Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

FBI and CIA give differing accounts

• Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous (December 10, 2016), "FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia's motives in 2016 hacks", The Washington Post, retrieved December 11, 2016, The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior. 'The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court'" one of the officials said. 'The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court.'

This article explains some of the cultural differences between the FBI and CIA.

They may have similar information, just different standards.

FBI must prove its conclusions in a court of law.

CIA just thinks about what it can state with "high confidence" and deliver as an analysis to the President. Sagecandor (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of ongoing discussion at Template talk:US 2016 presidential elections series

A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:US 2016 presidential elections series on whether that navbox should include a link to this article. Editors are invited to participate. Neutrality^talk 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson

If Rex Tillerson is widely being reported as Trump's choice for the next secretary of state. If that does occur, this article should provide a quick summation of his links to Russia and a link to his page.Casprings (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure of course if secondary sources start talking about that in depth, which I imagine they would. Sources are also reporting on intelligence analysis about whether in the Republican National Committee emails the Russian government hacked and chose not to leak as they did with the D.N.C. -- the Russian government now has leverage over Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, Wikipedia is not a Forum, please refrain from posting conspiracy theories on the talk pages of the articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I specifically noted secondary sources are discussing this. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening paragraph of The Washington Post story says:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Yes, there is a quote below it that states it is from "a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. Senators" However, that is one source within the story. Its pretty clear from the opening statement what is being reported and there are multiple means for a reporter to fact check. Casprings (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Post ascribes no motive for the Russians withholding content from the RNC hack

Article currently says: "On December 9, U.S. intelligence concluded that the Russian government was involved in hacking servers of the Republican National Committee (RNC) – but said they did not release the content of the hack in a desire to tilt the election in favor of the Republican party's candidate" and cites http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0

The Post says no such thing. In fact, regarding the RNC hacks, they explicitly say "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.". The Post says NOTHING about the Russians withholding RNC data to "favor the republican".

The Post DOES say the Russians hacked in order to "promote Donald Trump" but considering the context, and the explicit mention of the RNC hacks later in the article, this almost certainly pertains to the DNC hacks, not the RNC hacks.

I'm going to go ahead and remove any attribution of motive pertaining to the RNC hacks, because the Post says motive is "far from clear". Marteau (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hold on a second. What "Post" are you talking about? If it's an article in a reliable source, please link to it, so that we know what you're referring to. Thanks.- MrX 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. The NY Times, as per the cite directly above. Marteau (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes more sense. Perhaps the article text is just written awkwardly, but here are the two paragraphs in the NYT that, by my reading, support that Russia tried to promote Trump (in part) because they did not release information hacked from the RNC:

"American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."
— New York Times

Do you disagree?- MrX 19:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The lines you cite could certainly be interpreted to ascribe motive to the Russian's withholding the RNC leaks. But I think what we have here is ambiguous (perhaps even sloppy) writing. Reporters and their editors are not perfect. And I think the lines about the RNC leaks later in the article trumps that in that it directly and unambiguously discusses the RNC leaks: "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote." That would seem to directly contradict the lead sentences you've quoted. The "far from clear" line is unambiguous in that it directly and solely pertains to the RNC leaks, and that it ascribes confusion as to the Russian motivations behind not leaking it. Given that, I don't think we can say the motive was unambiguously to "aid republicans" because the article also says the motive is "far from clear". Marteau (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does seem to contradict itself, but I do think that the first two paragraphs are also unambiguous. I would like to hear how other editors interpret this.- MrX 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on weight at other pages

I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge tag changes during ongoing discussion

Darouet, please do NOT change merge tags during the ongoing discussion, as you did at [1] and [2].

This is disruptive.

Several are already against this, already stated, above, including Casprings, Neutrality, and MrX.

Let the original discussion play its course please.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sagecandor: that was my mistake. I appreciate your correcting it quickly. -Darouet (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, please be more careful. Sagecandor (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence 2

"Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election."

... is the latest iteration of the first sentence of this article.

That sentence completely misrepresents what the source says. The source ACTUALLY says:

"In fact, in early October, the director of national intelligence, representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said they were confident that the Russian government had directed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and a top Clinton adviser."

"Seventeen agencies" absolutely did NOT "conclude". The Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (who represent 17 agencies) came to that conclusion. Because they represent 17 agencies, you can't say that 17 agencies came to that conclusion.

This re-phrasing is highly misleading and illogical. It would have us believe that, for example, the Department of Energy (one of those 17 agencies) independently came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the election. Or that the DEA did so, as well.

I would revert, but I already have one for today. But this edit is highly misleading, outrageous, misrepresents the source, and is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that edit was an exaggeration. However, it was not only the CIA that concluded that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. To varying degrees that determination came from the CIA, NSA, DHS, DOJ, FBI, the White House, U.S. Senators, the House Intelligence Committee, the "Intelligence Community", and "American Intelligence".- MrX 02:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Skepticism" or "denial"?

With regard to this edit, I understand that there are references specifically referring to Russia's "denial," but "skepticism" is arguably a better and more neutral term for the section in question, because it covers much more than Russia's official line. Moreover, "denial" is often used as a pejorative term to denigrate individuals that refuse to accept facts despite overwhelming evidence (Holocaust denial being the classic example). Given that the CIA leaked these allegations to the press before the inquiry ordered by Obama had even begun, and no hard evidence is currently available, it would be desirable to avoid the implication that Greenwald et al. are "deniers."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

One is not 'skeptical' about ones participation or non-participation in an action. Being skeptical implies doubt without absolute certainty. Presumably, one knows with certainty whether or not they have done a certain thing, and to say they are 'skeptical' about their participation would be incorrect. That they are 'denying' involvement is the better and accurate term. Marteau (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Denial is undeniably the correct word to use. - MrX 13:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. "Denial" means that a person or organization tells assertively: "I did not do it". Skepticism means "I do not know". But I have another related question. It tells: "The RNC has denied any intrusion into its servers". ??? Do they still deny it? My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, they do, having consulted with the FBI on December 9. See Reince Priebus: 'RNC Was Not Hacked'. (Note that ABC, like the NYT, corroborated Priebus's account: "One person with direct knowledge tells ABC News there is no doubt senior GOP officials were hacked, but that there is no evidence the RNC as an organization was seriously compromised." Why the CIA is so much more confident than the FBI remains a mystery.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This article talk page is not the place to speculate or offer OR as to the mysteries of the subject. If you do not understand the distinction between the domains of the CIA and the FBI, please re-read the mainstream sources on this matter. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Russian statements, WP:CLAIM states, "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." The Russian government is not a living person, but the verb "deny" may imply culpability. So, "Russian government response" or something like that is fine, and avoids the editorial suggestion that they are "guilty."

More importantly however the majority of this section currently deals with other voices that are skeptical of the allegations made by U.S. officials. "Denial," even beyond the POV issue raised above, doesn't describe them, and therefore mischaracterizes the majority of the section. It should be renamed. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

How about "dispute"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I actually think that Russian government and intelligence statements deserve their own section, "Response by Russia," and that other skepticism or controversy should be in its own section. -Darouet (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

Agree his personal opinion can be in the article.

But let's keep these in the section, Media commentary. Sagecandor (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

what is 'personal' about his opinion and its supporting factual statements in a way not applicable to others not relegated to subsections? 73.214.14.212 07:36, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe that this self-published opinion is noteworthy encyclopedic content. Do you believe that he is among the best informed and most respected mainstream experts on this matter? I do not. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Respond to Greenwald's stated reasons point by point, don't just attack the person with an empty 'why listen to him?' Or else we must ask 'Why listen to you?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.14.212 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I was merely trying to suggest a compromise way forward here. JFG "thanked" me for the edit. Placing it in "Media commentary" notes it is personal opinion, which helps keep presentation of it on Wikipedia as WP:NPOV. As to whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion, we can have a discussion here on the talk page about that. Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald is a notable journalist, so of course he can comment on the journalistic practices of other outlets. It's like arguing that Trump's opinion shouldn't be included because he's not cybersecurity expert. ^Falling_Gravity 18:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Greenwald's opinion should be included unless other reliable sources have cited it, or it is shown to be representative of a wider viewpoint, per WP:DUE.- MrX 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point, MrX. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are two reliable sources that cite Greenwald's article. According to your self-professed standards, MrX, this should be enough to warrant inclusion in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 20:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If Greenwald is to be included, I don't think he can be the only pundit included. If he's the only one, then I say it's certainly undue. If he's one of 10 or 12, then he's OK. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason not to include other pundits, but since the Snowden document leaks Greenwald has been the journalist on this issue: his voice carries more weight than plenty of politicians. -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that he's certainly a loud and prominent voice on such issues, but would disagree that his voice necessarily carries more weight than others. Greenwald writes from a quite polemical perspective (hence the heightened need to balance him out), and in terms of being an investigative reporting (separate from his commentary), there's no reason to think that his sources or insights are better than anyone else. Neutrality^talk 19:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree including his comments is fine. There's no reason not to include some commentary, including sceptical commentary, and there's no good reason to discount Greenwald, who is a notable commentator whether you like him and what he says or not, and whether he is thought polemical or not. Otherwise we just have some fairly contentious allegations presented as if they were uncontroversial and inarguable fact. N-HH talk/edits 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If we're opening the door to commentary and speculation, we should include Harry Reid's view that James Comey withheld information about Russia trying to influence the election.- MrX 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We should not just list the opinions of the first journalists who state an opinion. Especially self-published. Trump's view can be stated because he is directly involved in various aspects of the matter, including his exhortation to the Russians that may have resulted in this crime. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I redacted a blatant WP:BLP violation above. SPECIFICO—and all editors—should be reminded that BLP applies to talk pages, and that talk pages are not a forum to promote unsourced personal theories about living people. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. etc. etc. It's not a BLP violation and you really need to leave other people's comments alone. Also, while we're on the topic, this should be included in the article for background.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Leaving aside the sheer implausibility that Russia would order a major covert operation entailing likely U.S. retaliation simply because they thought Trump told them to do so, you're seriously going to argue that the release of 19,252 DNC emails on July 22, 2016, may have been inspired by a joke Trump made on July 27—rather than the reverse? Which of your sources support that conclusion? Is this not something you would purge immediately as "OR" if it pertained to your favored candidate?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Leaving aside the sheer implausibility that... ". Sight. I'm sure you're aware of WP:OR so why do this? I don't really care about your, or anyone else's, theories and speculations. It's all about the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Let's try again: Which of your sources claims that the release of 19,252 DNC emails on July 22, 2016 may have been inspired by a joke Trump made on July 27—rather than the reverse?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that Volunteer Marek is unable to produce any sources to support his WP:OR, even as he accuses everyone else of OR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I share SPECIFICO's wariness to including instantaneous punditry here. But as long as we're including Greenwald, he can't stand alone, because that is the epitome of undue. I've added two op-eds: one from Russia expert and academic Michael McFaul and the other from historian Robert S. McElvaine. Neutrality^talk 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say that Greenwald's view should not be in the article. It is WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your disapproval of Greenwald's stance does not make it less notable. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Greenwald should not be that big a deal. He's notable and his publication is notable. Best way to address it is by having it in "Media commentary" section so readers know it's his personal views, which is fine, and adding balance to that section by expanding that section with multiple other perspectives, which Neutrality helpfully did. Sagecandor (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be fine. If Greenwald has done any reporting (and he frequently does), his articles can of course be used elsewhere on this page. -Darouet (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Your response to me above is a straw man (I have stated no opinion as to this writer's view) and does not address the editing issue we have come here to discuss. Please ensure that you do not misrepresent other editors views in the future. My statements here have been confined to the fact that Mr. Greenwald is not a qualified expert on foreign intelligence matters and that -- of all the writers whose opinions we might ultimately include in this article -- no editor has stated why Mr. Greenwald's self-published opinion should be at the top of the list. Please review WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was taking issue with your off-hand dismissal of Mr. Greenwald as an unimportant voice in these matters, showing if not your disagreement, at least your disrespect. In your own words, I believe he is much closer to a "most respected mainstream expert" than a "first journalist who states an opinion"… But we're drifting off-topic. — JFG ^talk 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why the fuck does this page have a new title every couple hours? — JFG ^talk 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG:} How much clearer do I need to make this. Your statement was personal disparagement, straw man argumentation, and disruptive. I have no opinion about Mr. Greenwald's opinion. There was nothing "off-hand" about my view. I didn't say he's not important. I have shown him no disrespect. His view was not sourced to a secondary source. As you well know, it's possible for a writer to be both the first to write X and to be the first one to self-publish X. Please stay on topic. You could contribute to this thread by responding to the substance of my objection, now stated in several places on this page. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, I had absolutely no intent to disparage you, I was addressing your apparent opinion of Mr. Greenwald's credibility or lack thereof about this page's subject matter. The substance of your objection is "I don't think Mr. Greenwald's opinion deserves to be quoted here" and the substance of mine is "I think it does." We happen to disagree, that's what talk pages are for. I do respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. End of story. — JFG ^talk 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald, writing in the Intercept is a WP:SPS. There's no reason to include it unless other sources comment on it extensively.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And the SPS policy says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Greenwald is indeed an established expert on the subject matter of government surveillance, influence peddling, information leaks and propaganda; his work has been previously published by "reliable third-party publications" called Salon, The Guardian and The Washington Post. The fact that he now self-publishes (with financial support from noted philanthropist Pierre Omidyar) does not in any way diminish his credibility. Ergo, SPS supports Wikipedia quoting him here. — JFG ^talk 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Intercept is an online publication launched in February 2014 by First Look Media, the news organization created and funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.[3] The editors are Betsy Reed, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. It is plainly ludicrous to argue that Greenwald's commentary is some kind of self-published blog post by a non-expert. Greenwald is obviously not saying Russia was not involved in the hack, he is criticizing the media whose standards of "evidence" have not changed since the colossal citogenesis around WMD "intelligence" in the runup to the Iraq war. The important circumstancial evidence in favor of of Russian involvement was summed up well by Ars Technica. Note how they don't list "CIA strongly suspects" as "evidence", in contrast to the lazy parroting of official sources that has virtually dominated media coverage in the US. But also note how in conclusion Ars argues: "WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.". This call to produce direct evidence has been echoed exactly by a lead article in the Intercept. Snowden made the same point very early on. Of course, within the standard propaganda framework, calling for evidence and accountability in response to allegations of a vast and venal conspiracy by the designated enemy is sacrilege (see FP's absurd whataboutism for an illustration): such a rash demand only serves to unmask you as yet another member of that same vast conspiracy. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Gucci-- You are entitled to your belief that mainstream sources are "propaganda" and you're entitled to your rejection of official US intelligence findings. However you are not entitled to deviate from WP policy of representing mainstream well-sourced content here and you are further prohibited from using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX for your personal opinions. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence may be soapboxing, but it's certainly not a fringe opinion or mine only. I try to pick softer targets next time, like decrying Putin's vast "propaganda machine" and its Trumpite lackeys. The rest of your objections are nonsense. There are no "official intelligence" findings for me or anyone else to reject. Nor do I reject the circumstantial evidence from security firms and political observers that points to Putin's regime as the source of the hack. I do reject presenting circumstantial evidence or "officials say (without evidence)" (only American ones, naturally) as largely-proven fact. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Failure to attribute assertions to sources

Intelligence agencies are massive and complex institutions, and what they "conclude" can be ambiguous even decades after events have occurred. These statements in the Washington Post and NPR:

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter." WashPo

and

"The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR." NPR

show that U.S. officials have told news organizations that the CIA has concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help Trump. That is what these sources say. We do not know, from these sources, what the CIA has concluded.

All assertions in this article should be properly attributed. Media organizations are not always neutral, and do not always use neutral language, etc., but at a bare minimum we need to be as cautious as they are. This is an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

They are attributed to the government officials. Are you suggesting that we have to attribute a reliable sources asserted facts to the reliable source, beyond a footnote citation?- MrX 19:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

U.S. officials are not neutral and reliable sources, they are U.S. officials, the same way that Russian officials are not neutral and reliable sources. The "fact" that we need to reproduce here is that anonymous officials have said that intelligence they've seen shows the CIA has reached a conclusion. The "fact" is not that the CIA has reached that conclusion. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been reported, as fact, that the CIA reached a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is correct is another matter altogether. While some sources say "...according the U.S. officials," etc., many others do not include any such hedging, merely stating that "the CIA concluded X":

PBS NewsHour: "Russia aimed to help Trump through hacking, CIA finds" (headline)

Associated Press: "The CIA has concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump."

LA Times: "the Washington Post reported that the CIA had concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government had authorized the hacking"

So I guess we could include a statement along the lines of "the CIA said X, according to senior U.S. officials, members of Congress, etc." But when a large number of very respected and reliable sources merely say "the CIA said X" as a factual statement — and where nobody has questioned the fact that they did, in fact, come to a conclusion — I am comfortable following the reliable sources here. Again, I stress that the statement "they came to a conclusion" is very different from saying "the conclusion is correct." Neutrality^talk 20:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Observation: 1) headline with agent sliced from content by MOS:telegraphic (stop) 2) the quotes in 'high confidence' are pretty snarky don't you think? 3) The LA times article says that someone else said that someone had concluded, all in the house that Stilson built. Each of these citation hedges in their own way. SashiRolls (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls is dead on.

PBS: "these actors who obtained this material and delivered it to WikiLeaks were described to us as being one step removed from Russian intelligence services as known entities... known affiliations with those Russian intelligence services, but nevertheless not necessarily specifically part of those services... [FBI] Director Comey, notably, did not sign off — at least publicly — on the letter that the director of national intelligence and director of homeland security issued in late October, accusing Russia..."

LA Times: "U.S. agencies believe they have identified who in the Russian government was involved in ordering operations to disrupt the U.S. election and how they were orchestrated. They are reluctant to make the information public because that could compromise how the intelligence was gathered, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "

The U.S. News story doesn't cite sources for its statements, but the article gives zero indication it has done independent reporting, and is clearly referring to news item reported everywhere else in the media: that anonymous U.S. officials have described a CIA briefing. -Darouet (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did RT (TV network) have anything to say regarding the aforementioned reports?

PBS NewsHour: "Russia aimed to help Trump through hacking, CIA finds" (headline)

Associated Press: "The CIA has concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump."

LA Times: "the Washington Post reported that the CIA had concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government had authorized the hacking"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made a post here, User talk:Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, because I think this is a very serious issue. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC) @Neutrality, Casprings, Sagecandor, and MrX: -Darouet (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "CIA said X". That's all there is to it. Any kind of spin on that is just original research. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. They say, "According to U.S. officials, the CIA said X." Removing attributions is just POV pushing, and bad, if not stupid scholarship. -Darouet (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding new info directly to the lead

Please, all, stop adding new info directly into the lead.

Instead, add it to the article body text, and then summarize it back up top in the lead.

This way, hopefully, the WP:LEAD will be a summary, not an article in its own right LOL.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop adding new stuff to the intro without first adding it to article body. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cut lede to first paragraph only

The first paragraph, as it currently stands, contains a concise summary of the article. I recommend we cull the last three paragraphs. BlueSalix (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom BlueSalix (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• The lead needs to be shortened, and there is some redundant content, but I would oppose simply removing entire paragraphs. It could probably be reduced to about three concise paragraphs and still summarize all of the major points.- MrX 14:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest one brief paragraph on claims (first), one brief paragraph on counter-claims, and one brief paragraph on the sideline spectacle of all this (e.g. the Russian spokeswoman claiming "the Jews" were responsible and Harry Reid saying there was a FBI "coverup", etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per MrX. Shortening, yes; wholesale axing, no. Neutrality^talk 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose especially at this early date.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, violates our Wikipedia guidelines of WP:LEAD. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Too many citations

Can we please try to limit it to no more than three citations per statement, at least in the intro? Sagecandor (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI position on Russian motives and involvement

Right now we state that the FBI believes Russia interfered in the US election, based on this quote from the Washington Post: "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official.".[8] We have other sources that cite the WashPo article: [9][10][11]. FBI officials may be convinced that the Russians are behind the breaches, and perhaps we can find older articles verifying this? But the statement of a single anonymous U.S. official on the matter should not be sufficient for us here to reproduce the statement's content as truth, instead of attributing it. -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I've lobbed off the last bit out of an abundance of caution and out of deference to you.

The current state of play as to responsibility (leaving aside motive) seems to be that the FBI did conclude that the Russians were responsible, and accepted the U.S. government's official statement that the Russians were responsible, but the FBI as an agency did not specifically and publicly say it. NBC ("As for the hacking, a senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News that there was no disagreement over Russia's culpability. The concern, that official said, was about 'naming and shaming' the Russians."); WaPo ("FBI Director James B. Comey advised against the Obama administration publicly accusing Russia of hacking political organizations on the grounds that it would make the administration appear unduly partisan too close to the Nov. 8 election, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. But he supported the administration’s formal denunciation last month as long as it did not have the FBI’s name on it, they said."); Business Insider ("The FBI, however — while agreeing that the hacking campaign originated in Russia — has been reluctant to align itself with the CIA and assign a motive to the cyberattacks.") Neutrality^talk 20:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Chronological order

Let's please use chronological order for the intro.

Please stop adding new info to the intro.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Will to Truth (talk · contribs) edits [12] and [13] seem a bit over-the-top direction. We should just state the facts in chronological order in the intro. Sagecandor (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extra wording in intro [14] not needed here. This is a summary. Sagecandor (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop? what is wrong with you? The lead does not need to be in "chronological order". In any article of any kidn, you state the most important conclusion first, then get into the details of chronology. Your idea is unsupportable, and perhaps you should stop editing this article. Will to Truth (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with me, thank you very much. Sagecandor (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we get rid of recent edits by Will to Truth (talk · contribs) [15] [16] [17] as they violate WP:LEAD, introducing new info directly to intro without first being in article body text. They also seem to violate WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Response I got at the user's talk page: [18]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Now Check User blocked. TimothyJosephWood 20:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone hasn't enabled strike through for blocked accounts in their settings, it's super useful if you hang around contentious articles that get a lot of vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's very useful.- MrX 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Do the following people/things need to be mentioned in the lead/article?

Re the following items that I've just taken out of the lead.

• Fact that Glenn Greenwald "disputed" report – I would exclude. Greenwald has no personal stake in this, nor direct involvement. Maybe his inclusion in the article is fine, but not the lead.
• Reid’s reaction (assertion of FBI cover-up) – I am inclined to exclude. This seems like a reaction that can be best dealt with in the body. Maybe in the lead we could have a generic statement about criticism of the FBI's approach from a variety of figures, but probably not Reid in particular. Note that senators other than Reid are more likely to have important things to say/do on this (McCain or Graham, for example, or whoever is leading the probably investigation in the next Congress.
• Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman’s anti-Semitic statement on Russian television – I would exclude because (i) it’s not an official statement and (ii) it’s not directly related to their involvement/denial of involvement. We should briefly mention the Russian government’s (official) denial of involvement in the lead, but the spokeswoman’s statement doesn’t belong.

--Neutrality^talk 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

One by one:

1 Yes - the Washington Post also has no personal stake but we cite their reports. We can't use the lede to construct a paradigm of guilt when there are RS voices that question that :premise. Frankly, how we have it written now - where the whole first paragraph is a parade of horribles that starts citing pronouncements of official state authorities, is extremely :NPOV and non-encyclopedic and reads like a press release from the ODNI Public Affairs Office. But, more ideally, the first paragraph should be something like this:

“ United States intelligence agencies have accused the Russian Federation of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a claim Russia denies. The CIA has suggested the alleged interference was done to help the presidential ambitions of then-candidate Donald Trump, though the FBI has disputed this conclusion. The claims and counter-claims have generated intense public discussion by media and political commentators with some, like Michael McFaul and Robert S. McElvaine, decrying the alleged Russian interference while others, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald, have questioned whether any interference actually occurred. ”

2 Fine with excluding.

3 I moved this to a "conspiracy theories" section. But we do need to include, it's important to include elements of the carnival side of news if it's widely reported in RS.

BlueSalix (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Greenwald - the Washington Post is news reporting. Greenwald is commentary. It's apples & oranges.

Re the Russian foreign ministry spokesman's antisemitic statement - I've dropped this from the article altogether, for the time being, because none of the sources tie it in any way to Russian interference/influence on the election. It's arguable that outrageous statements of this kind were designed to distract from Russia's role (I agree that this is "carnival" style maneuvering) -- but we can't conclude or suggest that on our own (WP:SYNTH). Is there some source that connects the statement to Russian influence/interference? Neutrality^talk 15:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, The Intercept is news analysis, not commentary. Oranges and Tangerines. But I'm fine dropping if we rewrite the first paragraph so it doesn't sound like a press release from Langley. No issue if we want to exclude the Russian spox CT. BlueSalix (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether we characterize it as news analysis or commentary, it's not original reporting. And I do not think that the first paragraph "sounds like a press release from Langley." It largely reflects that the Washington Post and others have reported. Neutrality^talk 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

#1 - LOL, it reads exactly like a press release. Every claim by the Valiant Defenders of Ol' Glory and Apple Pie (in this case, the wonderful people behind Salvador Allende and the Shah) is slapped up-front to set the narrative, classic churnalism style, while all denials and counter-claims are omittted or buried in one-sentence asides in subsequent paragraphs. The WaPo was covering what they'd had reported to them during a moment in time, which is fine - an encyclopedia needs to frame a larger picture that isn't tied to a flash moment in time. It's not a question of sources, we have them, it's a question of how do we prioritize them. My suggested opening paragraph is neutral and even. I mean seriously this ... "so and so, official representative of X-number of official agencies of the U.S. government intelligence apparatus, issued a formal ..." reads like a fucking boilerplate you'd pull off PRNewswire!

#2 - if we strip everything except original reporting then we're stripping everything except the WaPo because every subsequent story was a precis of the original WaPo report. Do we wanna go down that road? BlueSalix (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

#1 - It seems you're coming at this from a certain perspective, which is fine - but Allende etc. are really irrelevant here. We "prioritize" sources to reflect what's out there in terms of emphasis, breadth, depth of coverage. The Washington Post, etc., are reliable sources, irrespective of whatever beef we may have with their reporting. Our job is to report what the reliable sources say, and if they say "The CIA concluded this..." or "the FBI concluded that..." then that's what we put in. If we were going beyond the sources (i.e., writing "the CIA's conclusions are true" or "the FBI's skepticism is justified") then I would be alarmed. But the article does decently well in not doing this.

#2 - Generally, I do favor citing original reporting when possible, rather than rehashes from news aggregators or the like (This article, from the Hill, cited and I believe quoted in the article right now, is a pure rehash of WaPo that could be cut). I also note that it's inaccurate to say that "every subsequent story was a precis of the original WaPo report" - original reporting has also been done by the NY Times (example) and CNN (example), both quoting their own sources. Neutrality^talk 16:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Neutrality. I'd exclude Greenwald unless somehow it becomes prominent, as there's nothing that distinguishes him in this particular case from scores of other pundits. I'd keep Reid in the text not in the lede. The Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman comment I would also keep but not in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (The bloody page name changed in mid edit!) All of these names should remain out of the lead, per Neutrality. Opinions, commentary, and speculation by individuals does not rise to level of importance to justify including in the lead. I would support omitting them entirely from the article, but I don;t feel as strongly about it. Comparing the Washington Post's article with any of the commentary is like comparing elephants to Barbie dolls. - MrX 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• For whomever cares, the lead is currently fairly solidly out of compliance with WP:LEADLENGTH. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Been trying to work on that, Timothyjosephwood, but people keep expanding the lead without first adding to the body. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It looks like it's been trimmed recently, and the results aren't bad. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Darouet:Thank you ! That sounded an awful lot like high praise ! Much obliged ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Incidentally, why is an editor with 25 mainspace edits unilaterally moving this page twice in the same day? TimothyJosephWood 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this is "American politics post-1925" where the sockpuppet have sockpuppets? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Article title changed to "Alleged" interference

US officials and agencies have alleged that Russia intervened in the US election, and this is a known and accepted fact. Russia denies these allegations and whether they are true remains contested. Per WP:POVTITLE, I've moved the page to Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, because the previous title was an egregious POV violation. -Darouet (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

POVing the first sentence

Re [19]. Please stop. This edit is not based on any sources except one editors idiosyncratic opinion. And it makes the sentence factually incorrect since allegations of Russian interference were NOT first made in October, they were made as far back as March IIRC. The whole importance of what this article is about is that these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you understand the difference between "these allegations have now been publicly acknowledged by the intelligence agencies" (the wording you defend here at talk), and "2016 United States election interference by Russia was first acknowleged publicly by the U.S. government in an October 2016 letter from the U.S. Intelligence Community." [sic] (the wording you just wrote into the first sentence of the lead). The first sentence is defensible by sources, the second isn't. Let me know if you don't understand why these two statements are different and if I can help break it down for you. -Darouet (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding the first quote (yours) into the lead, as it's what we can actually state. -Darouet (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's still not good enough. "Acknowledged allegations" means that it "acknowledge that allegations exists". That's not what's going on here. They are affirming the allegations. Please change that to avoid 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The wording I used in article - which was there until you tried to POV it - is precise. My comment on talk was possibly imprecise, but that's because I naively expected it was easy to understand and it wasn't going to get WP:WIKILAWYERed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this page under 1RR? That was the wording you yourself said was backed by sources. If you want to change to "affirmed," I believe that's also justified. My computer's about to die so if I can't make the change, I think you're totally justified, and it wouldn't be 1RR. -Darouet (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's better but there is still no "alleged" in the sources, it's just you adding it up out of the blue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect what the best sources say, and is not that the Russian interference is "alleged". I believe the word the sources use is "concluded".- MrX 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. X

Office of the Director of National Intelligence has NOT endorsed CIA assessment that Moscow intended to help Trump get elected

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump "
— Reuters

This ODNI is, of course, the famed "Seventeen Agencies" we are constantly hearing reference to.

This goes contrary to much in the article and lead, namely that the allegations the Russians were attempting to elect Trump was a "consensus of multiple intelligence agencies" when it, evidently, is not. We also know the FBI does not buy into that theory either, so there absolutely IS no "consensus".

Yes, there are earlier cites from the NY Times which say this was all about electing Trump. However, this is a rapidly changing event and this article from Reuters just came out yesterday. This is yet another reason for use to stop treating Wikipedia like a newspaper.

I would like to remind those of us who have got it fixed into their minds that any Russian hacking must, obviously, be to aid Trump, that prior to the election, the buzz was that the Russians were going to hack the election not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos. Seems to me they may have succeeded in that. Marteau (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

We simply need to update the article as more or different information comes out in the sources. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. - MrX 13:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• The ODNI joined in this later joint statement: [20] Right now we have this as an external link; I'm thinking we should make this reference 1 instead because it is the clear well-considered statement that all the other sources since have discussed indirectly. Wnt (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

• Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane (December 13, 2016), "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.", The New York Times, retrieved December 13, 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane (December 13, 2016), "Following the Links From Russian Hackers to the U.S. Election", The New York Times, retrieved December 13, 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Detailed investigation by The New York Times, can be used in this article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Some really good details. Will be interesting to see how this page evolves as more details come Forth.Casprings (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and also The New York Times reports it wasn't just the Presidential election, there were attempts to influence Congressional races as well. Sagecandor (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies

Please notice that I have put this article under active arbitration remedies, see the top of the page. The most important restrictions are a 1RR restriction — no editor may make more than one revert per 24 hours — and a consensus requirement, whereby editors must obtain consensus here on talk before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Bishonen | talk 20:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

Honestly though, is it absolutely necessary to keep the move protection warning template? When I got here this morning there was a half page of templates at the top of the article, and now we're just creeping back. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not on this page but on the article — do you really see half a page of templates there? As for "keeping" it, Ks0stm put it there four hours ago. I suggest you appeal to him/her if you think it's unsightly. I must go, I see people are already querying my "arbitration remedies" on my page. (The real creep, in my personal opinion, are the wikiprojects. Quite pointless templates in 99 cases out of a hundred, thank goodness they've been collapsed.) Bishonen | talk 21:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

Well, this was getting fairly close. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, or perhaps MelanieN: Would one of you kind and talented admins please add an edit notice to the article so that editors can't claim that they didn't know about the restrictions? Like this: Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016. Here's where to put it: Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 United States election interference by Russia. Many thanks.- MrX 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've now created the editnotice as requested by User:MrX. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking

• Eric Lipton and Scott Shane (December 13, 2016), "Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking", The New York Times, retrieved December 14, 2016

Not just "presidential election".

So article title should just say "election" and not "presidential election".

Sagecandor (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the article that Russia is actually involved, why this isn't called a conspiracy theory?

I read the article, and found no facts proving Russian involvement. There are only various opinions, including of the "intelligence community" and the former Ambassador, but no facts. Is there a policy for labeling things "conspiracy theory"? What prevents wikipedia from saying this is a conspiracy theory? Yurivict (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's evidence. Please read a few sources before making such an asinine comment.- MrX 12:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Can you specifically point out a few sources that show the evidence to make it clear for User:Yurivict? Personally I can't see the evidence either, just statements from officials at the intelligence agencies saying it exists. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you have sources for particular evidence and facts, please create a separate section titled Facts or Evidence. Unless such section is present, I would strongly suggest naming this supposed election interference by Russia a conspiracy theory. Yurivict (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we get a lot of drive by editors that blurt out their opinions without reading sources or trying to actually help improve the article. Note that I said there was evidence, not that it was presented in the sources. For example, the article that broke the recent revelations says.

"In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals."
— Washington Post

If the specific evidence is released by the government, then I'm sure we will include at least some of it. Until then, we write about the facts that are relayed by our sources.- MrX 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Those facts being statements about what sources say they have seen, in this case. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" has been used as a derogatory and vague term, and I prefer to avoid using it 'idiomatically' in any article, including the ones people hold up as textbook cases. If a strong showing of sources using it turns up, sometimes I have to accept it anyway, since we follow the sources, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep their statements at arm's length. It only literally applies in some contexts like the JFK assassination where you can contrast it with a "lone gunman theory" in a way that is sensible.

By definition, any mass state action, like coups, destabilizing governments, or interfering with elections, is done by a conspiracy. By referring to some of these as conspiracy theories you'd be trying to say something else, but if that's what you mean to say you should say it explicitly. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In order to label something a conspiracy theory, one needs to show that is how it is normally described in reliable sources. I do not think any would label it one at this point since there is no publicly available evidence to prove or disprove it. TFD (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A detailed account of the evidence for Russian interference in the US election from a reliable source can be found here: Eric Lipton, Davis E. Sanger and Scott Shane (13 December 2016). "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S." New York Times. Retrieved 13 December 2016.

--I am One of Many (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It provides no evidence. It says that according to a DNC help desk operator an FBI agent told hin he believed a group called "the Dukes," which he believed worked for the Kremlin, was targeting the DNC. Later one or more staff at the DNC were tricked into providing login information to hackers. This type of hacking is low tech and anyone with a reasonable understanding of the internet would disguise their IP address to hide their identity. TFD (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably someone somewhere does. Who cares? We should not label it as a "conspiracy theory" because it's obvious that ~99.9% of RS don't call it that. But neither is it a fact, at least as far as the hacking stuff goes. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Without providing the facts this page is a wall of words documenting who said what. No reasonable person can derive any particular conclusion besides that there is a lot of noise made about the topic for some reason. A pretty useless article IMO. The very existence of the article implies that this is likely true, and then the content actually contradicts it by providing no proof, only a bunch of rumors and hearsay. Yurivict (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the issue raised in this section boils down to a semantic issue: the meaning of evidence. I realize that in the world of fake news and fake evidence, the interference by Russia in the 2016 United States election is viewed as a conspiracy created by democrats, intellectual elites, and aliens from outer space, but in Wikipedia, we mean by evidence, sources deemed reliable by the community. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yurivict - 'conspiracy theory' does associate to something voiced by a tiny fringe whereas this seems more a partisan framing or fable, so the title might have been better to use 'Alleged' or 'Suspected' since the matter is in world dispute and disregarded by many in the US including the future President. WP:NPOV would indicate that other views should be presented in WP:DUE weight of prominence, such as any voiced opinions of alternative explanations, suspicions of base motives for these allegations, and so on. If nothing else, the time line is a bit problematic since the DNI letter is immediately upon the Podesta leak (too fast) and specifies just one IC member which does not fit well to the general paraphrasing. But the article seems a bit plagued by hyperbolic excessive certainty and exaggeration which is perhaps just reflecting that's how the media runs ... meh. I'll suggest just follow the cites and check if the article fairly paraphrases the published situation. Surface what the countering opinions are and what weight they are due as appropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but discussing whether the allegation should be labeled a "conspiracy," when the title of the article declares that interference has occurred, is not a productive exercise. -Darouet (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why was "Democratic" taken out?

Under "Electoral College", "Democratic" was taken out. Why?. And the description of Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, was also removed. The source clearly describes the elector request as: "The request represents the latest effort by Democratic electors to look to the Electoral College as a possible bulwark against a Trump presidency." 11Eternity11 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek since you made this edit, I would like to know what issues you had with describing these Democratic electors as "Democratic electors" and stating that Christine Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's daughter? 11Eternity11 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not gonna waste my time on an obvious sock puppet account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You've gone too far. I'm not a sock puppet. Either apologize or I will take this up with admins. 11Eternity11 (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH

I have reverted two edits that made SYNTHy insinuations. Any sources that directly and explicitly express doubt as to the Russian interference should be presented and evaluated in policy-compliant manner, including as to RS, WEIGHT, and V. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that cherry-picked quote from McCain is both out of context, and obfuscates the overall theme of the source article which is that McCain wants an investigations while acknowledging that the Russian's interfered and it would not be out of character for them to try to swing an election.- MrX 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, best to stick to concrete actions currently being undertaken and simply state those as facts, with less emphasis on quotations in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you're not entitled to two reverts at this page (as you should well know considering your past efforts to get me blocked simply for making multiple edits to articles subject to DS, while never explaining what, specifically, was "reverted"). I agree with Sagecandor about moving away from quotations, but given the current strong emphasis on quotations it is important to make sure the nuances of the subjects's remarks are accurately conveyed; "the facts are there" is misleading when McCain candidly concedes there are few facts at present pertaining to Russia's motive. A note disclosing Morell's conflict of interest—it is quite unusual for a former Director of Central Intelligence to openly take sides in a Presidential campaign the way Morell did—would not be uncommon and would not constitute SYNTH unless we added a "therefore" clause explaining that readers should disregard his commentary. Finally, SPECIFICO, if you continue this pattern of only reverting edits by your "opponents" while vowing "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned," the WP:STALKING will catch up with you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

GRU

I think it is important to note somewhere that the hacking/interference was allegedly conducted by the Russia’s GRU military intelligence (hence the possible sanctions), as noted here and here. There are other military and intelligence organizations in Russia, but that one was specifically involved according to the publications. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

NYTimes summary

This "what we know so far" piece just published by the New York Times might be a useful source of citations and statements for this article.--DarTar (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a column and therefore not a reliable source, per "News organizations." Furthermore, one of the comments appears to be inaccurate: "Russian state media outlets have favored Mr. Trump and opposed Mrs. Clinton, but their reach in the United States is limited." Thom Hartmann and Ed Schulz backed Clinton. Larry King didn't seem to be pro-Trump and Lee Camp appeared to favor the Greens. I don't recall anyone backing Trump. TFD (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no such policy that says a column in a reliable source is not a reliable source. You disagree with the writer's general statement that "Russian state media outlets have favored Mr. Trump and opposed Mrs. Clinton", but offer no counter-evidence in the form of a reliable source that says otherwise.- MrX 14:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The policy, which I just provided a link to is "News organizations". (If you want to go to the linked article, move your cursor over the highlighted term and right-click on your mouse.) It says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I just named 4 RT presenters who did not support Trump, can you name any who did? TFD (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh you said "column", but you meant "editorial, commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". The column contains assertions of fact, not opinions or views. A person, even four persons, is not the same as a "state media outlet". - MrX 15:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That an opinion piece, including columns, contains "facts" does not make it reliable for those "facts." The policy says, "rarely reliable for statements of fact." All opinion pieces btw contain "facts." Your argument about RT support of Trump is that even though four moderators did not support Trump, and you cannot name any who did, we must assume that RT supported Trump because a source that fails reliability says so. That is circular reasoning. TFD (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that the "Russia and the U.S. Election: What We Know and Don’t Know" piece in the New York Times is a reliable source. The work is a news column (not an opinion column). It's a work of explanatory journalism, by Max Fisher, part of his column NYT: The Interpreter: "exploring the ideas and context behind major world events." Neutrality^talk 20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Neutrality. I have no idea how someone could possibly think that's an opinion column. - MrX 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

IOW it is analysis and therefore not reliable per policy. Note the column is called "The Interpreter." Interpretation is another word for analysis. Note too the titles of some of the articles: "Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy's Institutions" or "North Korea, Far From Crazy, Is All Too Rational."[21] Your approach is: "What we believe is a fact, what you believe is an opinion, what they believe is a conspiracy theory." TFD (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's explanatory journalism. It appears under the "news" section (specifically, "World") and not the "opinion" section. The article titles you quote are news pieces that discuss the views of political scientists ("Why scholars believe North Korea is rational"; "Political scientists who study troubled democracies abroad [say] ...]"). Frankly, this is not even a close call. Neutrality^talk 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked about it at RSN. BTW the articles do not report any news, they rely on news already reported and summarize and analyze it. TFD (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races

• "Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races, and the GOP played along", The Week, December 14, 2016, retrieved December 15, 2016
• Jason Stein and Mary Spicuzza (December 14, 2016), "Hacked material found its way into House races", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, retrieved December 15, 2016
• Tesfaye, Sophia (December 14, 2016), "GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report", Salon, retrieved December 15, 2016

Not just "presidential" election in 2016.

Multiple elections.

Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title.

Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP rationale for removing information regarding Seth Rich

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I hate to point out the obvious here, but BLP relates to information regarding living persons. So, using it as grounds for this edit is confusing to me. - Scarpy (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hence the edit was in full compliance with BLP because it was sourced to several RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, this should be considered when assessing Assange's credibility. I've recently added this info to Guccifer 2.0. I don't see this as BLP vio against Rich, since the edit did not lend any credibility — rather the exact opposite — to the insinuations by Assange and WikiLeaks. It's only unfair to Assange: we're noting that he's feeding conspiracy theories, but not commenting on the fact that disinformation is an important part of the CIA's job. So if we add the stuff about Rich back, we should probably add the unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory" from former CIA officer Glenn Carlee back also. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• There was and is an ongoing BLP discussion about this, including an RFC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich/Archive_3), and the article has just been protected again. It's still an extremely contentious subject. I'm not sure about this, but a BLP decision in the main article ought to be respected in other articles linking to it or mentioning its subject? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Basic problems in current lead

I know amid all the squabbling people lose sight of the basics, but the opening para is currently a repetitive, unreadable and misleading mess:

• The U.S. Intelligence Community first publicly affirmed in an October 2016 letter, its confidence Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections.[1] The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing seventeen intelligence agencies, in a joint letter with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[1] On October 7, the DNI and DHS stated the intelligence community was confident Russia had directed Democratic National Committee (DNC) cyber-attacks and the release of its private documents.[1] The report stated these acts were conducted in an attempt to influence the results of the U.S. election in favor of Donald Trump.[2][3][4]

The first three sentences basically say exactly the same thing. I understand the principle of gradually expanding in detail from an initial broad description, but this is hardly doing that. And in the fourth sentence, it explicitly says that the original October announcement asserted that the actions were aimed at favouring Trump, possibly because the reference to "report" has become misplaced amid mass editing (that specific claim of motive only came this month of course). None of the cited sources for the sentence justify the content of it, and all are dated to October. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the first instance of Trump placement, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the rest, strongly feel we should lead the intro with the October 7 joint-letter information. Sagecandor (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed a cherry-picked, misleading quote from the lead

In this edit, I changed the text so that we directly quote from the NYT text, instead of cherry-picking to include only parts that imply strong confidence in the analysis of old intelligence.

Here is the NYT paragraph in full:

"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."

Here is how the article characterized the source prior to my edit:

"This conclusion was based on significant circumstantial evidence before the election."

Here is how the article characterizes the source after my edit:

"This conclusion was based on what "many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments," obtained before the election."

I think we should consider including an addendum that the NYT also provided - that the "conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence." This is another qualifier and it is possible to paraphrase it. -Darouet (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Because, once again, you are misrepresenting the source by omitting the fact that the key point of disagreement is NOT about whether Russia interfered or not, but rather, what their goal was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I don't know what you're referring to.

Sagecandor I don't mind the paraphrase you've introduced, which more accurately reflects the source than our previous text. -Darouet (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

[22] by Darouet followed by [23] by myself. Glad we were able to work together collaboratively on this. Sagecandor (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted [24] Sagecandor's edit . The reason given in my edit summary was "Not supported by source. The source didn't say that the 'some' and 'many' were in the 'intelligence community' and didn't say that some 'doubted' the conclusion, but rather said not enough evidence for a firm judgement." --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the umpteenth time, the issue is how the info from the source is being presented. The way Darouet is trying to present it is as if there was a dispute about whether the interference by Russia happened. There is no such disagreement reported in the source. The disagreement presented in the source is about what the evidence says about the purpose behind the interference - where they trying to help Trump or just sewing chaos. In the source, where it says "This conclusion was based on...", the "this" is pretty clear in the context. But Darouet chops off that context to make it seem like "this" refers to something else. It amounts to misrepresenting the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you suggest an edit? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't see there was a discussion going on here. I already changed the wording back to Sagecandor's because it summarizes the source accurately and briefly: "The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome." - the conclusion having been stated in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article. Since the consensus here seems to be use Sagecandor's version, I'll leave it, yes/no? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you need to self revert your edit [25] which restored a change that Sagecandor recently made and was reverted. At present you're in violation of an ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDY, which could lead to you being blocked. There isn't consensus here for the version that you restored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(Moved from my Talk page) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) == Suggestion ==

Kindly suggest you undo yourself here until we can hash out an agreeable compromise on the talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this:

• This conclusion was based on circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election, while others in the intelligence community felt they could not come to strong conclusions.

Better wording for compromise to all ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• The evidence for the hack being directed or ordered by the Kremlin is also circumstantial (according to any sensible definition of the word). It does not mean it's wrong or improbable, but it's simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise. See Talk:Guccifer_2.0#Newsweek_vs._The_Intercept or an elaboration. I'm not sure we should use that exact word, but it's simply a fact that direct or even semi-direct evidence does not exist.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Guccisamsclub:Is my suggested wording okay ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's certainly OK in my opinion, because it describes the nature of the evidence presented so far (the CIA admits it has no specific direct evidence, although it has not presented any yet) and it is explicitly described as "circumstantial" in some sources. I think circumstantial works fine because it is not a POV-term like "speculative" or "alleged". Convincing evidence can still be circumstantial. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Great thank you Guccisamsclub good to hear we agree on this proposed wording. And probably over time more information will come to light as government officials make more things public on the record, hopefully. Sagecandor (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I modified the intro wording at [26]. Anyone else feel free to let me know and I'll modify it or undo it. Further suggestions on how to improve the wording would be appreciated. Glad Guccisamsclub and I could agree on this. Sagecandor (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sagecandor, No. it introduces more problems, in addition to those I mentioned previously. The source didn't say "intelligence community". You left out "overwhelming" from the source's phrase "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". You represent your first part as fact instead of opinion. Also, your edit modifies a previous edit that is a violation of an ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDY so that your edit may be a violation too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Phew this is laborious. Undid my prior edit, per talk page request by Bob K31416. Will propose alternate wording. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Guccisamsclub and Bob K31416:How about this wording:
  • This conclusion was based on significant circumstantial evidence gathered prior to the election; others felt there was not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions.
• Look acceptable now? Sagecandor (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• You probably want to attribute both, as the RS does. Nobody disagrees that the evidence is circumstantial: some think its "overwhelming", others dont. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Guccisamsclub and Bob K31416:Doesn't the proposed wording already say that? How would you change the proposed wording without using quotations from the article but instead paraphrasing? Sagecandor (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • • Re how to change the wording without using quotations – "It appeared to several American officials that the conclusion was based on circumstantial evidence obtained before the election and that many, but not all, believe the evidence to be overwhelming." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm okay with that wording by Bob K31416, Guccisamsclub, is that good with you ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Cool. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Volunteer Marek made a comment previously, which may need some clarification, and that editor may want to comment on whether this is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
              • As long as the text is not clear on the fact that the "no firm judgement" and "circumstantial evidence" refers to Russia's goal, it misrepresents the source (and is POV since it pretends that the issue of Russian interference itself is subject to controversy - it is not). You're not going to be able to present the exact context efficiently in the lede so we need to just omit this "firm judgement" quote from the lede and explain it properly in the body of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be corrrect that it's about just the goals aspect of the conclusions. I think your point is based on the opening paragraph of the NYT article[27],

"American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. But they had conflicting views about the specific goals of the subterfuge."

And I think your point is also based on the part of the paragraph about the opinion of several American officials.

"Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"American officials" is too vague. Could be anyone appointed to any office. Chairs of Chambers of Commerce, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:What wording would you suggest? Sagecandor (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"American officials" was the term that the source used. There was a little more specificity in the source that you might work with, which I couldn't find a good way of including, and here's the excerpt, "several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[Update: Volunteer Marek deleted [28] the edit of Darouet that we have been working on. This seems disruptive since the editor has been part of this discussion, and may be subject to discretionary sanctions, although it may not violate the specific ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Note that the newer version we have been working on can be added without any violation if it has consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)]

Not clear on what it is "you have been working on". There's one thing that some people want and another thing that other people want. Removing inappropriate text is no more "disruptive" than adding text when it is appropriate. Indeed, I believe my edit restored the original version before someone snuck the quote about "firm judgments" into the lede where it doesn't belong.

More generally, while of course it's not a fast and hard rule, having quotes in the lede - unless their meaning is crystal clear - is a bad idea. Quotes don't "summarize the article" as the lede is suppose to do. They are made within a particular context which you can't include if you're trying to be succinct - as the lede is suppose to be. And it's not that hard to use our own words and paraphrase. Which means that really, the only reason, why someone is trying to cram this quote into the lede is precisely because by doing so it can be divorced from the appropriate context and suggests something to the reader which is just not true. Which is more or less the essence of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are making good points, but you could've made the points and discussed them here before making the edit. As you know, discretionary sanctions apply to this article, and I would add that they have been applied to minimize aggressive editing of the article that may be disruptive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm pretty sure that quote wasn't actually in the lede until someone snuck it in there. The discussion above in particular appears to be about how to present the quote *in text*. So I think your complaint should be with the person who added it to the lede without consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm too busy with real life now to edit here at the moment. The full quote of the NYT explains itself. Here, Marek maintains that hedging language, uncertainty, or attribution as they appear in sources - that the exact language of the sources themselves - constitute POV pushing. I can't stop you from going down this road. I'll return to this article (and Wikipedia) when I have time. -Darouet (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not maintaining that. I am maintaining that presenting a quote plucked out of context is POV pushing. And misrepresenting sources. I've explained repeatedly EXACTLY why - you are trying to pretend that the "uncertainty" etc. is about whether Russia interfered. It is not. The "uncertainty" is about WHY Russia interfered. I've pointed out this literally like a dozen times and you haven't bothered to address it even once. You just keep repeating your assertions about "uncertainty" per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I lost track here. Been away for a few hours and don't recognize the second paragraph of the lead anymore. I was going to suggest replacing "American officials" with "U.S. officials", but that seems to be redundant now. Still looking for the edit by Darouet. Other stuff I've noticed: What does "...Russia facilitated Wikileaks obtaining..." mean? Three mentions of "conclusion(s) based on" but it's not clear what this is referring to, interfering, influencing, hacking, facilitating...? Also, a lot of U.S. official(s). I realize this subject is in its hot phase now, every news outlet is all over it, and editors will keep adding more stuff and sources, but does it all have to go into the lead (29 refs so far)? For starters, could these two sentences be combined: "A senior U.S. official said the conclusions were the consensus of multiple intelligence agencies.[10] This conclusion was based on evidence obtained before the election.[11]" to "A senior U.S. official said the conclusions were the consensus of multiple intelligence agencies, based on evidence obtained before the election.[10][11]"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And this sentence seems to put the cart before the horse: "A U.S. official said the FBI was uncertain as to motive, believing Russia was behind the attacks." Shouldn't that read, "A U.S. official said the FBI believes Russia is behind the attacks, but is uncertain as to motive." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Modified intro per talk page suggestions by Space4Time3Continuum2x at [29] and [30]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Selective use of quotes

Can someone explain why [31] this quote, from a "former British ambassador" to... Uzbekistan (who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons) is ok, but this quote from an actual CIA officer is not? And don't even try it with the "BLP vio". It's not. It's a direct, well sourced quote from a notable subject (unlike the Uzbekistani guy quote).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote from the CIA officer directly states that Trump himself was involved in this. It's a sketchy analogy at best, and definitely a BLP violation to assert that Trump started this "fire." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This quote was re-added today without prior consensus, so I just reverted. This is just a sensationalist quote, possibly humorous but hard to make sense of. Doesn't add value to the article. — JFG ^talk 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP note:"who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons". That's not really apparent from a cursory read of Craig Murray. It may be nominally true, like saying "Nikolai Bukharin got shot for being a Nazi agent," but it may not be whole story. Probably best to refrain—per WP:BLP—from making these insinuations when debating sources.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (Added indentation- see edit summary) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I put the retired CIA officer's quote in the "Commentary and Reactions - Former CIA officers" section and removed it again per another editor's advice. As for BLP: No, it's not (In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.)

I've also removed the quote of the Assange associate. Not even the journalist quoting him believes what he says, how is that for RS? I suggest we discuss the merits of both quotes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are editing under the premise that the substance of the claims has or has not been "verified", whereas the citation you deleted simply reports that various claims—including Murray's—exist. For some actual evidence, see this. Saying that Murray was fired for disciplinary reasons (wink, wink) without adding that he was fully exonerated is a BLP vio. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems with Murray’s actions in Uzbekistan, but he’s a public figure - I don’t think mentioning his removal from a - discretionary? - appointment would be a BLP violation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• RE Murray: His term as ambassador in Uzbekistan does not make him an expert on Russia or cyber - let’s call them - "activities", so the newspapers presumably talked to him because of his association with Assange. As for his opinion in this case, which is it: The official Wikileaks stance "nobody knows who Wikileaks’s sources are" or this (from the Guardian):

  Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

  “I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

  “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

  “America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either? (Murray normally isn’t that shy about naming names; he named one of Assange’s Swedish accusers on TV.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either?" Not really. To put it mildly, it is not clear the CIA have any direct evidence, nevermind actual names. Nobody in the CIA or NSA even claims they do. Multiple sources have argued that they should come forward with any evidence they have (if they have it), because to do otherwise is to invite future attacks. There are compelling national security reasons for them to come forward with evidence, and no clear national security reasons for them to drag their feet. Assange and (possibly) Murray are wikileaks insiders who claim to know the source. It is plainly obvious why they won't name that source. Russia would know for a fact too and they've denied it. But we all know the Russians can't be trusted (which is true enough), unlike anonymous CIA sources and US politicians, who are so "credible" that they don't have to argue their case or offer evidence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia would know for a fact, but governments would deny accusations of their espionage activities, otherwise it wouldn't really be espionage. It's entirely possible the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't reveal their evidence as it would mean disclosing their methods or sources. - Scarpy (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation

Hadn’t even noticed this blatant BLP violation. But of course! Now the Murray quote makes sense: "We know who the source is/are/is ("I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider.") but we’re not saying. Let’s just mention the name of the DNC staffer who was killed during an attempted robbery." Honi soit qui mal y pense. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Regarding Glenn Carle - it's an accurate quote, fully fully attributed in text to a noteworthy person (Carle), and cited in a reliable source (The Guardian article written by its national security editor). Since we are not making any assertion, since this is carefully attributed, and since it represents a noteworthy perspective, I can see no reason to exclude it. I certainly take issue with the implication that it's somehow "a BLP vio" to accurately reflect what he really said. I would be curious what specific provision of BLP others think applies. Neutrality^talk 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack

• William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Cynthia McFadden (December 14, 2016), "U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack", NBC News, retrieved December 14, 2016

New information from NBC News on personal involvement by Vladimir Putin in directing the covert operation. Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My word that article provides some great details. I need to find the time to help add some of this. Casprings (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't we at least pause for a few hours before inserting breaking news with the most far-reaching conclusions. Is WP a newsdesk now? (Side note: if they do a "leak" on Putin as payback, that will certainly be of huge interest and the best thing to come out of this whole scandal) My comment made no sense, obviously if the GRU did it, it stands to reason that Putin had to have beenpersonally involved. Nothing "far-reaching" about these breaking news. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is a topic with wide coverage, and NBC News is a reliable source. But Guccisamsclub I agree with you that in 10 years time the article may look different. Sagecandor (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a significant development, but it would be wise to wait for a couple of additional sources to corroborate it before adding it to the article.- MrX 02:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's attributed in the text in every sentence to NBC News. Sagecandor (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Found a second source, will add that also. Sagecandor (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

1. William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Cynthia McFadden (December 14, 2016), "U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack", NBC News, retrieved December 14, 2016
2. Pegues, Jeff (December 14, 2016), "More details on U.S. probe of Russian hacking of DNC", CBS News (video), YouTube, retrieved December 15, 2016
3. Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, James Gordon Meek (December 15, 2016), "Officials: Master Spy Vladimir Putin Now Directly Linked to US Hacking", ABC News, retrieved December 15, 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News each independently spoke to different U.S. and foreign intelligence officials who separately said Vladimir Putin was directly involved in the covert operation. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Roger. Just saw this: http://abcnews.go.com/International/officials-master-spy-vladimir-putin-now-directly-linked/story?id=44210901 Neec go update the next to show that. Not just one unconfirmed report.Casprings (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Already put it in the article and the intro. Top story now on Google News. Thousands of reports on it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Chen removal

Strongly disagree with removal of source Adrian Chen with this edit [32].

Adrian Chen is not being cited as a foreign policy expert.

He is being cited as an expert on online and social media.

He is a staff writer for The New Yorker and his research on Russian trolls has been widely cited.

This material should be added back to the article.

Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Scarpy (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this seems relevant. I should add that I value primary sources highly, and think it's worth pointing readers directly at https://longform.org/posts/longform-podcast-171-adrian-chen 35:14 to 35:54 (the source in the reverted text cites it but does NOT give the time, and believe me, it was no fun wading through a damn audio file looking for it!) The text quoted by Daily Beast is not the complete text, so let me fill in the rest (italics):

A very interesting thing happened. I created this list of the Russian trolls while I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don’t know what’s going on, but like, yeah they’re all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff. (Interviewer: Like American ?---? Who's paying for that?) I don't know. I feel like maybe it's some really opaque strategy of like, electing Donald Trump to undermine the U.S. or something, like false flag kind of thing. That's how I started thinking about all this stuff after being in Russia.

Now I'm not saying we should quote this but we absolutely should cite the primary source beside the secondary, because it's interesting to see what was actually said in December 2015, not a spin someone might put on it later. Wnt (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about source Townhall.com ?

Info was added sourced to Townhall.com [33] and again at [34].

As far as I can tell, this was parroted by "The Blaze" [35] and BizPacReview.com [36].

Is this a reliable source ? Is this WP:UNDUE WEIGHT ? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely none of them are reliable. Edward Klein (the writer of the Town Hall piece) is a tabloid/gossip writer "perhaps best known for his series of bombshell books spreading rumors and innuendo, much of it discredited, about the Clintons." (see Washington Post). He's also written a book promoting birtherism and other ridiculous fringe theories (see The Obama Identity). The Blaze and BizPacReview, which are also not well-regarded, merely cite to the Klein claims ("Townhall reported late Wednesday ..."; "... Townhall reported."). If this is at all legitimate, real sources will support it. BizPacReview is also on Zimdar's fake news list. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The first occurrence of the quote that "And Brennan takes his marching orders from Obama" is here - which is NOT claiming to have interviewed anybody themselves; like the Townhall article it simply gives a "fact" without saying where it came from. That article contains a quote "no credible evidence that Russia influenced your election" that goes back no further than itself. No cite, no cite is what I say to that. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Craig Murray

Any reason why he's being left out? Here's a recent source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html -- just wondering, don't have time for an edit war. Matt714 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The source originally cited was the Guardian, and there are other RS'. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Links? Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

He's cited in this piece. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report -- Also any authoritative discussions regarding the Daily Mail being an unreliable source on Wiki? It's frequently cited elsewhere... it's one of the biggest UK newspapers. Matt714 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ Washington Times Matt714 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the info. There appears to be no justification for removal besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears involved admin Volunteer Marek deleted the Murray content simply because some other quote he liked got deleted and he wanted to make a WP:POINT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I deleted it because it was undue. Though I did also point out the double standards some editors try to employ. Also, Washington Times is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the comment after it was reinserted. Tried to post the following earlier, but there seems to have been some glitch earlier which another editor kindly fixed. So here's the earlier text. There was already a discussion going here, so AFAIK the objectionable material cannot be reinserted before a consensus. I'm therefore removing it for the time being. Your argument appears to be "I think you're wrong", and the general consensus on the Daily Mail is that it's a tabloid that goes for the sensational and does not vet its sources, i.e., not a reliable source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no outright bar AFAIK on the Mail or Washington Times. There are certainly issues with both, and I'd certainly argue for usually avoiding the Mail (which, being from the UK, I'm more familiar with) but I'm not sure it's ever helpful to declare anything from any non-fringe source as automatically unusable without considering the nature of the content and the context. Also reliability is not really the issue here: Murray has undoubtedly made this point. All the sources concerned, and his blog, are reliable sources for the fact that he has said it. The issue is what weight to put on it. As for his comments versus those of the ex-CIA officer, one significant difference is that Murray's at least attempt to address the facts of the case and purport to add actual information; the Carle quote is just flowery polemic. I'd suggest Murray is probably a more notable individual as well (although still not that notable). N-HH talk/edits 08:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit got preempted by yours, apparently. Second attempt: I just read the Washington Times article (also not a reliable source). Their source isn't Murray, it's the Daily Mail article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As I say, I'm not sure blanket source bans are helpful, plus the issue is not sourcing as such, since we can be pretty sure Murray said this. However reliable the Mail and Washington Times are or not, they're not making this up out of thin air. That said, the above flags up another point, which is that the media recycle original sources and spend a lot of time basing their own reporting on what other media are saying, and/or are bascially reporting the same original announcement. Whether "multiple RSs are saying this" or not is often pretty meaningless. It attests to newsworthiness, but not much else. N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I also don't believe that the Daily Mail is making the story up, but I have several problems with citing Murray's comments in an encyclopedia article: The story hasn't been considered newsworthy by RS/major news outlets, and he is an Assange surrogate, i.e., a primary source (which may be the reason why the story wasn't picked up). As an aside: Why the sudden and conspicuous change from "nobody knows who the source is" to "we know him/them and met his/their representative"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(I just removed the Murray quote from 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak where it was given a very prominent position. Thought I'd add my comments on the other Talk page to this one, because the third time around my arguments were better prepared.) Murray is an Assange surrogate, i.e., a primary source. Anything he says needs to be looked at with a great amount of skepticism, especially this sudden and conspicuous about-face from "nobody knows who the source is" to "we know him/them and met his/their representative", suspiciously timed to come right on the heels of the CIA assessment on Russian involvement. I would have thought that any self-respecting reporter talking to him would have followed up this sensational development with questions. Yet, nothing, which is business-as-usual for the Daily Mail which is actually the source for the Washington Times. Also, "former ambassador" probably is supposed to make him sound like an expert; I don’t see how being ambassador to Uzbekistan makes him an expert on Russia or cyber attacks. Without any corroboration, his statement is given undue weight here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless some solid additional sources can be found to show that this is a noteworthy view, I think it should be omitted. The Daily Mail is notorious for their sensationalistic reporting, and the Washington Times will routinely cover anything, no mater how obscure, that furthers their ideological agenda. There are dozens of other news outlets that have a more neutral stance and a reputation for fact checking. Show that a couple of those have cited Murray and I will support including this material.- MrX 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX for the same reasons he expressed. Neutrality^talk 21:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the newspapers are the problem here, exactly. There are references from The Guardian, Daily Mail, and Washington Times all talking about what Craig Murray said, who was indeed a noted Assange supporter in 2012. Note that the Daily Mail was not aggregating content there (which they tend to do) but citing a communication directly between Murray and dailymail.com. I don't think it's plausible they're all lying and made up the story about how he got a packet of emails somewhere near Washington. I think it is plausible, but unlikely, that Murray made up the story, and I think it's plausible, even likely, that the person who delivered the papers to Murray -- "He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.", according to DM -- might have been in cahoots with the Russians or misled by someone in cahoots with the Russians. Getting a packet in Washington doesn't mean that the electronic mails started out in Washington; that's just a magician trick.

So our problem here is more to ask: is Murray relevant to the article, and is his claim relevant? A few papers think it is, and that bears weight, but how much? I'd lean toward including it because we shouldn't be gatekeepers, but make sure not to make too much of it. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt:Added with attribution to source, The Hill. Please see [37]. Sagecandor (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I just read it, and I'm still laughing ("Assange said sternly" - one of Joe Uchill's finer moments). Also love the aerial photograph of the "wooded area near American University" in the Daily Mail link - maybe NASA can provide the fly-by satellite photo at the exact time of the handover, for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But seriously, this one article and Assange's confused and rambling statements on Hannity (great source for unreliable, biased, and fake news) is given too much coverage in this article; I'll try to reword. Looks like he is attempting to do damage control on his connections to Russia, whether alleged or real, now that US intelligence agencies may release "hard copy" of the evidence they have collected; furious backpedaling on "don't know sources", disassociating himself from Murray, etc. I propose to remove the Guccifer stuff altogether; Assange knows as much or as little about it as anyone who has followed the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trying to come to compromise agreements with multiple people that want that info left in there, that's why I was glad to come across a good secondary source, The Hill, that described it adequately. Sagecandor (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I am proposing:

The Hill reported on December 15, 2016, that Assange said during an appearance on the radio program Hannity on the same day that while the leaks of Democratic materials provided to journalists at The Hill and Gawker could have been from Russia, he was "confident the emails he received did not come from the same source". He stated that Wikileaks’s source was not the Russian government, a departure from "a longstanding WikiLeaks policy of not making any comment about sources", according to The Hill. Assange further said that Wikileaks had received material on the RNC but had not published them "because they had already been printed elsewhere".

Since he disavows Murray's claims and Murray himself, I don't think the article should bring them up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it reads better without Hannity. But I still say that Guccifer and Murray need to go and maybe be replaced by the RNC stuff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight for consortiumnews.com ?

This edit [38] appears to create WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for source consortiumnews.com, which I'm not even sure is a reliable source here.

In addition with regards to the group behind the memo, this description is not encouraging: "an activist group which both farms out opinions critical of mainstream Republicans and sometimes peddles in conspiracy".

If this development has not been covered by multiple other independent reliable secondary sources other than the primary source itself [39] -- it should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur.Casprings (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While most of the text/diff was well sourced, the part sourced to consortiumnews.com should indeed be removed as based on a single primary source and essentially an opinion piece. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not the kind of source we should use for this article when there are many, many much more reputable sources. - MrX 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I removed it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Consortium News is basically a self-published blog specifically devoted to Robert Parry's conspiracy theories, such as the October Surprise conspiracy theory. Parry may have been a respected journalist once, but his credibility has all but evaporated—as several discussions at WP:RSN have affirmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above analysis by Casprings, My very best wishes, MrX, and TheTimesAreAChanging. Unfortunately, the poor sources were reverted back into the article at [40]. Sagecandor (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment gives undue credence to the AEI regarding Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Note that

• the drafters of the VIPS memo have excellent reputations: William Binney, Mike Gravel, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Elizabeth Murray (Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)), and Kirk Wiebe (former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.))
• AEI is well-known to be unreliably neoconservative, as noted by several sources including
  • The Nation: In 2009, AEI, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, received the contribution from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), Taiwan’s equivalent to an embassy. The think tank couches its hard-nosed advocacy of arms sales and trade agreements with Taiwan as a strategic necessity for the United States. “Withholding needed arms from Taiwan in the present makes a future conflict—and US intervention therein—more likely,” wrote AEI senior research associate Michael Mazza in an October 2011 article in The Diplomat. But AEI’s undisclosed source of foreign funding raises ethical and legal questions about AEI’s Taiwan-policy work.
  • Newsweek: It wasn't until the George W. Bush administration, when its strong neoconservative leanings lined up nicely with Bush's foreign policy agenda, that AEI again became prominent. But as Bush's neoconservative policies fell out of favor and a new administration took over, it was evident AEI still had not captured the insider-Beltway status that made Heritage so influential.
  • Slate: Outside of the [George W. Bush] administration, the chief fulcrum of neoconservatism is the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. The day after the Libby verdict, AEI held its annual black-tie gala at the Washington Hilton, and for some reason, they invited me. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances, it seemed possible that self-examination might be featured on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford's 1976 defeat, AEI took a right turn during the Reagan years and emerged under George W. Bush as a kind of Cheney-family think tank.
  • Vanity Fair: I had first met [Danielle] Pletka 12 years ago, when A.E.I., seen then as the intellectual command post of the neoconservative campaign for regime change in Iraq, welcomed another visitor from the East: Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, the purveyor of “intelligence” about Saddam Hussein that would later turn out to be bogus. The shift in emphasis seemed marked. It was always apparent that fulfilling Chalabi’s ambitions was likely to require a war.

AEI is not a "reliable secondary source," period. Tlroche (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We are in consensus here on the talk page that consortiumnews.com fails WP:RELIABLE. Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this consensus came about in 1:37 flat?! I agree with OP, and have brought another reference to the report (Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies (Princeton), husband of Nation co-owner Katrina vanden Heuvel: [41] I see you took the user to AE for this reasonable addition to an encyclopedic entry on this issue du jour. Discussion of Robert Parry has no bearing on a text not signed by him. SashiRolls (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on the user in question to obtain consensus, not the other way around. Sagecandor (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity is a reputable organization staffed by ex-CIA officers, so it certainly can be used if their letter is picked up by the mainstream press—Consortium News, however, doesn't cut it. I have no problem with the Business Standard source. Edit: The fine print says "This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed." So, no, that's still not good enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

They might have been at one point but that's like 13 years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Getting confused here: Is the current status of this discussion that VIPS should be allowed to be reinserted? Doesn't seem to be the case to me, but it's been reinserted by Tiroche. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC) These are the Russia apologists who say Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are uprisings by the local population with missiles that can take down commercial airliners - absolutely no involvement by Russia, except the occasional Russian soldier on leave? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's very clear that Tiroche doesn't care what other editors think, and policies be damned you slandervandals. Reported to WP:AE and WP:ANEW.- MrX 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Tlroche (talk · contribs) was blocked. Sagecandor (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• VIPS is now being covered by RT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  Of course it is, but that is not an independent source, and not such a reliable one either.- MrX 11:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Linkage to Russia Sub page?

Should we develop a subpage that details the linkages to Russia of Trump's business, his campaign, and his upcoming administration? The new secutary of state has deep ties to Russia, Paul Manafort advocated Russian interests in the Ukraine, etc. Numourous secondary sources cite this and it seems to be pretty unique.Casprings (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like an invitation for WP:CHERRY, at least at this point. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are folks making such connections [42] and we can describe these as a polemic, but we'll have to be careful to stick close to sourced material and not let everyone with a thought drop stuff in. I'm not convinced it needs a subpage at this point, and even a subsection might be hard to justify rather than merely a paragraph describing a few refs like that one above. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Sagecandor:'s reference list trumps anything I just said there, withdrawn! Keep up the good work. Wnt (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are a multitude of sources discussing this separate topic:

1. Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum (June 17, 2016), "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin", The Washington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
2. Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
3. Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
4. Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
5. Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
6. "Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
7. Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
8. "Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
9. Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
10. Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
11. Wasserman, Harvey (December 12, 2016), "Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated", The Huffington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
12. Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
13. Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
14. Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
15. Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs (November 1, 2016), "Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank", The Guardian, retrieved December 14, 2016
16. Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
17. Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
18. "Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
19. Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
20. Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016

Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No,obviously per WP:CHERRY. Why not make an article about Trump's tweets? Or HRC's "connections" to various foreigners? Or the myriad of other partisan junk hashed and rehashed ad nauseam during every election campaign? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Becauae the Russian government to support Clinton and multiple sources point to the importance of that connection?Casprings (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are using Trump's vague "connections" to Russia to imply that he is doing Putin's bidding. Of course Clinton has no allegations of this kind lobbed against her... none at all. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of these source seem to be speculating and I don't think that makes for a good foundation for a new article. The subject could probably be covered in summary form at Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump.- MrX 12:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the difference is the amount of connections and the elections. If one reads this article, a logical thing to want to know is, what are the connections within his administrationCasprings (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Graham: Russians hacked my campaign

• Blitzer, Wolf (December 14, 2016), "Graham: Russians hacked my campaign", CNN (video), YouTube, retrieved December 15, 2016

Article title should NOT have "presidential" in it. NOT just "presidential" campaign, covert operations impacted multiple other U.S. elections. Sagecandor (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you need much more source material for that suggestion. Also, if there was such a Wikipedia article on elections, the presidential part of it would require an article of its own anyhow with the same title that we presently have. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that the current title is what you're suggesting. So I'm not sure what we're doing here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Media section

The whole media section should be deleted from this article. It reads like play-by-play color commentary from the press booth. It's a grab-bag if intramural press shop talk, propaganda, self-interested denials, and other recent, dubious, and cherry-picked opinion that does not relate to the substance of the events or their significance and veracity. I considered deleting the section, but decided to raise it here on talk first. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Third party commentary adds very little to the essential understanding of the subject. It sort of turns the article into a WP:COATRACK.- MrX 14:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This whole section is poorly written and should not be there. This reads like a list of claims and counterclaims, without adding any factual info. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This at least convinces me I'm not entirely off the mark on this, so I will delete it and then if any of the content should be reintroduced, we can discuss and achieve consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Normally I would say keep this section, but I can see how it could have the unfortunate potential to become used as a vehicle for POV pushing from both sides. Therefore let's just keep the article to less commentary and more events. Just the facts. Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI backs assessment that Russia was trying to back Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Article should be updated.Casprings (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Added. Now we have an actual quote from a named-official. Sagecandor (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Good. Wish I wasn't on my phone so I could help. However, we should also take our unsourced statements that they did not agree with assessment. If this is the best info from a named source, we should go that.Casprings (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Official named-sources, and especially higher-ranking ones like the Director of the CIA, overrule those other ones. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is based on propaganda and should be deleted.

Just like it says, this article is based on nothing. There is no credible evidence that supports any of these claims. They are all hearsay, and would not be admissible in a court of law. They should not be treated as credible. It is highly contentious, potentially libelous, and breaks many of WP's own rules. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No it is based on statements by the intelligence services. That is rather more then some other conspiracies right now being peddled.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Contentious is not and should not be reason for deletion. Political controversies are inevitably contentious. Libelous is a different question - because there are some benighted realms where even truth is no defense against libel, you never know about that. But Wikipedia has operated according to the hope that if people cover what reliable sources say, and simply say what has been said, that is truth and not libel. And that's worked for Wikipedia. As for WP rules... I'm sure there are people who have filed complaints about this and that, and we can see how it sorts out. But there's no obvious reason why Wikipedia should not cover a major political issue simply because it is tentative. I mean, the U.S. has gone to war based on even weaker intelligence than this... often... so we shouldn't just ignore it. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of KGB experience ?

An intelligence official explained to Reuters that due to Putin's prior experience as an operative for the KGB, he maintained tighter control over Russian intelligence operations.

KGB experience of Vladimir Putin seems directly relevant to the covert operations. Was removed here [43], with edit summary: "as chief executive, it seems implicit that Putin would ultimately be responsible for all the Russian government's actions"

No, it would not have been "implicit", as some chief executives are micro-managers, and some are not.

Can this go back in the article? Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely go back in. It's quite relevant information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Quotefarm

This article is filling up with quotes and remarks that aren't of any real, lasting importance to the subject. I suggest that WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTNEWS be reviewed. The subject is notable beyond question but the article could probably be a lot shorter than it is. Try to think about we know now that some reader would find useful ten years from now, and that's what should stay. Also, generally try to avoid quotes entirely unless the meaning of a statement is ambiguous. That's an important difference between encyclopedic and journalistic writing styles. Since most of the sources are written in the latter, there's always that temptation to imitate it here. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, will do. Sagecandor (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree. Copy tends to improve once the information coming from sources starts to stabilize. I say that having just added a short quote to preserve the exact meaning in the source. The article can definitely benefit from more copy editing.- MrX 20:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Removed a lot of quotes. Sagecandor (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think quotes are very important, but their importance depends on how close the person is to the event. If we're writing a section about what a particular person did, I want him quoted at length because a quote is what it is - it can't be spun one way or the other. It nails down what we're talking about. But if you're quoting what the editorial of some random newspaper or a commentator on TV said about the event, then that's a lot more dubious, unless that editorial was so important somehow that other newspapers reported on it as a news item in itself.

Anyone considering WP:NOTNEWS should actually read that policy, because it is misapplied ten times for every once that people follow the meaning. The meaning is simply that we write about this the same we would if we were covering the events later on in time. We don't emphasize or deemphasize current news, but look at it like any other data available to us. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It's significant to report what Obama, Trump, Ryan, McConnell, and some sundry intelligence people think. I'm less sure that it's significant what Susan Collins and Evan McMullin said about it. And once we get that, not everything they say on successive days has to be included. ______ said ______ on December ______ makes up a substantive proportion of the article, with the word "said" occurring 53 times. Of course this is a judgement call, to be determined by consensus. Geogene (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Susan Collins sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Evan McMullin is both a former CIA officer and former presidential candidate. Sagecandor (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

McMullin is not significant. Lots of people ran for president last month, and lots more people work at the CIA. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

He's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Lots of people who ran for president last month are not, and lots more people who worked at the CIA are not. He is both. Sagecandor (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't dispute that he's (easily) notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. But that notability stems entirely from his having run for president last month, and little or none from his former career in intelligence. He more recently worked for Congress, but this does not necessarily make him a go-to expert for articles about Congress. Geogene (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But it does as a go-to expert for articles about the CIA and intelligence. Sagecandor (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: One of the weird pieces of advice given in books about writing is that you can never use "said" too often. They warn rookies not to get tied up in knots looking for a new synonym like "retorted", "barked", "responded", "declared", etc. every time - just tell the story. True, that's typically about fiction, but I think it serves here also. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

R.N.C. and D.N.C. abbreviations?

We need consistency. Should it be R.N.C. or RNC? We're using both, and unless we're quoting, we can choose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just RNC and DNC. Will save space that way and make things uniform throughout the article. Good point, thanks for bringing this up. Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think political organizations generally lose the periods: NRA, ACT-UP, CIA, SLA, PLA, whatever. You generally define it in parentheses after spelling out the full name in the first usage/link, so the audience is directly instructed. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sagecandor (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

WSJ: "Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers"

"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion. ... The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn't necessarily conflict with the CIA's conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats. ... But the fact that they failed doesn't mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don't harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future." It's sure looking like this article is going to need a revamp real soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Per Casprings above, now that we have named-officials on the record, best to give preference to those over unnamed sources. Sagecandor (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we have more than this one source? There are multiple sources which say that the RNC was also hacked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election. Hmmm, we very well might have to revamp it though perhaps not in the way you expect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

WORLD WIDE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW IS MISSING BUT WEASEL WORDS ARE PLENTIFUL

WP:Neutral point of view.

To be considered ethical then this article needs to reflect a world wide point of view. Not only does the article need expert opinions of American Intel agents to provide evidence, but per Wiki guidelines this needs to allow Russia and other countries to weigh in on the alleged phenomenon. Anything else is not in keeping with the standards that wikipedia has set.

Wikipedia also demands that weasel words be removed from all articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:F194:899C:1151:B7BE (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please present some sources that you believe we have overlooked that represent the world wide point of view that you believe is missing. Which of the article's 4656 words do you think are weasel words, and why?- MrX 13:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the 2016 in the title?

I don't think know of any other interference. Why have the 2016 in the title. A title that simply read United States Election interference by Russia would be shorter and better. Casprings (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that it was (as far as we know) only in 2016, removing the date will imply it has happen ed before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the year in the title, especially in light of similar events in other years like as per Reuters, "Russian hackers seized control of the Pentagon's unclassified email system in 2015", which could also deserve its own separate article now. Sagecandor (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping the date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I also think it is necessary to keep "2016" in the title to differentiate when this actually happened, as compared to other hacking events during other time periods. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Obama seems to think it may have happened before. He has ordered a full review into hacking aimed at influencing US elections going back to 2008. Marteau (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is a history, it seems like even a better title. Where else would that information belong? Casprings (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?

Navbox removed [44] with edit summary: (Article is not in navbox).

Article seems directly relevant to topic of the navbox.

Does article have to be in navbox to have the navbox on the page ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I will say though that I have seen JFG remove links from nav boxes that, in my opinion, should not be removed. I don't think that's the case here though.- MrX 00:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It would seem the navbox {{Donald Trump}} is directly relevant to this page and should be included. Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, is it relevant to {{Hillary Clinton}} then? {{Democratic Party (United States)}}? {{Central Intelligence Agency}}? Can't put it everywhere… — JFG ^talk 01:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly if we include this one we can also include the first one you mentioned, yes. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I like to keep navboxes cleanly organized and on point. I have no strong opinion whether this particular article should be in the {{Donald Trump}} navbox. I do think it should be in the {{United States presidential election, 2016}} navbox though, will add now. Not so sure about {{Hacking in the 2010s}} because the security breaches now attributed to Russia are already mentioned there (DNC and DCCC). — JFG ^talk 01:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatant SYNTHESIS

Tump's transition team dismissed the CIA's conclusions, stating: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." @SPECIFICO: edited Wikipedia to read: "The statement falsely said that those at the CIA who concluded Russian interference in the election, were the same individuals who asserted in 2003 that Iraq leader Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction." As evidence, SPECIFICO cited this 2015 interview with Michael Morell, which has nothing to do with Trump or allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election but in which Morell acknowledges "the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence" on Iraq's WMD. SPECIFICO's edit is synthesis and original research of the crudest and most blatant variety, and needs to be reverted immediately. Note that SPECIFICO is not even good at this: Morell briefed President Bush on Iraq, and then became Director of Central Intelligence under Obama, so citing him only reminds us that the CIA hasn't changed much since 2003—while Morell's admission that the CIA intentionally lied in the past is only likely to reinforce Trump's claim that we should be skeptical of the Agency's conclusions. The thrust of Trump's argument relates to the CIA's long history of institutional intelligence failures—from the Iranian Revolution to 9/11—but if SPECIFICO wanted to nitpick the literal meaning of Trump's statement, then they should have cited Glenn Kessler: "Trump's complaint about this semi-ancient history is a bit odd because a) the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior; b) the intelligence collection for hacking in the United States by overseas powers would be different from assessing illicit weapons programs in the Middle East; and c) reforms were put in place after the Iraq War to make it harder for suspect intelligence to bubble up to the top ranks without careful scrutiny." (Because this type of editing is typical for SPECIFICO, SPECIFICO's actions need to be scrutinized much more closely than they have been—not because SPECIFICO is a POV-pusher, but because so many of their edits display such an obvious lack of basic competence).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No need for the ad hominem here in comment above, can just stick to content without discussing individual contributors. However, we would need a secondary sources confirming "falsely", rather than doing our own research here. That part I agree on. Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

::If SPECIFICO didn't have a long record of comparable behavior—all under the aegis of "clarify" or "conform to cited source"—I wouldn't raise the issue. At this point, however, it is certainly a very real concern that SPECIFICO cannot be trusted to accurately convey what sources say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that. WP:NPA and ad hominem. Suggest you strike the comments relating to a particular editor with <s>strikeout code</s>. And focus on the content complaint, itself. Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to FallingGravity for fixing this, using Kessler instead. I'm glad this was resolved quickly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:2nd time: Suggest you WP:REDACT the unneeded WP:NPA, above. Sagecandor (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Seconded. Retract the personal attacks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: No need for this.Casprings (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has previously alleged that I "lack ... emotional maturity," engage in "mansplaining," promote "paranoid conspiracy theories" (over an SPI, of all things!) and am "obsessed with animus and revenge"—and that's just the tip of the iceberg—all under the guise of examining my editorial conduct, and while emphatically denying that any personal attack occurred. I've kept it much more civil than that, but I think the same rationale applies. I'm warning SPECIFICO that from now on I will be making a list of these kinds of edits, and if the list gets long enough, I will be pushing for another topic ban to complement SPECIFICO's Mises Institute topic ban. That said, I have stricken the comments above—while still fully endorsing them—to keep this talk page focused on the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:3rd time: This article's talk page is not the place for this. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you are called out for WP:NPA, please don't respond with yet even more ad hominem. This talk page is for suggesting ways to improve this article, without referring to individual contributors as the vast majority of the comments. Sagecandor (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're the one sucking us deeper into this quagmire; I just wanted to warn editors to be vigilant. I certainly shall not be responding here again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You've now mentioned an individual contributor's name thirteen times, in a discussion that could have taken place without one. Sagecandor (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

bipartisan letter issued on December 18 ?

This change says "bipartisan letter issued on December 18" ?

The letter was released on December 11, seen at http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election

Was there a 2nd, newer bipartisan letter ?

Or is The New York Times referring to the first one, and there was no 2nd one on December 18 ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see I am mistaken. New, 2nd letter: Schumer joins McCain in call for independent probe of Russian hacking. Trying to find an actual copy of the document itself on a .gov site. Sagecandor (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Full text of the 2nd letter [45]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, this is a second follow-letter. Neutrality^talk 05:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah cool thanks no problem. Sagecandor (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening change

Strongly disagree with this opening change [46].

The intro should be at least a good three or four paragraphs, judging by the length of the article.

It should concisely summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD.

This was way too drastic. Sagecandor (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am cool with that. I just think it is too long and you don't need a blow by blow of dates. What key facts do you think are missing now? Casprings (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could self-revert it back and we can trim it down from there? Sagecandor (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you care if we got one other editors thoughts? If they think it should go back, I would be happy to do so. Casprings (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of the excessive number of dates and excessive blow-by-blow. But I do think the lead's reference to "interference" is a bit oblique; we should be explicit in saying that the mode of interference was primarily the cyberattack and leaks. I also think Putin's putative role is worth a short mention. So a version intermediate between the long and short versions would most appeal to me. Neutrality^talk 05:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy edited intro, trimming dates and blow-by-blow, and keeping Putin role, as intermediate version. [47]. Better? Sagecandor (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this looks way better. Casprings, are you amenable to this? Neutrality^talk 18:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This article title mis-frames the issue

Given that the election itself is the casting and tabulation of votes, the title is misleading. There's been no allegation and no proof that the tabulation of votes was interfered with Russian actors. Nor has there been any proof offered that voters themselves were coerced or bribed by Russian actors. Thus if there was interference, it was only in the destabilizing of the pro-Hillary MSM media narrative. And yes, that took place in large measure because of the WikiLeaks publications of the Podesta emails. But those email leaks have been attributed (by Julian Assange and other knowledgeable persons) to disgruntled Democrat persons. Thus, the entire premise of the contention that Russia "interfered" with the USA election is a MSM-driven fabrication aimed at helping Democrats recapture a media-driven framing of the materiality of what's what. That narrative broke down in 2016 via a combination of Red State voters flooding independently to social media, the effectiveness of Trump's tweets and rally(s) and also, the WikiLeaks revelations. And these points being true, it's not honest to say that Russia "interfered" with the election. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

'Election' is commonly understood to mean more than just vote tallying. It encompasses the entire process in which Russia tried to interfere by stealing and revealing information to shape public opinion against one side. To call it a fabrication of the main stream media is profoundly ignorant. In any case, articles are based on reliable sources, not the original research of editors.- MrX 13:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If the True Believers of the 'Russia did it' narrative were to be intellectually honest (a prerequisite for choosing a valid portfolio of reliable source citations) they would have to admit that the word "interference" is being used by biased actors in the MSM and Beltway crowds to suggest that whatever may have taken place, a) it's worthy of a penalty and b) it achieved its intended effect illegitimately. But so far, the only things which have been alleged (with no release of fact-based government documents proving it - only surmises/contentions) is that Russia's assistance to certain "hackers" resulted in true information about the inner workings of the DNC's illicit activities and also, truth about the HRC campaign's additionally objectionable activities. So by calling it "interference", we are suggesting that the American voter is so stupid that they would otherwise have been led my the nose to vote Hillary, were it not for these leaks. Myself, I would call this article "Allegations of Russian-led improprieties during the 2016 USA presidential election cycle". But that's just me, being a stickler for accuracy. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Cites?- MrX 13:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be mention of the recklessness of the DNC and Hillary Clinton that contributed to the hack taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.211.52 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you can find sources to support that claim.- MrX 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So if someone breaks into your house but does not do anything that is not interference with your doors?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless the gmail security mechanisms were defeated by an invisible "hack" then there would be proof that Podesta's email was "hacked" into. But given that there's not any facts about that in the news reports - only off-the-record 'conclusions', semi-official generalizations and MSM finger pointing, then by the preponderance of the known actual facts, which are a) it's Podesta's actual email, b) it came from gmail and c) it was passed to WikiLeaks, unless we're drawing unfounded inferences or taking sides in a partisan battle; there's not enough actual information in the sources being cited for a reasonable person to conclude against the most authoritative source, which is Assange and WikiLeaks itself. And he says he knows where the leaked emails came from and it's not the Russians. Why are we not giving that fact enough weight here? Assange's assertion is a fact and he has very high credibility on this point - much more than any of the chattering class in the MSM or the Beltway operatives who are pushing the 'Russia did it' narrative. The single most authoritative source says that Russia did not do it. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact he says they did not pass him the information, it is not a fact they did not (only his claim). And the claim they did come from US intelligence agencies, and their quoted statements.Slatersteven (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the initial version of the "Russia did it" theory was that they had hacked in to voting machines and would switch votes from Clinton to Trump. TFD (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Source? Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

TFD - I think that was one of the initial concerns being bandied about by the press before November 8th election day. But as Pres. Obama said in his final press conference (Dec. 16), there is no evidence that voting machines were hacked or tampered with. So the later conclusion is there is no evidence to support compromised voting machines. I also agree that Assange's claims does not hold water when compared to statements by a large number of U.S. intelligence agencies, which is supported by reliable sources. Assange is not the single most authoritative source. Especially when his policy and WikiLeak's policy is to never reveal their actual sources. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter what Assange says. The reality is that no one has seen the intelligence information, so there is no independent assessment of its reliability. It could be that they know Putin was behind the hacks because they have hacked into his email and are wiretapping his phone, which they did with Angela Merkel. TFD (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. Sagecandor (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this section started with an off-topic matter that needed to be addressed. And I am not seeing anything here that is off-topic that doesn't need to be discussed. These are concerns that are out there - some people don't believe the mainstream press concerning the intelligence reports, hacked or tampered with election equipment is a current concern being discussed in the current news cycle - including Obama's speech, and some think Assange's recent denial has credibility. This is all related to the 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Just because my view is - reliable sources accurately reflect the intelligence community's conclusions and that Julian Assange cannot credibly deny or confirm any source - this does not prevent other views from being presented. I haven't seen that happen since I have been on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?

With this edit [48] - is Newsmax.com a reliable source ?

Not seeing this info picked up by other sources ?

Can this be removed ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed by Geogene at [49]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's back; per DS. But to answer your question on reliability: hell no. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Geogene, it should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Non-RS.Casprings (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree and have removed. The Newsmax piece was based on the same claim by Edward Klein that also circulated on TownHall and similar unreliable sites. As I wrote in a talk-page section earlier up the page, Klein is not a reliable source for factual statements like these. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The Newsmax article was written by Ed Klein. Note that Klein is a columnist not a reporter for Newsmax hence it fails reliable sources. Some editors have argued that this type of column is an exception because it is a "news column," not an "opinion column." Note too that although it is not clear at first, Klein uses the expression "according to sources." If we accept it as a reliable source then we would have to be clear about that. TFD (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Newsmax is only reliable for its own opinion on its own article. It's "full blown right wing conservative bias." They are extremely partisan and in the same class as Breitbart, Infowars, and the Drudge Report. Their content borders on fake news, but done deliberately through extreme media bias. They really believe this stuff, and it can cost lives. They use the language of legitimate media, but without any type of fact checking that any real fact checking source would find reasonable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, Media Bias/Fact Check does not appear to be a reliable source. It says by the way that Wikipedia is more reliable than the New York Times, which of course is the logical conclusion of their methodology: that the farther away from U.S. political orthodoxy one is, the less factually accurate one is. Media bias however differs from inaccuracy. It has to do with what issues one highlights and there is no such thing as unbiased media in that all media decide which stories to cover based on political interest. TFD (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree newsmax is not a reliable source, it is not because they are "conservative" or have a bias. A source's bias does not disqualify them, nor does the fact that a source may be partisan. Per WP:BIASED "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." That a source is "conservative" does not disqualify them, and your use of the term as a pejorative or as grounds to disqualify them only serves to reveal your bias. Marteau (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears that they're working in a new feature "Factual Reporting" which better reflects our WP:RS. As for the site itself, the only legit coverage I've found is The Daily Dot, which just mentions its Chrome extension. The best place for further discussion is probably the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. ^Falling_Gravity 02:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that Newsmax is not a reliable source, however the MBFC website is just as bad. For example, they list IFL science as an unbiased, thoroughly researched outlet that reflects scientific consensus. The truth is, IFL science is rather notorious for their credulous, speculative treatment of scientific discoveries, presented under wildly speculative headlines and often flatly wrong headlines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Before yall rail against Newsmax for not asking for talking points from the DNC, they noticed the contradiction the next day. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/james-comey-james-clapper-russia-help/2016/12/16/id/764397/ Also it's possible Brennan is also spreading fake news.Lumbering in thought (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "alleged involvement"?

Since no evidence was provided for this particular conspiracy theory ? I also note that the article is highly biased towards one side here, without any criticism of lack of evidence to claims by supporters of this theory in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clearly cited and represented. There is evidence to support the statements and that is given.Casprings (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a theory; it's a conclusion. The CIA is not going to provide evidence to the general public. If you can find reliable sources that present another "side" (other than team Trump's apparently uninformed criticism of the government that he's about to lead), then feel free to add that content to the article.- MrX 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is an allegation made by the Washington Post based on an anonymous Obama administration official saying that was what the CIA told them in a briefing. That hardly makes it an objective fact. Marteau (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a conclusion made by government officials reported by The Washington Post. It's right there in the lede of the the highly-cited Washington Post article in case you would like to read it.- MrX 17:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sagecandor (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

From WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

This this case, US officials have alleged or accused the Russian government of interference in the election. "Wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." This is the context that the words alleged and accused were created for. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that applies. And of course something being a "conclusion" doesn't prevent it also being an "allegation". It depends who's doing the concluding and what they're saying. The CIA is not a court of law. Nor indeed a body without its own agenda and own history of, let us say, interesting activities and propagation of outright falsehoods. N-HH talk/edits 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no (U.S. recognized) court of law that adjudicates whether one sovereign power attempted to influence another sovereign power's presidential election. The CIA is tasked with figuring out whether it happened, and Congress and the President are tasked with determining what to do with that information.- MrX 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.
• Joint statement from both Republican and Democrat Senators on the Armed Services Committee. These statements are quite clear. And notable for their authors in each and the joint authorship on each. To say, at the very least, "involvement" or "influence", is backed up by such conclusions from the bipartisan authors. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX, Sagecandor, and N-HH: The CIA has many tasks, among them the overthrow of many governments in the last 65 years, and the propagation of disinformation to cover up these actions (as many CIA agents have later testified). The CIA is not a news organization or an encyclopedia, it's a clandestine intelligence service, and that's how we should approach it when noting any public statements it produces.

Furthermore, the existence or lack of existence of a neutral body to adjudicate allegations of election tampering from Russia cannot lead us to proceed from the wildly speculative assumption that any accusation should be considered true unless proven otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we go by reliable secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• "CIA’s primary mission is to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist White House, the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security." If that is what they do, it is notable that the CIA told both the White House and Congress that Russia tried to influence the US election. They would be the agency responsible for knowing that information and providing that information to policy makers. The fact that they did so and it was reported by WP:RS is extremely notable.Casprings (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What does this have to do with Sagecandor's linking to official U.S. statements as proof that Russian involvement is known, and not alleged? -Darouet (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The article attributes the conclusion to the CIA, as it should. Readers have to decide on their own whether this is part of a disinformation campaign by the CIA, or if the CIA have actually found evidence implicating the Russian government in election tampering. If we use the best sources—those with a reputation for fact checking and objectivity—then our job is easy: present readers with the best information available, from a neutral point of view.- MrX 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @MrX: would you support renaming this article to "CIA conclusion of Russian influence on the 2016 US presidential election? -Darouet (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
        • No. Not just the CIA. Not sure why people are saying it was just the CIA. Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Darouet, I would not support that title. It lacks concision, and sources give various attributions including the CIA, NSA, the intelligence community, and American intelligence agencies.- MrX 02:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor and MrX: The title of this article and your comments here all strongly imply these allegations are not merely allegations, but that Russia has interfered in the U.S. election, and we need to relate that fact. This is not known as a fact. By insisting on the current title, "Russian influence," you are seriously misleading readers. There has been enough discussion about this that it's not longer appropriate to assume you don't know the implications of the title of the article. -Darouet (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was fine with the prior title, "Russian involvement". Either is fine. Sagecandor (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much doubt expressed by sources that Russia at least attempted, and were probably effective in influencing the election. It's not reasonable to demote the factual assertions made by our sources to "allegations or theories" in the title (see WP:WEASEL) to cast doubt on this. A simple Google search shows the widespread use of the word "influence" by sources, far more so than "involvement".- MrX 14:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the nature of an allegation. Something someone believes to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbering in thought (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is about "US government allegations of Russian ...". That should be the title. All we know for fact is that various arms of the US government (and some computer security companies with close ties to US intelligence) are putting out allegations via public statements or "anonymous official" leaks to the US corporate MSM. Many of the sources cited are merely opinion, speculation and conspiracy theory. I see plenty of articles discussing the lack of evidence but they are not represented here. Perhaps we need a separate article entitled "Lack of evidence for US government allegations ..." . Keith McClary (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RSes aren't calling it "alleged" or "purported" or "supposed" or "claimed" or "accused". They're calling it interference/involvement. So that's what we do. Second guessing reliable sources based on our own analysis is blatant WP:OR. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A bit of googling shows many do say "alleged" or "purported" or "claimed" or "accused". Calling it fact is the blatant OR. Keith McClary (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Change 'election' to 'campaign' in the title?

It would be more precise to say 'campaign' rather than 'election'. The latter, even if it can be an umbrella for anything, necessarily evokes the actual casting and counting of votes, and given that this article is NOT about the claims of voting machine hacking that were made earlier, it would be logical to do everything possible to clear that up.79.169.98.40 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be against this, as most sources refer to the fact that it was an intention to interfere in the election, referring generally to influencing public opinion through the information obtained by the espionage operation. Sagecandor (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request to me.Slatersteven (talk)

I don't agree with changing the wording to "campaign". That appears to me to be inaccurate. It seems all the relevant coverage is about attempts to influence this last U.S. "election". I am not seeing how "campaign" can be interchanged with that. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, agree the use of 'campaign' would not quite be correct, but I think the use of 'election' is borderline-misleading (makes people think the voting-machines were tampered with), so my suggestion is to use "Russian interference with the 2016 election cycle in the United States" ... or to include the impact of quasi-NGOs such as WikiLeaks, and propaganda both covert and open in the form of endorsing candidates and such, the topic-area could be broadened to "International influences on the 2016 election cycle in the United States" using almost the same model as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (except that the reactions-article is about post-election stuff only whereas the use of '2016 election cycle' also permits talking about campaigns and pre-campaign influences). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you make a good case for changing to 'election cycle. If using only the word 'election' does in fact mislead people into thinking this is about tampering with voter machines - then this would be appropriate. Let me get back to you on the other stuff. Your comments do make sense. For myself, I am just trying to determine what the scope of this article is (or could be) in relation to your comments. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact

Here's some background information on Ken Dilanian's—and Scott Shane's—past history of collaboration with the CIA. It's probably no coincidence that Dilanian helped break the news of Putin's alleged involvement for NBC—just as it's no coincidence that the CIA first leaked this story to its favorite newspaper (The Washington Post).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Well this is synth, so not sure what you're getting at. We can't add it to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MjolnirPants. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dilanian himself is cited 8 times here. While it is unclear what edit should come out of this "fun fact", it is stuff like this that makes me wonder what the R in RS actually stands for. (RS seems like an unfortunate choice: it should always have been WP:STBS — "sources to be taken seriously (for whatever reason)" — or something close to that.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that since this reporter has published stories from the CIA which were found to be false, that it could be the Russian interference story may also be false. We of course cannot say that as it would be synthesis. However we should present the story the same way that news outlets do, i.e., beginning "according to...." No doubt we will know the truth in due course. There is no deadline. TFD (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2016

Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 (talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote." The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. 11Eternity11 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC) References Why is the current title even what it is right now? It was moved by Sagecandor without any discussion I can find, and no move request. It's also a WP:POVTITLE because declares Russia's guilt, which has been stated by US officials and agencies, but is not known. Concision is the worst excuse for falsehood I've ever seen someone make for an article title. -Darouet (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I've changed it to "alleged," to remove the most glaring problem facing the article at present. -Darouet (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC) The original title was "Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election". Which I'm fine with. But here's the part which I'm not fine with. You criticize Sagecandor for making a fairly innocous move to "interference" instead of "involvement" because it was done "without any discussion" but then you jump in and you yourself make a controversial move, in midst of an RfC, without any discussion, by adding the word "alleged", based on nothing but your own personal idiosyncratic WP:OR and WP:POV? How does that work? And there's no "falsehood" here, just your imagination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC) If you want to invoke my imagination, do you think that Russian interference in this election is known as an encyclopedic fact, or that the allegation is the fact? -Darouet (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC) According to the sources, it is. The Russian interference. And please don't try to get all epistemological on me and try to pretend that "we can never know for sure" is a good argument. Nixon tried to cover up Watergate. Is that an encyclopedic fact or is just the allegation that he did so an encyclopedic fact?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I have no idea who renamed the page, but I am just fine with adding "alleged". I do suggest that we change "United States election" to "US presidential campaign". Russia isn't accused of rigging the vote, but of producing propaganda and hacking emails. 11Eternity11 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC) No. "Alleged" is classic WP:WEASEL and not supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC) "Alleged" is not a WP:WEASEL word when it is used to describe an allegation. You write about this topic as if US statements are not statements, but facts, which is totally unacceptable. -Darouet (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC) When the sources don't call it "alleged", it's WEASEL. And POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, reliable sources note that Russian involvement is alleged, not proven. Do you really want the Encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia to really claim to know the truth of who hacked the DNC and leaked emails to Wikileaks? This is really beyond the pale. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Show me where and which ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose. Title is short and succinct and to the point. First sentence of article makes it quite clear. Sagecandor (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Changed to support, below. Sagecandor (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support per nomination. The current wording is awkwardly formed and inadequately conveys the nature of the event in question. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign". Other proposals need to be made in separate RfCs or this will spin out of control.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Weak support, your suggested title works for now, but why not put the election year after the election as in United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so a better title would be "Russian interference in the United States presidential campaign, 2016". Support - It's clear, concise, as precise as it can be, and compliant with WP:TITLE. No one should move the title until and unless a consensus arise from this discussion. - MrX 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support. Support change to "Involvement"— "Interference" is a POV term. (E.g., they may have hacked emails, etc., but we do not know that Russians interfered with the election/voting process per se.) I recommend changing it to "involvement". – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)14:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Regarding this "change". Somewhere either I or the proposer got discommbulated about the purpose of this proposed name change. The use of "interference" is clearly POV. The use of the term "involvement" is vague at best. Are the sources talking about Kremlin-directed involvement or some Russian hacker working in a basement (or suite) to get into the RNC or DNC websites and e-mail accounts? Since we do not have definite info one way or the other, the safest NPOV term is to continue with "Russian". Perhaps another description would be "Russian-connected". 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Snow Support I infer from the current title that Russia somehow hacked the election process itself (ie they hacked the voting machines). The proposed title is correct and succinct. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support either "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" or "Russian interference in the United States presidential campaign, 2016" - to make it explicitly clear that the topic at issue is the campaign and not, directly, the actual balloting. I oppose "involvement" instead of "interference" and also oppose adding "alleged" or other such words; both suggested changes are needless and add unnecessary vagueness. Neutralitytalk 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support any title of the type "Russian interference in the campaign", with little concern over where we put the year. This describes the subject succinctly and accurately without hiding key information about the subject. ~ Rob13Talk 17:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Support, but remove word "presidential" as it also affected other elections including multiple Congressional races, per The New York Times. Sagecandor (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Alright, but it doesn't say anywhere in the article regarding the congressional races, see if you can implement it in the article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Agreed, but just not sure where to fit it into the article yet. Sagecandor (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Article title should just have word "election" in it and NOT have word "presidential" in it, per: The New York Times source: Eric Lipton and Scott Shane (December 13, 2016), "Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking", The New York Times, retrieved December 14, 2016 Sagecandor (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Article should NOT have word "presidential" in title, just "election", as affected multiple races: This is as per multiple sources: "Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races": "Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races, and the GOP played along", The Week, December 14, 2016, retrieved December 15, 2016 Jason Stein and Mary Spicuzza (December 14, 2016), "Hacked material found its way into House races", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, retrieved December 15, 2016 Tesfaye, Sophia (December 14, 2016), "GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report", Salon, retrieved December 15, 2016 Not just "presidential" election in 2016. Multiple elections. Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title. Sagecandor (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose. This should not have "presidential" in the title. The scope of the Russian hacking, leaking, and social media campaigns targeted many US elections, not just the presidential. Both Republicans and Democrats up and down the ticket were targeted. See the DC Leaks article for some of the non-presidential races that were impacted; they leaked "300 emails from Republican targets, including the 2016 campaign staff of Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and 2012 presidential candidate and former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann." An article only focused on the presidential race will necessitate the creation of another article dealing with the non-presidential interference. gobonobo + c 22:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose, back to Oppose. Per Gobonobo. This should NOT have "presidential" in the title. Just 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Has affected multiple other races, as explained by Gobonobo, immediately above. Sagecandor (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Comments Comment - can people please stop moving the title of this page to whatever shit happens to pop into their heads at some given moment while this RfC is ongoing? It's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: the page was moved only a few hours ago to its present title, without discussion of any kind. It is a highly partisan title, and the previous version has also been criticized for the same reason: it declares something that is alleged to have occurred. It's a totally indefensible title and if we're going to propose a move, we should at least start from a place that isn't such a WP:POVTITLE vio. -Darouet (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC) It was moved from "involvement" to "interference". Had you undid that move that'd be one thing. But you actually are using the whole "moved only a few hours ago" as a flimsy excuse to force through your own preferred POV title with the word "alleged" in it. We are starting with a neutral title right now. YOUR title is POV as it is utterly unsupported by sources and involves nothing but your own original research. And lacks consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC) WP:POVTITLE isn't an excuse, it's policy, and there is nothing in the entire article, or all the sources we cite, which make US allegations a fact, and not allegations. -Darouet (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, and it is YOUR title that violates POVTITLE as it is based on nothing but your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Comment. The current name looks pretty ambiguous as there were also elections for senate, house and governor in the same year, and the article only specifies it for president. And also, look at how many potential titles redirect here. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Comment. Alright, at this situation, I've narrowed it down to four two titles, two for whether or not it was confirmed that Russia interfered, and two for whether or not Russia interfered in only the Presidential Election or if they interfered in any other ones. IMO the one in bold is the most likely candidate. No. Sources don't say "alleged". That's straight up POV and OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Alright, I narrowed the suggestions down to 2, since that it's too early to confirm if Russia did interfere, we should just wait and see, this article was only created three days ago. . . Presidential only Russian interference in the United States presidential election, 2016 Other elections Russian interference in the United States elections, 2016 ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I still believe the best proposal has been FallingGravity's: Cyber attacks and the 2016 United States presidential election. That is neutral, succinct, doesn't presume anything, and can hold all the info in this article. -Darouet (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC) That's a horrible suggestion because it leaves out important info. Who carried out these cyber attacks? Fiji? Come on! That's not even trying to hide the POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Saying that the article's title needs to point out who did something is like having the article "Murder of Hae Min Lee" (à la Serial) titled "Murder of Hae Min Lee by Adnan Syed" because he was found guilty in a court of law. However, in this case there is no court decision, just conclusions from US intelligence agencies. FallingGravity 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC) It's actually not like that at all. For one thing, people who are looking for a murder victim's article are unlikely to search by "Adnan Syed". Here, it's pretty clear that people will be typing in R, U, S, S, I, A into that search box, along with "US election".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Perhaps this is a better example. Go to Category:Cyberattacks and find one article that identifies the culprit in an article on a cyberattack. An equivalent article would be 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia. Now you might be wondering why this article isn't titled "2007 Russian cyberattacks on Estonia". This is because of WP:POVTITLE. FallingGravity 07:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose, since that ... and ... usually denotes that we are comparing something such as American and British English spelling differences and Race and intelligence, and also using interference rather than cyberattack helps with ambiguity, and also, the only upside to the proposed title is that it doesn't state "Russia", as Donald Trump stated in this interview, "They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody," ... "It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea." ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC) As the proposer of this title, I strongly debated between the words "and", "in", "during", etc. though I'm still not sure which is best. FallingGravity 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Comment - given the info that is coming out (see [50] and section below), the article title should NOT have "presidential" in it since now it's become clear that non-presidential races were also targeted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Support moving to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" or "Russian interference in the United States presidential campaign, 2016" - to make it clear that the topic at issue is the campaign, not the voting. I prefer the second title. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) What does "Russian" mean? The Kremlin? Some hacker in Russia? Some hacker working for the Kremlin? Come one, Wikipedians, think about these words! – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Please see source: Blitzer, Wolf (December 14, 2016), "Graham: Russians hacked my campaign", CNN (video), YouTube, retrieved December 15, 2016 Article title should NOT have word "presidential" in it. Was NOT just "presidential" campaign, but multiple other campaigns in 2016 U.S. elections. Sagecandor (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Comment: Both the current and proposed title are blatantly POV. Russian interference in the US Presidential election is alleged, not a known fact. Reliable sources make this distinction, so why Wikipedia should claim to know the truth of this case is beyond me. The title should be "Alleged Russian Interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election," or even more neutrally, "Email Leaks in the 2016 US Presidential Election." -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) This is simply not true. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. The word "alleged" does not appear in this source. Etc. etc. etc. So to claim that "reliable sources say it's alleged" is just false. Now, there are two aspects of this story where the word "alleged" does appear. One is in regards to whether the RNC was hacked too. The other in regard to whether it was directed by Putin or not. But there is no "alleged" about the interference itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, look at the links you posted. All but one of them describe the allegations that Russia hacked the DNC. The only article that claims that Russia did hack the DNC is the first one, by the NY Times (which, remember, has an admitted history of gullibility when it comes to American intelligence claims). Your second link begins with the sentence, "A bipartisan group of senators on Sunday urged Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, to create a new, select committee on cyberattacks to investigate possible Russian interference in the American election." Notice the use of the phrase "possible Russian interference." Here, the NY Times is not claiming that Russia interfered. It's reporting on allegations, claims, the possibility that Russia interfered in the election. Your third and fourth links discuss FBI and CIA assessments. In other words, they discuss claims by American intelligence about what happened. The articles do not state that these assessments are correct. Your fifth link discusses "claims" by Harry Reid that the FBI covered up Russian hacking. Again, the article is discussing claims made about Russian hacking, but does not state that these claims are correct. Your sixth link covers Russian denials of involvement in the DNC hack. Your seventh link says that "U.S. intelligence officials now believe" Putin ordered the hack of the DNC personally. In other words, it's again discussing claims made by US intelligence. So what you've shown is that reliable sources are reporting on claims, allegations (or whatever synonym you want to use) that American intelligence officials are making about Russian hacking. The way this article is titled, it gives the impression that these claims are fact. The problem is that we can't take American intelligence at its word, just as we can't take denials by Russian officials at face value. I think the fact that this article has a POV title is staring us in the face. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) By that logic, the very existence of the 2016 US election is only "claimed" or "alleged". As long as we attribute the "claim" to US intelligence services, we don't also put in "alleged" since that's just WP:WEASEL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Close request from blocked user 11Eternity11 (talk · contribs) in favor of newer request below started on 21 December 2016.

Please see Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_21_December_2016. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)