Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

Is the RS encyclopedic material regarding the Russian ad buys on social media being unbiased and designed to create general upheaval just invisible?

Included: academic study on the social media buys, facebook denials, facebook admissions but nothing about the facebook admission that the actual ads were unbiased? Just must not be encyclopedic?

Why is this article perpetually ignoring any and all RS encyclopedic material that contradicts the left wing cabal fake narrative?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You should avoid bad faith comments if you want anyone to cooperate with you. One reason the new material is not included is that it was literally released today. They're explaining it on CNN as I type. This article does say by the way that Democrats paid for the report. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument. There are any facts that has been ignored a long time in this article. That seems this is a bias article.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to "perpetually ignore" something that just came out. Also note that the involvement of the Clinton campaign in paying for the research to compose the dossier doesn't in any way disprove its content. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Are there others sources, a RS about the dossier content, or just BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS??Neuwert (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What I'm wondering here is, why do 126.209.43.217, 71.224.251.239, and Neuwert sound so much alike? Geogene (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument too. I would suggest you start a investigation.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The content has been added where it belongs, at Donald Trump–Russia dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So, why don't you edit that article with this fact. I saw that you edited that today, but forgot to creat a new title with this fact.Neuwert (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We should have a line on this here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is one line enough? This is collusion, interference and obstruction with Russia from the DNC. Shouldn't it have it's own article and maybe 23 more like it?

is it, does the source say this?Slatersteven (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

Ilky (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Firstly I would like to add a citation for the statement made under the heading Republican National Committee: The "RNC said there was no intrusion into its servers, while acknowledging email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached." This can be corroborated by the following link to a Politico article : https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/republican-national-committee-was-hacked-rep-mccaul-says-228183

Secondly, under the heading Steele dossier, I want to add the following citation from a Washington Times article: Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent, was hired by Fusion GPS to produce opposition research on Donald Trump (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-fusion-gps-Trump-dossier/)

Not done for now: The Colin Powell information is cited in the next sentence and the Washington Times is not a RS for political coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be clarified that "opposition research" means paid for by the DNC. Keith McClary (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

BuzzFeed: "This Russian Campaign Turned Against Trump In The Days After The Election"

"A Facebook page (BlackMattersUS) linked to Russia helped organize anti-Trump rallies in Charlotte and New York. ... 'Trump won the Electoral College but is behind by almost 840,000 votes,' reads the description on a cached version of the deleted Facebook events page hosted by BM, another alias of BlackMattersUS. 'Join us in the Streets to stop Donald Trump and his bigoted hateful agenda!'" As BuzzFeed states, this "lines up more with the idea that Russian interference campaigns were about highlighting and deepening tensions in the West, rather than outright supporting Donald Trump."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing this about two threads up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Russian ad buys sought to sow political discord did not favor one candidate over another

New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/media/facebook-black-lives-matter-targeting/index.html

The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/technology/google-russian-ads.html

Hmm the academic speculation regarding the Russian trolls still in the article, the encyclopedic facts above still not in the article.

Can we keep this in a single place?Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Manafort, Who Once Ran Trump Campaign, Told to Surrender

Paul Manafort, Who Once Ran Trump Campaign, Told to Surrender https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As per above unsigned cmt by Casprings, BBC have reported same (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740), states Manafort is facing charges but "nature of charges is unclear", also says business associate Rick Gates faces charges. Please could article have line added wherever appropriate to reflect new developments? 217.39.75.98 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not done for now: I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? O3000 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsealed and already uploaded on wiki commons. Need to be added.Casprings (talk)|

Yep. It was added to another article earlier in the morning, and then updated a couple dozen times:) O3000 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton

Pretty big in relation to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/george-papadopoulos-russia.html Casprings (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

He didn't meet with Russians but with someone who had met Russians. And Trump never met this adviser. While no doubt this has relevance, you need to explain what that is and source it. TFD (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] and a whole bunch more. Volunteer Marek  17:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, this demonstrates that the Russians compromised the Trumps and the campaign -- witness the coverage of the matter in this article. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The USA Today article says, "The proposed trip did not take place, according to the court filing." TFD (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is something to keep an eye on, although it doesn't yet relate to this subject or have anything worth adding to the article. (Actually I see it is there, under "other Trump associates".) But it may prove to be very important in the future, because 1) this was a plea bargain in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and provide information, and 2) one big glaring item in the information about these proposed meetings is that he discussed them with an unnamed "campaign supervisor" - widely believed to have been Manafort. So, as they say, watch this space. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RS discuss Russian psy-ops. If the Russians have succeeded in fomenting the discussion of the possibility of Russian interference they have been successful. Daily RS discussion of the ins and outs of the investigations, recriminations against everyone from Nunes to HuckabeeSanders, and all the current Fox News Hillary uranium coverage, tell us that they have successfully intruded in US civic processes. Whether the interference extends to various alleged crimes or direct electoral interference is the only point. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Kislyak Picture

The Kislyak picture uses a {{who?}} tag. The persons are described in the text, the tag should be removed.----217.248.28.26 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Need section summarizing publicly available evidence

This very long article is full of opinions and claims to have evidence by various arms of the US government and by cybersecurity firms. The latter are linked to the government through contracts and/or ownership by former military/intelligence operatives. There are also claims by Facebook, but their evidence is also kept secret. According to Reuters "public evidence of Russian meddling, something that has not so far been presented, would be sure to translate into tougher U.S. sanctions against Moscow". Why don't we have a section on publicly available evidence? Because there isn't any? Keith McClary (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The article presents what is contained in the sources cited, no more and no less. Articles aren't written to satisfy your political opinions. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my politics. My source discusses the implications in case any evidence is made public. I can't see this addressed elsewhere in the article. Keith McClary (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, buddy. You were recently warned about soapboxing on your talk page. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How would we address this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We could include the Reuters quote: “public evidence of Russian meddling...has not so far been presented....”. Plus any reports that the evidence exists but is non-public. Does “presented” mean presented in court or presented anywhere? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's undue weight, it's not clear that Reuters isn't talking about the Manafort/Gates indictments specifically. Plus, several new or low edit count accounts have been pushing for this, and it's disruptive to keep posting the same damn thing over and over again after it gets dismissed the first time. The Keith McClary account posted the same political arguments here on 19 December,[2] that was dismissed. Continuing to come here to make the same complaint is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that is disruption. I have now posted DS alerts on that user's talk page. If this sort of soapboxing continues, then some combination of SPI and AE will be in order. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2016? Are you kidding me? Consensus can change, and he’s presented a brand new Reuters article. I’m not saying I support any article edits at this point, but you seem to be overdoing it with the gag orders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this time he's asking for an entire subsection, last time he wanted an entire alternate article... Geogene (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I understand we can include the quote, how and where, randomly insert it? |It will need context, so I am asking what is the suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Good questions. I don’t know, but will keep an eye on this interesting discussion. Kind of short on time right now to do research. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Reuters article says that public evidence of Russian meddling has not so far been presented. Should that statement be in the article, e.g. as the last sentence of the lead? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean one of the most prominent locations in the article? Geogene (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's a general statement that sums up the situation regarding public evidence and would have good context as it would be in a paragraph about investigations underway. Here's a possible sentence for the end of the lead.

As of October 31, 2017, public evidence of Russian meddling has not been presented.[3]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight for one little line in one Reuters piece, considering the thousands of news articles that have been written about this. Further, the last sentence of the lead is one of the most conspicuous parts of an article. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede section acts as a concise overview of the topic for the reader. The lack of public evidence is a notable fact that aids the understanding, therefore it should be (briefly) mentioned there. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a concise summary of the body. Not everything in the body merits mention in the lead. If this is only source, then it doesn't merit mention in the body. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Read tomorrow's newspaper. Congressional testimony. Social media ads. No evidence? Editor time is scarce and valuable. It's time to drop this and work on article improvement. This complaint didn't make sense even before the election. "Russia if you're listening...Clinton emails..." SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide an excerpt from an RS that gives public evidence of Russian meddling? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

See? Remarks that like just show what a waste of time these stupid threads are. I hatted this, it should have been left that way. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No reason to call a source request "stupid". — JFG ^talk 23:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This thread is stupid. It started out as a transparent and partisan NOTFORUM screed identical to others we get on a monthly basis. Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist. This is not productive behavior. The "request" that we create a subsection about the lack of evidence--was not actionable per NPOV guidelines and at best was borderline trolling. Just like that user's last visit here contained a "request" that we move the article to "lack of evidence of Russian meddling". This should not have been unhatted. That was poor judgement, and I for one do not appreciate that. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk threads are often stupid, but that’s not the threshold for making them disappear. As many commenters have said here, they find the Reuters quote interesting and worth finding out more about. You tried to shut it all down not just by hatting, but by hatting in such a way that the tiny discussion that already occurred became invisible. Please don’t do stuff like that again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If think that it's warranted, then I will do so. This was warranted. By that, what I mean in this instance is that it was repetitive, partisan, inactionable, and NOTFORUM. Even if you like the Reuters piece, the delivery was terrible. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, re: "Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist.” That's mischaracterizing the issue. The claim is that neither you (nor MSM) have any basis for saying it does exist. Humanengr (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nor is there any for basis for saying it does not. Therefore we go with what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Re ‘Nor’: So you claim MSM has no basis for saying either it does or does not exist. So we go with what ‘RS’ says. Right? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think (as I said elsewhere) we go with what RS say, not what we think is true. But I have not seen any list represented, so we cannot include one. Until we see such a list for inclusion here I cannot say if it is sourced to RS or is OR (and it is the list we are discussing, if you want to talk about anything else start a new section).Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading. It is probably referring to no direct evidence rather than no evidence of any kind, which includes circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may involve classified information about intelligence gathering that wouldn't be available to the public. So if the statement appears in the article, it may need to have that context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposed section is not needed and certainly not warranted based on on a couple of sentences in a single Reuter's article. Find a dozen or so strong sources that discuss the importance of public evidence and then we will have a basis for a meaningful content discussion.- MrX 01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As others have said, the lead is a summery of our article (it is not there for emphacise), so until someone can provide some kind of text for the main body disusing this it cannot go in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

[4] Psy-ops. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", the article says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless articles are specifically discussing a lack of public evidence, then we can't use it because it's editorializing/OR. And again, since we can't use this, this post by Bob K31416 is another example of how Wikipedia talk pages are being hijacked to spread conspiracy theories without benefiting the article itself. Not only is this NOTFORUM, is the antithesis of the project's stated goal of disseminating knowledge, and this is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Let me reiterate: it was a mistake to unhat this thread. I hope that mistake isn't repeated in the future. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would request that editors don't rebut comments like Geogene's above because it would only take threads further off topic. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the topic now? That you have a political opinion that goes against the bulk of reliable sourcing, sourcing which is so abundant that it's literally hard to avoid here in the US, and yet you want to organize a search party to find sources to support your viewpoint in the article? Well, that's not exactly how this is supposed to work, but maybe they'll help you at Jimbo Talk. Good luck. Geogene (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, Geogene is stating the fundamental policy-based operation of Wikipedia editing and talk page discussion. We use reliable sources. We don't second guess them as to how they arrived at the statements they make. This sounds like an updated rehash of the initial denials we heard last year -- the classified sources were not revealed to internet pundits and self-styled consultants who took a call from a journalist, therefore the US intelligence estimate cited by RS is incorrect. We need to ensure we don't give over the talk pages to conspiracy theories, fringe POV pushing and the like. WP policy supports this and we should not fail to embrace it. Time to hat or archive this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK lets cut to the chase, can we see such a list presented here please?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• The situation regarding evidence was stated by the US government in their report of Jan 2017,[5]

"This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign."

This kind of information about the classified nature of the evidence seems to have been left out of our article, or maybe I missed it and someone can point it out? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

—Just thought of doing an edit find for the keyword "classified", and I found in the section January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment the following.

"The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that there was nothing about the classified nature of the evidence in the lead. Perhaps that's not considered a very significant fact? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not a very significant fact, as can be told from the way that reliable sources universally downplay it. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your “It’s clearly not” phrase to indicate you have no doubt. Do you ever doubt ‘reliable sources’ when they ‘universally’ agree? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, if you ever are going to make a useful suggestion towards improving the article, I suggest you hurry up before I start looking at more serious options than hatting you. This is not some kind of debate club. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The US government document itself didn't downplay it. The first thing in the document is the following.[6]

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.

• The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.

• Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

BTW, all of my discussion is about improving the article, in this case about whether or not to put some information in the lead. I think the last part of your comment, like other comments of yours, is disruptive. Now you have expressed your opinion about the significance of the information, which I infer is also your opinion about whether or not mention of the classified nature of the evidence should be put in the lead, and I would like to get the opinion of others too. I'm pretty open minded on the question, so I can go either way, depending on what others say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So what do you want to add to the article, and where? Geogene (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote in my previous message, I'm pretty open minded on the question and I would like to see what others have to say first, and possibly they may have suggestions themselves. Or who knows, you might change your mind on the question, which would make things a lot more easy. Anyhow, let's get more input. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change in first sentence of lead

Since there hasn't been any quick responses and there may not be any responses, I'll present a possibility and if there isn't any support, I'll simply drop it. The possible addition is the phrase, "based on highly classified intelligence," for the first sentence of the lead as follows.

The United States Intelligence Community concluded, with high confidence based on highly classified intelligence, that the Russian government engaged in electoral interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay with that. Geogene (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence there was or is any "supporting information". In deference to slatersteven above, one might argue there's no evidence that there was and no evidence there wasn't. So maybe "The United States Intelligence Community concluded, with high confidence based on a claim of 'highly classified' supporting evidence." Humanengr (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we say only what RS say? So until we have something in the body we cannot have it in the lead. So lets just try and decode if this is even going to be included in the body before adding it to the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m ok with that. Humanengr (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As Humanengr says, we simply don't know if evidence exists. Just leave out the "based on highly classified evidence" phrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course I will oppose the word "claim" or any similar variant that tries to shade or cast aspersions on the assertions that classified evidence exists, because that would be editorializing without sources. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But asserting without sources that classified evidence exists isn't editorializing? You're just asking Wikipedia to treat claims of US intelligence (not Russian intelligence, not Chinese intelligence, mind you) with complete credulity. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with complete credulity, the same as the bulk of reliable sources do, for as long as they're credulous. This is what NPOV means. You hint at hypothetical situations where I might not agree with a nation's intelligence conclusions even if sources do. In that instance, I would find some other topic area to edit in, because trying to POV-push against the bulk of sourcing is usually a waste of everyone's time. Actually, I do consider this when I scope out new areas to edit. It may not be for everyone but it helps me to avoid "losing" content disputes. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this thread sure took a couple of surprising turns! So far there are two editors for and two editors against, so either more editors show up to make a consensus for the edit, or it just doesn't get in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, Can you quote any assertion that indicates "classified evidence exists"? Humanengr (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

From The Washington Post,[7]

"...the fact that the government agencies involved in the probes relied largely on classified information to find the Russians culpable of meddling."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not supported by the primary source you quote above. No other source cited by WaPo ‘analyst’ for that assertion. Humanengr (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain how this is a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

PS = the 1/6/2017 report Bob quoted here. Humanengr (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can conclude that WaPo's statement is not supported by the the primary source and in any case it would be your interpretation of the primary source vs that of the reliable source (WaPo). Also, the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source for the comment I excerpted. Note that there were other reports mentioned in the article and the WaPo covered government briefings not mentioned in that article too.

Now getting back to your original request for a quote of any assertion that indicates "classified evidence exists", you asked for it and you got it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source": It's OR to assume there was (or as slatersteven might say "was not") a source for said statement. On what basis do we know it was not opinion? Humanengr (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a reliable source (The Washington Post). Thanks for your speculations, etc, but I honestly don't think they're useful, so this may be my last comment on them. Peace. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't support the claim being made, which is that there is evidence implicating the Russian government. The Washington Post says that "Trump’s attempt to soften the accusation against Russia — whatever the motivation — is helped by the fact that the government agencies involved in the probes relied largely on classified information to find the Russians culpable of meddling." The Washington Post is discussing the lack of publicly available evidence here, and says that any information used is classified. It doesn't say that there is actually classified evidence that points to Russia. When we have other reliable sources explicitly using cautious language to discuss the accusations, (e.g., Reuters regularly referring to "allegations"), then we shouldn't be taking the stand that we know evidence that's never been reported on exists - unless we want to be lackeys of US intelligence, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposed edit doesn't say anything about whether or not the highly classified intelligence is accurate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible new section

So I shall ask again, can someone actually bother to write a section here for discussion that sumerises what RS say about what evidence is publicly available? Until we know what we are actually talking about this is going to go nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post article, Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election might help in that regard. You might try writing such a section here yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a small box at top right labeled ‘Publicly Available Evidence presented by U.S. Intelligence Agencies’ that currently indicates ‘Status: not yet presented’, citing the Reuters article. If and when such is made available, replace with a new section in the body. Humanengr (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose adding any such narrowly focused content, especially with a single five month old source. The article already discusses evidence throughout. The idea of "unpresented public evidence" is not really an aspect of this investigation and is WP:UNDUE. In fact, it's a red herring.- MrX 12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you got me curious. What do you mean by "unpresented public evidence"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"‘Publicly Available Evidence presented by U.S. Intelligence Agencies’ that currently indicates ‘Status: not yet presented’"

Now would someone PLEASE close this hot mess?- MrX 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why should I try to write something I see no need for in the first place?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is one of the more ill-informed suggestions I've seen thus far, it's like adding some sort of scarlet letter to the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems ill-conceived. Have we ever had another article where we insisted on a separate section, or a disclaimer, or something, spelling out the "public evidence" behind our sources? We state clearly, within the text as we go along, where we are getting our information; that's our job as an encyclopedia. It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the "public" or "non-public" nature of the evidence our sources are relying on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the "public" or "non-public" nature of the evidence our sources are relying on." — Please see for example the reliable source already mentioned above, Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election (The Washington Post). --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and we should cite that source and leave it at that. Not evaluate it, or put our own spin into it. ValarianB (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that article could be used as a link somewhere in the article. No need to make more out of it than that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN, re "It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the 'public' or 'non-public' nature of the evidence our sources are relying on.": Any objections to putting a note that effect at the top of this and any article that relies on 'non-public' evidence? Humanengr (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be most of our articles. Reliance on Reliable Sources? They commonly use anonymous (i.e. non-public) sources for their reporting, but if they have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" we accept it. Reliance on government sources? Usually based on non-public evidence, whether it is the monthly unemployment report (they don't show us their actual surveys) or the result of an election (we didn't count the ballots ourselves). Reliance on academic sources? We trust that they are accurately reporting their experimental results, but we don't have a way of verifying that. As an encyclopedia we rely on secondary sources; we don't expect to see the primary data. There is no reason to treat this article any differently, in terms of the "evidence" we demand, than we treat the vast majority of our articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response. I was so impressed by your prior response that I neglected to include the critical criterion 'consequence of error'. More precisely, when there is risk of grave consequence from error in the near-term (prior to customary quality control, e.g., scientific or court review), some caveat should be included. Critique? Humanengr (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Classified information isn't available for expert analysis by organizations independent of the government, such as academics, news media, etc. and for publication by those organizations' of their results. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither are anonymous sources used in Reliable Source news reporting, on which we base many articles - but we don't flag those reports as "non-public". There is nothing about this article which is different from hundreds of other unquestioned articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point, which I don't recall anyone previously having made on this page. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Consider the example from Watergate scandal#Role of the media,

"Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House."

In any case, the possible section that is being considered is for the evidence that is publicly available, a topic that the The Washington Post thought was worthwhile for an article [8]. I think this will be my last message here because it's very doubtful that the possible section would get a consensus, and that discourages anyone from spending the time to write up such a section and defend it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bob K31416, MelanieN, You didn’t address my point re ‘consequence of error’. In deference to Bob’s immediate prior, we could continue this separately if you prefer. Humanengr (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo comment on preceding thread

Interesting meta-discussion and Jimbo Wales comment on the preceding thread. See [9][10]
SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope that pointless trip through the peanut gallery will be enough. I note that an admin there thinks we're all kind of stupid for even working on this article. That's standard Wikipedia fare, but it wasn't useful or worthwhile. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

But, what happened tot the hat? I thought the above was hatted (for formal wear). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Tightening up the lede

Can we delete the 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede? It moves backwards in time to the superseded 10/7/2016 statement.

The 1st sentence of the 3rd para (about Obama warning Putin) is not directly about investigation. That seems secondary and can be left to the body.

For temporal flow, the next sentence, could start with "In December 2016, Obama had ordered a report …". Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Re "Can we delete the 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede?" — I would go with that and add a small mention of the October 7, 2016 statement in the next sentence, i.e.,

According to the ODNI′s January 2017 report that followed its October 2016 statement,^[3] ...

The timing of the October 2016 report may be of interest because it came before the November 2016 election.

• Re "The 1st sentence of the 3rd para (about Obama warning Putin) is not directly about investigation." — The paragraph that it begins is mostly about Obama's reaction so it may be appropriate there.
• Re "For temporal flow, the next sentence, could start with 'In December 2016, Obama had ordered a report …'." — not applicable if the 1st sentence mentioned above is kept.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Amending my suggestion re 3rd para: as you say, it is mostly (sentences 1, 2, 4) about Obama’s reaction; 3 is re Trump’s. The para is a jumble and not related to elucidating any claims about any interference. So, delete in entirety. Humanengr (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It has a little about senators' reaction too. The paragraph is about the US government's reaction, which is mainly Obama's because the president is the part of the US government that executes foreign policy AFAIK, and the paragraph seems an appropriate part of the article topic and the lead. Regarding the paragraph being a jumble, feel free to suggest a way to organize it better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is ostensibly about ‘Russian unterference’, not reaction to it. Anything that gets in the way of detailing that interference gets in the way. Investigations are part of that effort; reaction is not. Humanengr (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So we disagree about what is appropriate for the article regarding reaction. :) --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK in article. In lede, it delays reader from getting to the declared focus. Humanengr (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Re your first idea about the 1st sent of 2nd para, did you lose interest? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you be ok with (deleting the 1st sentence of the 2nd para and) putting the Oct statement in a footnote in the 2nd sentence: "According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report [fn: The ODNI′s January 2017 report followed its October 2016 joint statement with Department of Homeland Security (DHS))^[3])] …"? Humanengr (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be OK with that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The two of you can agree to whatever you please, but that will not show consensus among the dozens of editors who participate on this page and who do not approve your comments. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say regarding this suggested edit? Humanengr (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia policy WP:BATTLEGROUND. FWIW, Humanengr and I have disagreed with each other in other sections, but that hasn't prevented us from cooperating on the edit in this section because we are just trying to improve Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite confident that my comment is constructive, because it saves you lots of time and effort that could be dedicated instead to article improvements that will be endorsed by your colleagues here. Otherwise I suspect you'll end up disappointed and discouraged. So like it or not, my message is constructive. A tete-a-tete in a walled garden is not going to end up improving the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it won't get consensus? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already said how I know. Because even in case the two of you agree, you've got the other 56 editors who haven't agreed with you. And you can count on them to remove any edit w/o consensus. That's how it goes. Life in the big city. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"56 … haven't" (so you say, which is not entirely true) doesn't equal doesn't in this instance. As one prone to overstatement, perhaps you should sit this one out. Humanengr (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything that you don't like about the edit? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I very exhaustively and earnestly discussed this with Humanengr on his talk page a while back and I have nothing more to say about it. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And I very much appreciate that you did. For on my talk page your explanation of your view starts with "The article is about the interference in the election.” In that statement, you take interference as fact, whereas all you can properly say is that news media designated as ‘RS' by the WP community take it as fact. That does not make it fact. After some repeated confusions on your part about which report was at issue, you said "I'm uneasy that each explanation of mine prompts another leading question from you.”

I had hoped to reach some common ground with you under the assumption we share some core positions. But I have learned that’s not possible. How unfortunate. Humanengr (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, Could you help me out and clarify what that discussion on your talk page has to do with the proposed edit here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for modification of second paragraph of lead

It might be worth showing Humanengr's proposed edit of shortening a sentence in the lead and moving it to a footnote. Here's what I think is his proposal to make a change in the lead's second paragraph.

From

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of e-mails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process. According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.

to

According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.

==Notes==

==References==

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support — The change doesn't seem like it would be controversial and reduces repetition and improves readability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian investments in social media

See [11].

Interesting juxtaposition with public stances of Twitter and facebook regarding disclosures. Also ironic in light of Republican concern about Russian mineral investments with reserves in US, while social media investments are not mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian Twitter Support for Trump Began Right After He Started Campaign

Pretty important fact that needs adding: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-twitter-support-for-trump-began-right-after-he-started-campaign-1509964380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

Casprings, could we include this section in the one directly above. Feel free to retitle the combined section. A large investment in a company is an excellent way to get access to its management and its inner workings. Such investors are welcome to visit the executive suite and be introduced to management at various levels of detail. Then today in the Guardian we have the discussion of the Jared Kuschner connection with the Russian investment in these social media broadcasters. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Brexit: related?

Given news stories such as this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdog-starts-inquiry-into-russia-brexit-links-lnf7h86t0 , https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/putin-save-britain-brexit-russia-eu-referendum , https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/election-watchdog-launches-probe-into-russian-meddling-in-brexit-vote-a3674251.html we may well soon need an article on Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Unless, of course, there's one already under a different title? -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You might try discussing that at Talk:Brexit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Bear

New sources are available about the scale of the hacking operation that targeted the DNC [12], [13]. The idea that anyone other than Russia hacked the DNC is no longer tenable and anything suggesting otherwise should be purged from the article as undue. Geogene (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the article shouldn't be "purged." There's been enough whitewashing in this article already. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" is not the same as "removing false information". Agree with Geogene. Volunteer Marek  07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The rational talking points that it was anyone but Russia petered out long ago. Recent evidence, as presented above, is the proverbial nail. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, peter it did, everywhere but on this talk page. I agree expunge, purge, flush and finish. It's all Psy-ops. Apparently the Russians thought a little-read document like the GOP Platform was significant. They certainly might take delight in seeing false narratives on WP articles (remember Murder of Seth Rich where too bad for them it got painfully obvious.) Any more of the denialist narratives can go direclty to the squirrels' nest for examination. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Poulson is outdated per this discussion, I no longer support inclusion of his viewpoint because the current, larger understanding of Russian hacking has moved forward since then. Geogene (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree but we can have that discussion. I recommend a dedicated section. There are more recent discussions re: Poulson in the archives than the one I linked. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Carter Page's Nov 2 testimony

The article is missing any information on Carter Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from Nov 2nd. Sources:

• STEELE'S TRUMP DOSSIER BUT HIS TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTIONS OVER RUSSIAN MEETINGS
• Three things the former campaign adviser revealed to Congress that should scare the White House.
• Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier
• What Carter Page's Testimony Revealed
• Former Trump Adviser Carter Page Testified For Six Hours Without A Lawyer But He Says That’s Part Of The Plan ("Despite being involved in various investigations into Russian election interference, the one-time adviser to Donald Trump has recently sought the spotlight — without a lawyer.")
• Carter Page reveals new contacts with Trump campaign, Russians
• Carter Page’s Testimony Before the House Intelligence Committee
• Carter Page testimony highlights: Trump aide dismisses Russian interference

 Volunteer Marek  05:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the NSA report included in the ‘Background’ section and not in ‘U.S. intelligence analysis’?

?? Humanengr (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the 'Leaking of classified document to The Intercept' section which seems perfectly appropriate to me.- MrX 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It offers no relevant analysis? Humanengr (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What?- MrX 22:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a report from an 'intelligence agency' containing results the Intercept cited and discussed. It seems appropriate to address that under the heading of ‘U.S. intelligence analysis’. How does that constitute 'Background' to 'Russian Interference'? Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?

RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?- MrX 18:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• No - This content has always been WP:UNDUE. On top of that, it's now so outdated, relative to the overall investigation, that it's fairly misleading.- MrX 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• No - very dated now. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• No - time has shown this is undue. By the way, there is plenty of evidence in unclassified sources, the AP recently published some damning stuff, but it's only of tangential interest to the subject. Not fair to imply there is none, though. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• No - Even if this guy was an internationally recognized expert (and he isn’t), the revelations over the last year have long since rendered any point moot. And, I’m pretty sure this has been discussed before (which is what I said the last time it was discussed). O3000 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Has anything changed since the last time we had this discussion? If no, then there's even less of a reason to include it now then there was then. Volunteer Marek  22:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't know it by the number of times it has been inserted and removed. This will hopefully make any consensus or lack thereof official.- MrX 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The link to it is here - reckon it should be added to the RfC statement. Galobtter (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reckon the proposed text that has been inserted and removed several times should be included:

Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack. Marteau (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A more honest title for this RfC would be, "Should we remove all politically uncomfortable criticisms of the US intelligence reports?" This is about politically purging the article of critical content, not about removing content that is somehow defective. The claim that 11-month-old information is no longer relevant is simply a canard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith has become boorish. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys have been at this for more than a year now. Above, there's even an open discussion about "purging" the article. I'm supposed to believe this is just about the sources being too old? Yes, I'm sure that of all the 11-month-old sources in the article, it's only a coincidence that the ones you guys are trying to purge from the article happen to be the only critical comments on US intelligence reports. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include Kevin Poulsen's analysis of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?

RfC: Should the article include Kevin Poulsen's analysis of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?- MrX 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discussion