material is topical and sourced to RS. BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Immediately Restore the sources removed by VM. Immediately Restore the massive section of the article removed by BlueSalix, without even a rationale except for "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it" - the only thing missing from the edit summary was "nyah, nyah." This what was clearly a WP:POINTY move here - and as User:Drmies pointed out above, it is extremely disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: (link 1, link 2): Removal of longstanding material actually counts as an "edit", which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus. "the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged"". It was further explained that the purpose of the DS is to promote article stability. In that interest, someone actually can't just delete a bunch of material and then dare anyone to restore it. Based on that understanding I am going to revert both of these recent large deletions, which appear to have been POINTy rather than intended to improve the article. If an admin thinks that was a violation on my part, you know where to find me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

LMAO, of course. I kinda figured it was a matter of minutes before some arcana was discovered in the bowels of a Talk page to stop the challenge of this "long standing" (58 day old) content. Hilarious. BlueSalix (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, actually I said it was UNDUE in three separate places, including the edit summary.

• Exact wording of my edit summary [23]: "I hereby challenge this content as UNDUE. Arbcom sanctions in effect - see template - challenged (reverted) content is not to be restored unless there is consensus for doing so. Please discuss on talk page."
• The edit summary MelanieN attributed to me [24]: "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it"

Not cool, MelanieN. DS applies to admins, too (I mean, in theory; I know that's not true in reality, obvs). BlueSalix (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I am bound by the DS just like everyone else. According to the interpretations I have been given, it is not a violation to revert the deletion of longstanding material. In effect, you made an edit (the large deletion) and I challenged it by reverting it. Would you care to justify your massive removal, explain why you did it, and try to obtain consensus? --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Per MelanieN - I am going to try to revert my last edit - which will restore material removed by Volunteer Marek. This makes sense to me under the circumstances.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you were bound by DS you would have just been blocked for the outrageous act of attributing fake quotes to me and claiming I didn't provide a rationale, when I explained in three places it was due to WP:UNDUE.

• Exact wording of my edit summary [25]: "I hereby challenge this content as UNDUE. Arbcom sanctions in effect - see template - challenged (reverted) content is not to be restored unless there is consensus for doing so. Please discuss on talk page."
• The edit summary MelanieN attributed to me [26]: "I'm challenging this, per DS you can't restore it"

But you're still posting. Must be great to have a Get Outta Jail Free card. What a joke this article has become. BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be civil. You've made a continuous series of personal attacks over the past few days, of which this is the latest. Stop. Neutrality^talk 22:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek's edits clearly improved the article. --Tataral (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How? Beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, every single one of my edits provided a detailed rationale - for example, you're adding text based on sources which don't even mention the word "Russia"!!!! Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• The material should be restored Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? Beyond WP:IJUSTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK everybody - the problem has been solved [27], [28]. I recommend discussion take place before large blocks of text are removed. Just a recommendation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Can people read? Both deletions and additions are edits. You cannot "challenge" longstanding text by removing it. You can challenge the removal hover. Similarly for additions. This was pure insanity. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Following this this deletion by SPECIFICO, it appears the article is more or less where it was prior to all the back-and-forth. Let's have a civil conversation about the Stanford and NYU material. My impression is that if this article will maintain that the Russian government is accused of spreading fake news to influence the election, the Stanford study on fake news and its effect on the election is within the WP:SCOPE of this article. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the Greenwald and Gessen stuff is still in the lede. MelanieN restored it because she thought it was "longstanding material". This is incorrect as far as the lede is concerned, though the POINTy nature of BlueSalix's edit can easily confuse.

We were arguing about whether Greenwald belongs in the ARTICLE at all, and how to present Gessen, both in the "Experts section". There were/are several editors who think Greenwald shouldn't be here in the first place. What BlueSalix (best I can tell it was him) did, was to try and pour gasoline on the fire by also adding the disputed material to THE LEDE.

As far as Stanford study goes, if you can find a source which actually discusses it and Russian interference then we can talk. The sources given for it don't even mention Russia! (And recall that good bit of "fake news" that the Stanford study concerns itself with was opportunistic, financially motivated clickbait by kids out of Macedonia or Brooklyn or whatever, which had nothing to do with Russia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Followup: After I reverted all of VM's deletions as "removal of longstanding material," I have had it called to my attention that two of the deletions were actually not of "longstanding material". They were of recent changes made in the past couple of days to the final paragraph(s) of the lede, and additional material added to the "Expert assessment" section. In that case the deletion of those two changes should stand - SPECIFICO has redeleted them since I restored them by mistake - and we should discuss whether to restore that material or endorse the deletion. I suggest two separate sections, one for the lede and one for the expert section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak Restore I am not seeing why counter claims in RS cannot be included, can some one offer a reason why this should not be?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Stanford study and the fate of fake news

The Stanford study suggesting that fake news likely had little impact on the election has been widely cited - e.g. the SF Gate, The Hill, the IBT, NY Mag, and this Economist blog post. The material is challenged however on the grounds of WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK: this is an article about (alleged) Russian efforts to influence the election, and not about whether such efforts were successful.

The article's first lead paragraph states, "...Clapper continued on to allege meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media." The article includes a section with the impeccably neutral title, Russian trolls, dedicated to allegations of bot farming to spread fake news.

Whether the Russian government was or was not involved in any such operations, any article purporting to described alleged "2016 United States election interference by Russia" would not only describe the allegations, but also some aspect of the interference itself. Did it succeed? I think that the Stanford research is a part of the answer to that question and well within the WP:SCOPE of this article. So would research showing that the hacks and fake news - whether or not really directed by the Russian government - actually did have an important impact on the outcome of the election. It's certainly plausible they contributed to Clinton's low favorability ratings. -Darouet (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Did it succeed? I think that the Stanford research is a part of the answer to that question" - this isn't hard. IF it IS indeed "part of the answer to that question" then it should be easy to find a source which actually discusses the study and Russian interference together. That's it. That's how we determine whether or not the study is "part of the answer to that question" and whether it is within the scope of this article.

The study might belong in the article on Fake News (although the concerns SPECIFICO raises about this being a working paper are valid too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Augment the study with the tertiary sources to establish relevance within the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That is *literally* the definition of original research. No way. Unless you have a secondary reliable sources which discusses BOTH the study and *Russian* interference this is simply no go. It's just a straight up blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many reasons to reject this material, but it's sufficient to say that it is a self-published working paper that got a brief mention on a website looking for speculation to fill its pages. So what? There are millions of these little things all over the place on any conceivable subject. I'd say they're the academic equivalent of Cheese Doodles. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I linked to articles about the study written by the SF Gate, The Hill, the IBT, NY Mag, and this Economist blog post. Is that what you meant by "a brief mention on a website looking for speculation to fill its pages."? I'm not sure what you're referring to but you haven't addressed my comment. -Darouet (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Darouet, you don't find it strange that out of the FIVE sources you listed, the number of these which actually use the word "Russia" somewhere in their text is precisely... NONE? You'd figure that if these sources were relevant to this article they would, you know, use the word "Russia" at least once or twice, since this article is titled "2016 United States election interference by Russia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The studies are just self-published drafts. Brief mentions on several websites... So what? Nothing can elevate them to considered, informed, expert assessments. UNDUE and off-topic by academics outside their areas of expertise. Cheese Doodles. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are these just "websites" or news organizations? And is the Stanford study "mentioned" or is it the subject of the articles? -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This "study" hasn't even been published. Aim higher! SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Stanford research is relevant to alleged Russian interference in the US elections, and it's been picked up by a number of reliable sources. If SPECIFICO is the only person who objects to the inclusion of Stanford research, then I'd say it looks like there's consensus to restore the material to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, there's no such consensus. In fact, because this one is such a blatant piece of original research which directly violates a core Wikipedia policy, this would be one of these instances were global consensus (NPOV is a pillar) would even trump local consensus. Which you ain't got anyway. But just saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE. COATRACK. SPS. SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"The Stanford research is relevant to alleged Russian interference" - oh for french fry's sake, how many times does this have to be said? IF it really is "relevant to alleged Russian interference" then it should be trivially easy to find a god danged secondary reliable source which discusses the falanouc study AND Russian interference together, no? The fact that several editors are so busy jumping up and down claiming the relevance of the study rather than actually providing such a source very strongly suggests that it foining isn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

VM & SPC is probably right: in I can't find a single source discussing it within the context of the present topic (used a couple google searches). So unfortunately it would be OR/COAT to include it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Since the sources don't mention Russian interference/hacking, we should leave this Stanford study out of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Darouet: Just for the record: One of the five sources you mentioned (IBT) isn't about the Stanford U/NYU study, it's about a Stanford computer science major who says he developed a fake news detector that correctly identifies fake news sites 99.7% of the time. My best guess as to the connection to the study: The search terms "Stanford" and "fake news"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Guccisamsclub, and Thucydides411: thanks for your notes - I'm quite busy until late tomorrow - sorry, I apologize about that :/ @Space4Time3Continuum2x: quite right. Because I saw that both studies were hitting the news out of Stanford at about the same time, I assumed they were the same project. However Karan Singhal (IBT story) has no relationship to the Gentzkow lab or study. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The study belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I'm on the wrong the article. I thought this might have been the 'Fake News' article, where the study would have been relevant. Agree with Volunteer Marek above that RS have to demonstrate its relevance to the Russian interference. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans I struck your above edit, since you indicated it wasn't relevant. Revert if I overstepped. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this material does not belong in this article. No real connection between Russian influence and fake news has been established in the primary and secondary sources. I disagree with Darouet's argument that the material falls withing the scope of this article's subject. Obviously, the phenomenon of fake news and its impact on the election is a broader subject than Russia's use of fake news to influence the election. In fact, fake news seems to be a minor stratagem employed by Russia in their overall efforts. As others have already pointed out, including this material would violate our policy on original research.- MrX 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with MrX. This is synth-y. If the study mentioned Russia or foreign interference, then there would be a much stronger case. But it does not. And, and MrX points out, fake news was a relatively small part of the interference (compared to hacking). Neutrality^talk 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Experts and Public Opinion

Let me be blunt: The Expert Opinion is laughable. Period. Just read it... those aren't experts of any sort. A military historian who says "[governments lie all the time]"? Not one of the so-called experts has any qualifications pertinent to the issue. A cyber security 'expert' who says there should be an investigation? A 'journalist' who says the "[results are inconclusive"}"? Grenwald attacking the Washington Post for using anonymous sources? There is nothing of value in that entire section. Should be wiped.

Also, why is there a public opinion section? What is the relevance? If 36% of the population thinks Russian interfered with our elections... how is that relevant to anything? Last time I checked we don't vote on whether or not Russia interfered in the elections. 2601:47:4180:7953:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the section should be titled "Expert assessment" because the notability of opinions appears to be the inclusive factor. Maybe something like "Other commentary" would suffice. As for the "Public opinion" section, the purpose isn't to prove whether or not Russia interfered, but rather to inform the reader of how the general American public accepted news of Russian interference. ^Falling_Gravity 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's right. I changed it to something neutral a while back, but the neutral wording was reverted. It's media coverage or something like that. Of course, most of it should be deleted -- WP:UNDUE -- but these are the click-hungry pundits in the vapid and fake internet news era. This stuff is mostly non-experts saying they would be experts if only all the sensitive classified information were dumped on the public. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you both re: renaming, if something can be proposed all are happy with. However I disagree with SPECIFICO that commentary is motivated by various frivolous and fundamentally dishonest motives. First, this would be highly difficult to prove. Second, there are many reasons to anticipate that commentary on all sides would have genuine concerns. For those who believe hacking likely or certainly was directed by the Russian government, the indirect direction of policy by a foreign government - perceived to be hostile - would be cause enough for concern, beyond desire for clicks. For those who are skeptical of such claims, the influence upon policy leading to confrontation with a nuclear-armed superpower would similarly be cause for concern. As to whose voices matter, that is something we all hash out here. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper

As part of reactions from the intelligence community, the article cites former NSA high-ranking member Binney and former CIA analyst McGovern as saying (via the Baltimore Sun), among other things:

Binney and McGovern wrote that given Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's false testimony to Congress over NSA surveillance of Americans, and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking are warranted.

SPECIFICO recently deleted this sentence as a "BLP smear" against Clapper. I reverted him mentioning that the accusation was properly attributed and grounded in facts. Specifico then reverted again, saying BLP Smear unless it has been adjudicated in a court of law. If so, please show me and I will restore it. I respectfully argue that this counter-reversion is unwarranted because:

1. James Clapper is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and his false testimony about NSA surveillance is a matter of public record, not a baseless allegation;
2. By counter-reverting my revert of their first removal, SPECIFICO violated the DS/1RR restrictions in force;
3. The exception to 1RR rule for egregious BLP violations does not apply here, by virtue of point 1;
4. This attributed commentary was longstanding in the article, and it doesn't matter that Specifico may not like it;
5. The commentary is relevant to the article's subject matter, given the prominence of Clapper's assertions in the intelligence reports about Russian interference (saying in essence "Trust my word because I can't show you proof");
6. If there is a novel standard in Wikipedia that on-record false testimony by public figures should be "adjudicated in a court of law" before inclusion in the encyclopedia, I'm not aware of it yet, and will gladly argue the case at WP:BLP/N.

Accordingly, I urge SPECIFICO to immediately restore the erased text (which I can't do lest I violate 1RR too). In case Specifico or other editors still want this part removed, we can have a proper debate. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that Thucydides411 has restored the text. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Alert! This text is not worded to state "opinion" or "commentary". Edit warring. BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted my initial self-revert upon reflection: in my opinion, this does seem like a violation of BLP. The final imputation presented is that scepticism of his claims are warranted – yet, that is presented as a fact. It is the opinion of Binney and McGover, and we should indicate that.

@JFG: is there a way that this can perhaps be reworded as to clarify that this is the opinion of those two authors? I'd personally go for something a long the lines of "In the opinions of X and Y, expressed in (writing)" – but maybe articulated a little bit better. I just think as it stood it sounded as though we were relaying facts, not opinions, and that doesn't sit well with me re the BLP subject. Thoughts? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be synthesis and UNDUE. This also seems to be cherry picking. Hence, I agree the above is an unwarranted BLP smear. Also, it seems obvious that Binney and McGovern are promulgating minority or fringe views. I think we need to dispense with this whole paragraph as UNDUE - imho. I do not see them as any kind of authority worth discussing or echoing in this Wikipedia article, based on this paragraph. I respect what Binney did as a whistleblower, but I think what happened to him seems to have given him cause for having a bias. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This Baltimore Sun article, written by Binney and McGovern, is used as the most current source in that paragraph [29]. And the statement above seems to have been derived from this source - a source which is a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it is filled with supposition. Also, Binney and McGovern are using this article as platform to smear Clapper, for stuff that happened years ago.

And the smearing is being used as if it is a rationale for why the emails were leaked and not hacked. Hey, let's take a giant step backward, to July and August 2016, when the internet was filled with conspiracy theories similar to this. Binney is stuck in mid-year 2016 conspiracy theories. I don't have a problem with opinion pieces being used in articles, but not opinion pieces like this. I think this article should be removed as a source because it is not a reliable source. ------Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand what is unclear. The disputed sentence stars with "Binnen and McGovern wrote that…", clearly that's their statement, and the whole paragraph repeats their names three times, making it super clear that we are not speaking in wikivoice. We can still discuss whether their view is WP:DUE, however this is neither an attribution problem, nor is it a BLP issue per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. On the procedural side, I note that the DS/1RR notice saying "do not revert any edit challenged by reversion" is being blissfully ignored. Oh well… — JFG ^talk 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of DS/1RR is that longstanding material cannot be removed without consensus (this is the interpretation that MelanieN gave above). As far as I'm concerned, the original bold removal was fine, but once that removal was reverted, consensus would be required before it was attempted again. I don't see a consensus for the removal of Binney and McGovern's opinions here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully, it is understood that I agree with its removal as UNDUE, and as a BLP smear. It is not necessary to have this in the article and it only serves to denigrate Clapper. He must be doing something right if he has been working for the G.W. Bush administration and then the Obama administration. Cherry picking controversial aspects of national history that he was involved in serves no purpose, other than to rationalize a fringe view for Binney's and McGovern's audience. There seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed 'Baltimore Sun' reference

I removed this reference [30] because it does not seem to be reliable, or in any way tries to engage in facts. If interested see my comments in the above section. Although the "Baltimore Sun" newspaper is considered a reliable source, this particular reference should not be considered as such. It appears to be a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it seems filled with supposition. Comments? --Steve Quinn (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh great, so now their statement stands unsourced, so I suppose the next step is to delete it entirely? Sure, these are biased statements, and they are attributed accordingly. Quoting biased statements is fine, provided they are attributed and representative of a serious minority viewpoint. See WP:BIASED:

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

You may argue to exclude this source per WP:FRINGE but I'm not convinced: Clapper's integrity has been criticized by dozens and dozens of sources. — JFG ^talk 17:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been said, bias is not a reason for exclusion (if you think it should be take it to the RSN noticeboard).Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: The Baltimore Sun opinion piece was included under the "Commentary and Reactions" section of the article. It's not being used to source statements of fact, but to relay opinions. Many of the opinions in the "Commentary and Reactions" section are agenda-driven and totally biased, but that doesn't mean that they don't merit inclusion in this article. As long as they're noteworthy, properly attributed, and given appropriate weight, then their inclusion is fine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." Since we are using the commentary to source its authors opinions, it is wholly reliable. WP:FRINGE does not say that minority views should be excluded, just that they be presented as minority views. Ray McGovern and William Binney have gone against orthodox views in the past: Binney questioned whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or whether torture is a good practice, while Binney questioned the merits of the NSA monitoring communications of ordinary Americans. But crazy as their ideas may be, they are frequently mentioned in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:UNDUE to place an opinion in this article that basically alleges a felony crime by a living person. I agree with excluding this. Casprings (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an "opinion"? Well duh. The section deals with reactions from the former spies. Per WP:BLP, nobody can dispute a US official's testimony unless said official has been convicted of a felony? It must be true, otherwise the official would be in jail, right? Give.me.a.break. Obviously only officials of certain nationalities are eligible for this absurd "safe space" treatment (officials from bad countries can qualify for "you're a thief/killer/thug" treatment, no court docs required). You think Binney and McGovern are "unreliable"? You also thought that the intel community did not conclude Iraq had WMDs, that the hacking findings are endorsed by 17 agencies, and plenty of other mind-bending stuff. Frankly Steve, you are not in a position to critique any source on this topic (this applies to SPEC too). Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about being convicted of a felony or what bearing that has on anything. I'm not bringing that into this argument. This piece is pure speculation, bereft of facts. This has nothing to do with any US official's testimony. Well, except for the fact that Binney and McGovern are trying to bring that into the conversation. Just because Clapper was involved with the Iraq fiascos has no bearing on what is happening now.

This has to do with speculation supported by by a U.S. official's former behavior, and the behavior of the NSA. And so what about the intel report on Iraq. I was relying on memory, had never seen that report before, and I was overall accurate except for the Intel report. There were no WMD's discovered when the troops went in, and the Bush administration was admonished in the press for it.

Big deal about about an Intel report from 15 years ago. Also, I really don't need you trying to impugn my capabilities just because you won one argument. So what. Big deal. Have cigar or whatever you do. As far as leaving this out, I would like to hear more input from other editors. Also, I am studying the links to policies and guidelines that people have posted in this thread. Thanks.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub If you think this piece is reliable then I am really surprised. I don't know about Binney and McGovern in general - but this editorial is really lacking. --Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"I was overall accurate except for the Intel report" No, just no. Drinking Jack Daniels and having some Snus, fwiw. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)