Talk:Maria Butina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A furniture business called "Homliness" (Russian: политолог)? The Russian word in parentheses translates as political scientist. Homeliness as the name for a furniture store in BE would be fine (comfy like your own home), I think, but not so much in AE (unattractive person). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


A lot of material about Torshin (not Butina) was added and then restored over my objection. How is this not off-topic? This is supposed to be a biography of Butina, not a description of the Kremlin's ties with American conservative groups. The explanation given by Enthusiast01 was: the material goes towards "grooming" and "establishing useful contacts" in the context of FBI and Congressional investigations) What does that even mean? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It means that all the material points to Butina and Torshin in concert, or as Butina acting on behalf of Torshin, are infiltrating the political establishment (by establishing relationships with "important" persons) via relationship with the NRA. One must also remember that B & T are being investigated by the FBI and Congress committees for meddling in 2016 election as well as possible (or alleged) funneling funds to Trump via NRA. These are both very serious allegations. Enthusiast01 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
All fine and good, but this isn't an article about Russian infiltration into the U.S. political establishment. If it's not specifically about Butina, then it doesn't belong here. I'd suggest that you introduce this material at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert of autobiographical edits[edit]

Knight IndustriesX2000, can you please explain your concerns about this edit? I was undoing disruptive, autobiographical edits by a sockpuppet IP account. Some of the added content was unduly promotional or supported only by unreliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You just deleted everything that someone did saying that it's all shit. I guess, YOU should explain you very aggressive behavior. Do you have any personal issues with the article or the person? Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not constructive. I explained why I mass-reverted, and I think I had pretty solid policy grounds for doing so. Now it's your turn to explain why you think the edits were good.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
"Not constructive" is mass-reverting. Address every issue, please. "This is all bad" is not an argument. You don't like the references? What references are bad? What sources? What statements are false? And, again, even if it's WP:AP, it is not against the rules. It's discouraged, but not forbidden. Argue over issues not over personalities. I don't care about the specific article, but you behavior is really mean and might need some measures to be taken. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my conduct, then take it up at my user talk. Refusing to discuss the content basis for your edits here is disruptive. The purpose of this page is to discuss content in order to improve the article, not to prolong personal spats. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly! But you don't discuss the content, you mass-revert. This is disruptive. Mass-deletion of the content as "all shit" doesn't improve the article. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You're the one who keeps referring to "all shit," not me. I said, "Some of the added content was unduly promotional or supported only by unreliable sources." Now it's your turn, or we're done here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What EXACTLY is promotional? Everything? That goes to your all shit list. That's not the way of improving the article. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to go through each and every item, nor do I have any obligation to if you're not going to go with me. So let's try baby steps. I'll describe one thing that should go and why, and then you describe one thing that should stay and why, ok? Firearms United is not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
OK! Undo your mass-reverting, please, and let's correct the content. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No, now you identify one thing that should stay, and why. Or did you just login to Wikipedia to complain about my editing practices? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Here you go - "After finally being approved for a visa in 2014, Maria Butina attended the annual NRA Women's Leadership Luncheon as a guest of former NRA President Sandy Froman and participated in general meetings over the weekend as a guest of former NRA President David Keene.[1] " - credible source, credible statement. Far away from "promotion".


Two problems here. First of all, it's questionable whether is reliable. There's no consensus in the RSN archives. Second, this is really not biographically noteworthy. So Butina attended a luncheon with Sandy Froman, so what? We already have enough content about her high-level contacts with the NRA. The source only includes this information to explain how the author got an interview with Butina. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there is a false statement in the article now here "Also in 2011, while still Torshin's assistant, Butina founded a gun-rights organization, Right to Bear Arms, and began traveling back and forth to the U.S., initially with Torshin.[6]". She could not travel since 2011 with Torshin if she has not had a visa yet. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That sentence is supported by this reliable TIME source. Why do you think she didn't have a visa in 2011? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
And on the reliability of the source. It has not been stated as unreliable yet, so I would use it in certain cases, but not too much retrieve from it. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "retrieve," but the burden is on the editor seeking to include content to demonstrate that it's supported by a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It looked for me that you've suggested a dialog. I guess you're just mean by default. I think the latter sentence (may be in paraphrase) must be returned since now the article has a mistake in timeline. Knight IndustriesX2000 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What's the mistake? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

She was arrested yesterday day..[edit]

Will need to be in the article: .Casprings (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

NY Times story: Woman Who Sought Secret Meeting for Trump and Putin Is Charged as Russian Agent Casprings (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh snap. Erickson's next. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would just like to mention, legally until convicted she is still just an alleged Russian agent. To state anything otherwise could be considered libel especially if she is found not guilty on these charges. --OKSDAHunter (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what the article says (and, looking through the history, appears to have said consistently since the bit about her being a Russian agent was added). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Should this be "Maria" or "Mariia"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Both are used in reliable sources. The DOJ uses Maria in their press release announcing the recent charges but "Mariia a/k/a Maria" in the actual affidavit. I updated the opening to include both names with references. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Evidently her legal name is Mariia, but the overwhelming majority of sources use Maria. So the first sentence should use Mariia per MOS:LEGALNAME, and the article should remain where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how we typically handle infoboxes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I would think we'd redirect to her legal name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean move this page to Mariia Butina? That would go against WP:COMMONNAME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be kept Maria Butina, too, per COMMONNAME. Further, in the first sentence of the intro, I think Maria should come first with Mariia as also spelled. If that's her birth name, it could be added in the birth name field of the infobox.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. Butina’s legal first name is Мария; in Russian, the letter "я" is pronounced ya as in yard. The prosecution’s court filings appear by to be using 'Modified Library of Congress' transliteration, i.e., "ia" (Modified LC). They don’t say why; maybe that's how the name was transliterated in her passport. When reporting the indictment some major outlets used the spelling "Mariia", but they seem have to gone back to using "Maria" by now. Another Мария/Maria of current fame on Wikipedia: Maria Sharapova; there doesn’t seem to have been any discussion in her case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Her legal name is spelled in Cyrillic; that is clearly not the correct choice. I'm certainly not an expert, but the -iia transliteration strikes me as a hasty/rookie mistake: concatenating the transliterations for и and я without realizing that they're blended in pronunciation... and the goal of transliteration is to show how a name is pronounced, not to reproduce the quirks of the original spelling. As for which is more common, as one useful data point: "maria butina" gets 8,080,00 hits in a Google search, while "Mariia Butina" gets 368,000. In addition to Maria Sharapova, see also Maria Mironova, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, Maria Alyokhina. I agree that we should present "Maria" as the standard spelling, and suggest "Mariia" as "sometimes transliterated as". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that the Russian gov recently changed the transliteration of the Cyrillic script to Latin, so the legal name would be Mariia (as in her passport / official DoJ docs), but the common name would be Maria. I recommend keeping the article where it is, i.e. Maria Butina. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Right to Bear Arms org[edit]

JzG, With this edit, cited content about Butina forming the Right to Bear Arms organization was removed. This disrupts the later cited content in the Gun rights section - and the organization's connection with members of the NRA.

It might not seem realistic, but 1) this is from someone who grew up in Siberia and hunted as a child and 2) how much of today's politics seems realistic? The true test is whether there are reliable sources for the information. New York Times, one of the sources, seems like a good start. See also this query of news sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's important to say that she founded Right to Bear Arms. It's verifiable, cited by a slew of secondary sources, and critical to an understanding of Butina's role in the influence operation. That said I don't have a problem with removing it from the infobox. It seems to me her primary organization is the Russian government, not Right to Bear Arms. Something I read recently suggested that the organization was just a tool used to help Butina gain access to the NRA. I'm sorry I don't remember what source that was, probably in the NY Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I could go either way about the infobox. Right to Bear Arms was used as the entree to the NRA - and how she developed relationships with them and conservative Republicans. But, I agree that it's essentially a front. As long as it stays in the intro, I'm good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
DrFleischman has put his finger on it. The idea that a young woman could found a genuine grassroots gun rights group in Russia is implausible. When you combine it with her known status as a Russian intelligence asset, characterising it as agun rights group rather than a front group becomes seriously problematic. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so it sounds like you don't have an issue with the Right to Bear Arms org being in the article, your issue seems to be how it's characterized (a legitimate gun's rights organizations vs. a front). I think there are probably sources out there that state that it was a front.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Claims this page is being brigaded by less than savory intentions.[edit][1] [Note: added more detailed ref & related - hope this helps in some way - iac - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)]

Should anything be done?FusionLord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The edits of concern occurred in March and April of this year. They don't appear to have resumed since then. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I wondered about that. But it's weird that the article is dated today if it occurred months ago.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The account (Caroline456 only made a few edits to this article and they've all been reverted or rewritten to remove whitewashing. I made one final reversion today. Most of the edits were at Paul Erickson (activist) and there's been extensive discussion at that talk page.
At this point the best thing we can do is keep our eyes open for potential whitewashing. –dlthewave 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. By the way, an IP user posted on User talk:Caroline456 about there being hidden categories If you take a look at the bottom of your talk page here during an edit you'll see that your talk page is a member of "2 hidden categories". Ohhh. Spooky. Wikipedia is a labyrinth and a house of mirrors. Just remember you can easily kick down these walls and shatter these mirrors and nothing "hidden" here is hidden well. Funny.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This issue went away months ago, and I don't expect further problems while Butina is incarcerated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Found this article about this page.[1] It was also mentioned on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. ―Buster7  15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same link at the top of this section. I saw Maddow, too. She was focusing on misinformation, hopefully others caught that it was fixed awhile ago.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Maddow did misunderstand the Daily Beast article. She didn't catch that it was months ago, and she kept saying “those two pages have been scrubbed”, “you won’t find this information there”, “it’s all gone”. I sent an email to her site about this, pointing out that regular Wikipedia editors immediately restored the edits and accused the editors of COI. But she must get thousands of emails a day and I doubt if she will do a correction. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I thought when she said it was scrubbed she meant that it was fixed. I thought she said something about the beauty of Wikipedia is that people watch it... or something like that. Anyway, it wasn't clear and I thought there might be misunderstandings. Thanks for sending the email!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you Melanie, it was rather misleading. She did say something about "the beauty of Wikipedia is that everything can be restored" but she neglected to say that it was restored. I do nitpick your characterization that the material was "immediately restored." I battled "Caroline" on the talk pages for some time. And btw I give myself a bit of a self-congratulatory pat on the back for doing most of the investigatory legwork for the story. Face-smile.svg --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018[edit]

1. PLEASE CHANGE "Involvement in U.S. politics Gun rights" section TO "Involvement in U.S. politics National Rifle Association (NRA)"

2. PLEASE CHANGE: "Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Involvement in U.S. politics 3.1 Gun rights" TO: "Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Involvement in U.S. politics 3.1 National Rifle Association (NRA)"

THANK YOU. (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment - It may be that there is a better heading, but it's not just about the NRA, it's also about the Right to Bear Arms organization.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The content is almost exclusively about the NRA, and the Right to Bear Arms stuff can be seen as merely an entree into the NRA. I'm okay with changing the heading as requested. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done I agree that this is a better section title, and I have changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cohabiting with Erickson, using sex to get a job[edit]

Why doesn't this entry mention anything about Butina's cohabiting with Erickson and attempting to use sex to get a job with someone else, according to FBI reports that were widely reported in WP:RS, including the New York Times?

I think the reason for its relevance is obvious, but it's not the job of WP editors to make that judgment.

It's the job of WP:RSs to make that judgment, and according to the policy WP:WEIGHT, we include it when it's prominently reported in multiple WP:RSs. Which it is. --Nbauman (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think no one's gotten around to adding it. Go for it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Right to Bear Arms" interlanguage link to ru:Право на оружие (движение) ?[edit]

Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" group appears to be ru:Право на оружие (движение), although движение translates to "movement" presumably "social movement" (ru:Общественное движение (социология)). The Russian article while may be RS, I have my concerns as this topic involves geopolitical foreign influence. If I don't get a response, I will add, and see what happens. X1\ (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's nice that there's an article about the topic, but it's a bit confused. Is it about "The right to arms (movement)" generally... or "Right to Bear Arms" organization specifically? I think with a bit of editing it could be made clearer that there is a movement, led by the Right to Bear Arms organization.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I know Google Translate isn't the most reliable source, but the translation makes it quite clear that the Russian article is about the Right to Bear Arms organization specifically. –dlthewave 15:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
For me the confusion is that that title is Gun rights (movement) instead of "Right to Bear Arms" and the organization is sometimes referred to as a movement. Like I said, a couple of edits should clear it up.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I took a stab at posting a suggestion at the article page [1]CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

She is NOT charged under FARA but with a different offense against 18 U.S. Code § 951[edit]

What she is actually charged with should be clarified.

From Lawfare: No, Mariia Butina Wasn’t Charged With Violating FARA Geo8rge (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


I removed a link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund from the infobox. My reasoning is that a fundraising site is not appropriate to include in the infobox. The removal was reverted by Geo8rge, so I would like to discuss it here. –dlthewave 18:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The Maria Butina webpage is really about her legal issues, she is not otherwise noteworthy. Perhaps this article should be renamed after the lawsuit.
  • The website is her only web presence, and the website is devoted to her legal issues, which is what she is notorious for and the reason for the existence of this Wikipedia page. Is there a better website?Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • She is not getting the funds, all the funds are controlled by a trustee.Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Other peoples' websites, such as politicians have donation areas.Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ideally both sides to the legal dispute would have equal footing on a Wikipedia page dealing with that dispute, but in this case the other party to the dispute is 'The People of the USA' who don't really need a website and as far as I can tell the DOJ is not going to set up their own 'Prosecution of Maria Butina' webpage for this specific case. Geo8rge (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would recommend using the DOJ language to name the article. Suggested article name: The prosecution of Maria Butina for acting as an unregistered Agent of the Russian Federation Within the United States an offense against Title 18, United States Code, Section 951, in violation of Title l8 United States Code, Section 371 (unfortunately the exact section of US code she is said to have violated is necessary as much of the media coverage claims it was a different violation against FARA)Geo8rge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no requirement to fill every field of the infobox, and it may be best to leave this one blank if the subject does not maintain a web presence that is suitable for a link. The Legal Expense Fund is purely a fundraising effort and provides only minimal information about the legal situation. –dlthewave 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"The Legal Expense Fund is purely a fundraising effort and provides only minimal information about the legal situation." I don't understand your point. The website was created by her or her agents and is the only web presense belonging to her I could find. I think it is reasonable to assume it was created by her or her agents and represents her wishes and is the best she or her agents could put together. Why not accept that? I do not see that Wikipedia has an rule about what should be in a personal website. The only common sense rule would be her website should be the website she wants people to know is her web presence. The website on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Ocasio-Cortez' campaign website, which is mostly devoted to fund raising, attracting volunteers and getting people's email addresses, which is fine with me as long as that is Ocasio Cortez intention. Other than size and sophistication what is the differnence between fund raising websites and ?Geo8rge (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible district court case info box[edit]

This is the info box of distric court cases. I was unable to get the image to load automatically and entered it's address and size manually. I suggest getting the image to load automatically before using the infobox. I would also suggest the current Maria Butina personal infobox be retained so as not to make the article biased against the defendant by only including a prosecutorial infobox.

United States of America v. Maria Butina
Seal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.png
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case name United States of America v. Mariia Butina also knorm as Maria Butina
Citations 18 U.S.C. § 951.
Plaintiff(s) United States of America
Defendant(s) Maria Butina

Geo8rge (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I just removed it, as it forces the article title to appear in italics. Remember, this page is about Butina the person, not her court case. WP:COATRACK applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I resolved the italics issue by adding the "italic title=no" parameter. –dlthewave 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm adding it here too, so the talk page doesn't appear in italics. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Source from 1990[edit]

A recent edit (diff) added a Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin source published in January 1990, supporting the statement When Maria Butina was first arrested prosecutors accused her of using sex to gain power in a manner similar the 2018 spy thriller Red Sparrow. I don't have access to the source, so could somebody please explain how the 1990 source relates to 2018 events? Am I missing something here? –dlthewave 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the source and statement. –dlthewave 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. I updated with one of the many Red Sparrow references to Maria Butina. Geo8rge (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Prosecutor and Defense Attorney bios[edit]

Brief descriptions of the prosecutor and defense attorney have been added twice now. My opinion is that these individuals are irrelevant to Butina's biography and, if anything, we should simply mention their names in the section about the lawsuit. –dlthewave 00:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The article should be renamed USA v Butina, as Maria Butina does not merit a Wikipeida page. Virtually all coverage of Butina is related to a criminal case, not her achievements. Coverage not related to USA v Butina tends to be salacious pictures of her and salacious discussions of her sexuality, none of which merit an article except in the context of criminal charges against her, that is USA v Butina. If Butina murdered one or more people the article would be about the crime, such as The shooting of ..., not Maria Butina and would deal with the criminal proceedings with a comparatively small biography of the defendant. I am not clear why an exception is being made in this case. As for the details of the criminal case, that is what most of the media and google searches turn up at this point. That is not me cherry picking that is google cherry picking. Her only source of notoriety is at this point allegedly being an agent of a foreign government and allegedly being required but failing to register under usc 951, which is currently the subject of USA v Butina. If you want to split the article into Maria Butina and USA v Butina. To sum up I am posting about USA v Butina because that is what google searches turn up at the moment. Stuff like the identities of the code section citations, Judge, plantiff and defense are what would be in an article about a criminal case. Defense Attorny Driscoll in particular has been in the news, and the prosecutor requested he be gagged, which seems noteworthy, is gagging a defense attorney of Driscoll's caliber normal? I am not hunting down obscure references, I am just citing the first pages of a google search.Geo8rge (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a biographical article of Butina, who clearly surpasses WP:BLP1E for her significant role in a significant ongoing event. We don't need the names and details of the lawyers arguing her case on such a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"significant ongoing event" the ongoing event is USA v Butina. To be honest Butina seems to have about the same status as a drug mule, all that is noteworthy is the actual criminal case USA v Butina. Geo8rge (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. She was (allegedly) a go-between in the Russian collusion/election interference. USA v. Butina is only a piece of the puzzle. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
What does allegedly mean? Is it possible she wasn't? We are back to discussing USA v Butina. But again the current state of the charges is she failed to register, not that she was a go between, which is apparently legal for a registered agent of a foreign government.Geo8rge (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Fine, she was allegedly an unregistered go-between. I added "allegedly" because she hasn't been convicted (yet), and she is "innocent until proven guilty". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Split page proposal[edit]

There seems to be a fair amount of contention between editors who want to expound on the court case and those who want a cleaner biographic page. I suggest splitting the "USA vs Maria Butina" section to a new page so that people can expound on the case to their heart's content. After a split, the "Maria Butina" page will still be notable because of her work to influence the NRA and American conservatives. The court case is notable because of its relation to the Russian influence campaign in the U.S. 2016 elections. Websurfer2 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"expound on the case to their heart's content" I thought Wiki editors just updated articles with sourced material. Why did you use the term 'expound'? Is 'expounding' permitted on Wikipedia? Splitting the article is fine with me but the question remains, without being the accused in USA v Butina she really has not accomplished anything noteworthy in her life, so what would be left to put in a Maria Butina article? In general, Wikipedia does not give people accused of a notorious crime their own article, so I do not see why Butina has her own article. At this point, she has the presumption of innocence, and Wikipedia articles should reflect that. Geo8rge (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Geo8rge: By "expound on the case to their heart's content," I meant that a separate page for the criminal prosecution would remove the constraints on related verbosity that would normally be imposed on a purely biographical page. Websurfer2 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018[edit]

Remove red links. ColinSheffer (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:REDLINK. Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. If there's a specific red link you feel should be removed or redirected under that guideline, please point it out. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Slate Magazine called the government accusation misleading and the charges murky.[unreliable source?][11] Butina has had an unusually high number of visits from Russian officials.[12][edit]

The 'unreliable source' is Slate which is normally considered reliable. The charge is murky and difficult to understand as evidenced by the inability of journalists to report that she has been charged with failing to register as a foreign agent under one specific section of the USC, which is distinct from espionage. I repeat she has not, as of yet, been charged or accused with espionage.

The McClatchy article about the visits from Russian officials is poorly informed, for example, the article falsely claims "Butina is charged with being an in-plain-sight Russian agent" which sounds like espionage. I did not remove the edit, even though I think the source does not understand the issue, as the edit was properly sourced. Wikipedia does not permit independent research, but I will point out that a search on her Russian name brings up many links implying she is still an important story in Russia possibly explaining why Russian diplomats are making consular visits. I personally think questioning consular visits is dangerous given Americans often need such assistance when they have legal difficulties.

The editor that made these edits claims: "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia". So I didn't bother them with the issue. Geo8rge (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)