Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Why the removal of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll"?

On what basis is User:Volunteer Marek's addition of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll" removed? Whether it really is a joke is questionable, because Ryan treated it as serious. It really makes no difference, even if it were a joke, because it's reliably sourced, extremely notable, widely covered, and should be restored. (It's a bombshell revelation which appears to show Ryan engaging in both obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That's pretty serious.)

As the source said, Putin is known to financially support the campaigns and personal pockets of right wing populists like Trump. (Trump is not known to ever refuse money, especially laundered money from Russian mobsters, as well as money from Russian business interests and Russian banks. There was a long period where he was essentially bankrupt and no American banks would loan him money, and most of his funds came from the named Russian sources.)

So, just document what happened. That's our obligation. Censorship of such a notable event is a serious violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer that it is notable and should be included. I also don't quite understand why it was removed on the basis that it was a joke. Have reliable sources concluded that it was indeed a joke? Otherwise, what is the basis for that conclusion? And even if we somehow know whether it was really a joke or not, a joke that has stirred up news-worthy controversy and has been reported on by reliable sources is still worthy of inclusion. However, we should certainly include that spokespeople have defended the comments, saying it was just a joke (which the previous version did). Bennv3771 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this is actually pretty minor, and whilst we are not sure if it waqs a joke, we also cannot be sure it was not (after all do we know the context for the comment).

This might give a clue its a joke

“There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.”

Generally people do not laugh at (or when making) such serious allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous content can be cut down. As for whether it's a joke or not, right now, the only reliable source who have access to the audio recording is the Washington Post, and their stance is: "It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally." As for the laughter...according to Washington Post, McCarthy wasn't the one laughing, "Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”" Bennv3771 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And none of your have ever done something similar, when being sarcastic? This really is a nothing blown up out of all proportions. Lets keep this article above the level of the "shouty sheets" shall we, we are not a red top lets not become one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Even in the most charitable interpretation they're making jokes about treason. Anyway, still not seeing a reason for removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the "most charitable interpretation" is that they are making jokes about what they think is a silly accusation, and the reason it should not be included is that we are not a news paper or scandal site, we are an encyclopedia. This adds absolutely zero to our understanding of what (or if) happened. It is just a distraction that will make this article (and this Wikipedia) look like just a bunch of partisan hacks out for any bit of salacious tattletale.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

At least one person who was present at the conversation disagrees with you. As do reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so would you like to provide the quotes that dispute that either this was not clealry meant as a joke or that it should be here on Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the source, the primary document and the original text of this article - look for the comments by Evan McMullin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be included, but it needs to be rewritten. The composition in the version that was removed was rhetorical. It was trying to convince that reader that the conversation was real and serious. That is not how encyclopedic content should be written. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The conversation was real. I don't know about "serious" but it wasn't the purpose of the text to convey that. Just to reflect the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: This revert does not reflect consensus. Editors are just starting to debate here, a) whether this should be included, and b) how it should be written. Please self-undo until more people chime in. — JFG ^talk 15:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is your second revert. Whoops. — JFG ^talk 15:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And when I restored it pretty much everyone here said "why is this being removed, it could use some tweaking". So yeah, that's consensus especially for such a spurious removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You have a peculiar definition of "everyone". — JFG ^talk 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Like others, struggling to see how this fits into a serious encyclopedic entry on the topic. Simply citing "RS" isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page, even if some editors tell the rest of us how much they like it and how important and relevant it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy governing this matter is WP:TRIVIA. It's an editorial call based on how RS treat a matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS (as in this case), or is covered by multiple RS (also this case), then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinion doesn't matter. We must mention it. The current content may need some revision, but it should be included. Its significance is shown in the WaPo article:

"The conversation provides a glimpse at the internal views of GOP leaders who now find themselves under mounting pressure over the conduct of President Trump. The exchange shows that the Republican leadership in the House privately discussed Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and Trump’s relationship to Putin, but wanted to keep their concerns secret. It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally.

"The House leadership has so far stood by the White House as it has lurched from one crisis to another, much of the turmoil fueled by contacts between Trump or his associates with Russia."

The next step is to tweak it and return it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer wrote: We must mention it. No, there is no policy that says Wikipedia must mention everything that makes the front page of the Washington Post. We are building an encyclopedia, not a political gazette. Look up the ten-year test. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yea and it passes that test.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, not mentioning it when the RSes devote serious coverage to it is pretty much the definition of an WP:NPOV vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I am not sure it is quite that clear cut. So lets make it easy. We can discus the details once we are sure we should even include it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And WP:TRIVIA is part of the MoS guideline about trivia sections. It is not a policy and has no relevance here at all. As I said, "Simply citing 'RS' isn't enough. We don't fling everything that's reported in newspapers onto a page". All BullRangifer and VM have done in response to that entirely legitimate point is to say we have to do exactly that, while mis-citing another wiki-acronym on top. There are judgments to make about weight, relevance and significance etc (where there are actual relevant policies). As noted, there is no "must". N-HH talk/edits 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Which acronym have I mis-cited? And as to your point, it may have had a chance of being valid if this was a source or too, but this is very widely covered stuff. Indeed, it's very widely covered stuff in midst of a news cycle that is swamped with breaking stories. Hence very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we include this material (in some form)

Support

• Support, as noteworthy and widely reported discussion of legislative branch oversight and evaluation of potential outside interference in the operation of democratic processes. Encyclopedic, quite notable in its own right, and discussed in-depth among multiple reliable sources from varying viewpoints. Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support with rewording. As I mentioned above, the wording that was removed was too rhetorical. It needs to be detached. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. Until I started reading some sources (beyond the initial Washington Post report), I was leaning slight toward opposing including this content. However, sources like this[1][2][3][4] make the connection. Specifically, Paul Ryan's spokesman saw fit to mention it. As an aside, I think it's unlikely that the the conversation was a joke, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of legislators joking about it.- MrX 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in some form; as above, document how sources tie this to the election interference by Russia. This has received extensive coverage in high-quality sources, ties directly to the article topic, and the weight is appropriate. The users opposing inclusion give a number of labels ("silly"; "trash reporting"; "unencyclopedic") but basically never explain how or why this is so. As for the argument that "it may have been a joke" — well, sure, we should explain that in text (and in fact do), but that's no reason to exclude. Neutrality^talk 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a joke, but extremely important information, and it has been treated as such in RS. Why this is so important? Because the discussion among very top Republicans (no matter if they "joked" or not) shows they knew about the conflict of interest for a long time, but wanted to hide it. That is how this matter was interpreted in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:GNG. This is widely reported and tied to the Russian interference in the election. Why not include it? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - for monkey's sake, it's a significant part of the story reported widely in top quality sources. I realize that a few even more shocking stories have come out recently which overshadow that one but notability and relevance is not relative. This is notable, it's well sourced, it's relevant - the only reason, regardless of the actual pretext the 'opposes' invent, I can see for removing it is the good ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)]
• Support Directly relates to the subject. Of course you can include his arguments for why it isn't a big deal as long as you include the other side. That said, it is directly tied to the election interference by Russia as they were coming out of a briefing on a related subject.Casprings (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, because, as RS have noted, it gives important insights into the conspiratorial thinking of the GOP at the time. Leadership put party over country and was willing to accept and support a potentially compromised candidate. That situation is part of what makes it relevant for this article. Rather than acting on the suspicion, they doubled down on their support, and as more information, even classified information, became known to them (before the public), they still supported him, and thus they are also compromised by Putin. The "gang of eight" got top level information, yet McConnell ordered silence, rather than action, so the conspiracy of silence continued.

  It's covered in multiple RS in a serious manner, and not treated at all as trivia. To ignore it is a violation of NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose – Unencyclopedic Washington gossip. Glad to include (in short form) if it survives a week. — JFG ^talk 16:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Largely speculative as to it's seriousness, and most likely as lam joke among "friends". Sure RS are reporting it, but how many as a genuine issue rather then as a silly season story that will have no legs?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose silly nonsense, putin pays trump, what trash reporting. Also sad to see that Marek user edit warring his content back in the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I suspect that this actually was a joke, in which case it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - actual reliable sources are denied here but this is OK? Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think a user has breached the rules, report then. Please do not discus it here as it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, what's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And "what trash reporting" is not a policy based !vote. So it can be safely discounted and ignored in closing this poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cover-up investigation

The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:

• Comey agrees to testify in public as Trump-Russia probe heats up, McClatchy DC Bureau

"...authorized to probe whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up..."

"Even as members of Congress were mulling the possible expansion of the case into a cover-up probe, and its reclassification from counterintelligence to criminal, the scandal appeared to grow."

"Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described the possibility of a cover-up as the third branch of an investigation that began as a look at Russian meddling in the election and broadened into whether members of the Trump campaign had cooperated in that effort."

• Top Oversight Dem: ‘I Want Every Note’ White House Has On Trump’s Meeting With Russians. Rep. Elijah Cummings has prepared a draft subpoena he wants the House Oversight Committee to send to the administration.

"After his interview with “This Week,” Cummings released a draft subpoena that he urged Chaffetz to sign and send to the White House.

“The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago,” Cummings said in a statement. “I have prepared a subpoena that the chairman could sign today. If he does not want to do that, we ask that he allow the committee members to vote on it.”

• Investigation launched into whether White House officials covered up Russian meddling. The investigation marks the third line of inquiry into Russian interference in the US election. The Independent
• Feinstein believes Trump-Russia probe includes cover-up question, CBS News
• How Impeaching Trump Would Work, Rolling Stone

"This brings us back to Trump. A key lesson of the Nixon scandal was "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up." It was Nixon on tape saying that the FBI should be forced to back off that put the final nail in his presidential coffin. That many of Trump's associates, especially his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had Russian connections is politically damaging, but it's not necessarily Trump's fault. Firing FBI Director Jim Comey in the middle of an investigation, however, is clearly Trump's fault. This is Trump's own "Tuesday Night Massacre." It looks like obstruction of justice. The latest revelation – that Trump, in a February Oval Office meeting, asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn's connections to the Russian government ("I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go") – is reminiscent of Nixon's "smoking gun" tape, and again looks like obstruction of justice. Just as it was with Nixon, it could be the cover-up that will bring Trump down."

BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Voter registration hacking

The article appears to completely overlook the occurrences of voter registration hacking, as covered by a number of sources[5][6][7][8] and more. While the message from on high has been something to the effect of "only registration was hacked, not the actual vote" I believe this to be a fallacy and its potential impact on the election to be severely understated. The way voter eligibility works in most places across the country, if your registration is not valid well ahead of the election date, you will not be able to vote in that election. Merely by tampering with voter registration at a convenient time (for example, changing an absentee voter's registered address right before ballots are mailed) it is possible to prevent people from voting, and as these databases contain information such as ethnicity and party affiliation, it is possible to target specific demographics and effect a campaign of voter suppression. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should be briefly covered in the article.- MrX 12:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that we need a few good sentences on this. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We must take care to ensure that RS citations concern Russian involvement in this. --SPECIFICO (talk) 12:09, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Here's my draft copy - likely can be cleaned up:

As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about "bad actors" probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities. In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was "looking 'very, very hard' at Russian hackers who may try to disrupt the U.S. election" and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases, which independent assessments determined were "extremely vulnerable to hacking." Comey stated: "There have been a variety of scanning activities which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities as well as some attempted intrusions at voter database registrations beyond those we knew about in July and August." He told Congress that the Bureau was looking into "just what mischief is Russia up to in connection with our election." This statement echoed a comment by a U.S. intelligence official the previous month, who told NBC News that "there is serious concern" about Russian government-directed interference in the U.S. presidential election. Earlier, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin, stating that he was "'paranoid' about the potential for revolutions in Russia,'and of course they see a U.S. conspiracy behind every bush, and ascribe far more impact than we're actually guilty of.'" In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months. Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers, and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies. Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases. Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data, Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen. The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result. In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide "flash alert" warning state election officials about hacking attempts. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS. The department also offered "more comprehensive, on-site risk and vulnerability" assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching. The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI: "The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War."

References

Tagging MrX, Ham Pastrami, SPECIFICO - don't know if this approximates what you had in mind. --Neutrality^talk 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks for taking the time to write it!- MrX 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added it (with minor rearrangement of sentences). Thanks! Neutrality^talk 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work everybody, and a special thanks to Ham Pastrami -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you very much for doing that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good stuff, on-topic. — JFG ^talk 10:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article

I'm beginning to think we should expand the logical scope of this article to something like this:

• Russian meddling in the 2016 United States elections and its aftermath

We can't document collusion yet, but there is abundant evidence in RS of a very close relationship between the Trump administration, including Trump, and Russian officials of various types, including the meeting in the Oval Office, a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes. We need to be able to include material related to the aftermath. What think ye? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't fit. Keep the title and scope as they are, please. Title now suits the WP:COMMONNAME of a well-known topic scope. Using a different title would noserve. And adding random bits just because they have 'Russian' in it also doesn't fit the much more common scope. Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: "a relationship which is friendlier than between Trump and Americans of all stripes", really? That's quite an extraordinary assertion. Is Trump not friendly to basically everyone he meets, be they American, British, Saudi, Russian and even yeah Mexican?

On your scope question, I agree that this article has kept ballooning out of scope. The fix is not to rename it but rather to move all the Trump–Russia collusion stuff into another article, leaving this one to deal with the Russian hacking, propaganda, counter-propaganda and consequences; basically stopping at the December expelling of Russian diplomats. — JFG ^talk 07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The aftermath is within the scope of the article, but the title doesn't need to reference it. At some point, there will probably be indictments, prosecutions, impeachment proceedings, and resignations that require us to WP:SPINOFF one or more articles.- MrX 12:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the section below, I think at some point we'll get an article on the investigation itself and that will effectively accomplish what you propose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That all makes sense. The aftermath is automatically covered within the existing scope, and if there is enough content, we spin it off into its own article. Natural developments will determine what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft split

I think there's a good case to split the article now. I have created a draft here: Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, please take a look. This article would then focus solely on the Russian interference topic, basically keeping everything that I haven't moved into the draft. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with the need divide the article. Those two subjects are way to inter-related for two articles.Casprings (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought before trying, but taking our current contents paragraph by paragraph, I noticed that the collusion issues were clearly separated from the interference issues. Please take a second look. Obviously, each article should prominently point to the other; in my draft the first lead sentence points directly back here; if we endorse the split, then the lead of this article should naturally point to the collusion article. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Investigation by Special Counsel

Investigation by Special Counsel

Maybe this could also become its own article? Sagecandor (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But first there should be something in this article before spinning it out. The amount of coverage here should be limited to its overall significance and additional details put into the other article. TFD (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

At some point probably. I'd say it's still too early.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that we should consider this, but at a later date. In three months' time we will know more. Neutrality^talk 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which would split this article between the Russian interference topics (staying here) and the Trump collusion topics (going to the other article). Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The title and entire focus of that draft fails WP:NPOV, as it focuses only on "collusion" and avoids criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Except for the title and lead section (which can be debated), I strictly copied all contents from the present article. If you feel that "criminal investigation, cover-up, money laundering, etc." are missing, then feel free to add them to this article (there is a section about investigations into financial flows, which is not much, but that's what the source said). From a neutrality standpoint, it's strange to consider the current article balanced and a copy of half of it elsewhere unbalanced. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As others have said, we should wait to split the article.- MrX 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad idea. Fork. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention for now, then a split when more info comes out.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article

A new article popped up related to Russian interference. Looks like it could use a substantial amount of help Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election if anyone is interested. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Interfered in" the elections?

The very first sentence of this article, as well as the title and subsequent content, make a claim that seems to be sourced from media sources rather than the direct source: the actual Intelligence report. The actual report cited by those media sources and this article does not say that that Russia "interfered in" the elections. Shouldn't the title and lead sentence reflect what the actual report said (ie "influence campaign"), instead of what media sources said? The "interfered in" claim should be attributed only to media sources, not a report that makes no such claim. Intelligent readers understand the difference between "interference" and "influence", as well as the difference between "election" and "campaign", even if many journalists don't (or pretend not to). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We are required to first cite secondary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: Welcome to this article… Yes, what the intelligence reports actually say differs from what media sources and politicians have been peddling. What security analysts actually say differs from what scaremongering pundits are pushing. C'est la vie… — JFG ^talk 07:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

...Which is the second article ever edited by that account (btw, that's one of my favorite songs).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: it is also the case that not all major media agree that Russia "interfered" in the election either, as I showed above for Reuters and the BBC. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true, as explained above. How many times are you going to try to pull these stunts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You didn't explain anything above. You showed that two Reuters articles report on what US intelligence officials are saying, and then claimed that that disproved the point that Reuters and BBC treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You and everyone else here understands that when a news agency reports, "Person X said Y," they're not endorsing position Y. The "stunt" here is pretending not to understand that basic distinction. Have a bit of respect for the work Darouet put in and acknowledge the stance taken by the BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did. The fact is that you're engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But at this point it's not my problem. I tried. Tired of it by now. As is most everyone here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed. Darouet gave you a long list of BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. You then pretended not to understand the difference between citing a US official who says Russia interfered and the newspaper itself taking a stance on the issue. It is getting tiring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, to give you the benefit of doubt for the moment - can you link where "as explained above" refers to? You made a talk post about finding two Reuters sources - [9][10] - which quote the opinions of various U.S. officials and authorities, and never state or imply that Russia did interfere in the election. If you're referring to something else you wrote I'd like to know what it is. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw Darouet claim that the BBC and Reuters "always" use the word "alleged" to describe the interference. I then saw VM prove that statement wrong. The evidence is just above on this very page. Asking us to provide you links is just more WP:IDHT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's what Darouet wrote: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” VM cited two articles in which Reuters is "quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials." It gets tiresome to go over this again and again. Volunteer Marek and MjolnirPants, can't you just admit at this point that what Darouet said about BBC and Reuters was accurate? VM in particular likes to quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so they should understand my frustration here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So in other words, Darouet said they always use the word "alleged" and VM proved that they didn't. Not that it would even matter, because one or two large media groups taking an editorial policy to prefer a certain phrasing doesn't change how they actually treat the subject, a discussion you and I have had numerous times over the past six months or so, and which I've observed you to have with numerous other editors over that time, as well. This issue was settled quite some time ago. The fact that there are a small handful of editors who continue to push this POV despite their arguments having been brought up and shot down countless times is evidence of nothing but that old, discredited canard about insanity. I suppose that might be of particular interest to you two, because it shows that a claim which is obviously false can still contain quite a bit of truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: No. This is getting so ridiculous, I can't actually believe you're just making an honest mistake any more. Darouet wrote, “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added). Read the bolded part of the quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Can you please stop replying to my post if you don't even read what I'm writing? My words unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials blatantly contradict your false paraphrase, they always use the word "alleged". -Darouet (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: that is some form of special pleading - every article I cited, and those VM linked as well, either demonstrate or are consistent with the fact that Reuters and BBC treat this as an unsubstantiated allegation. Your initial reaction to the quotes was to so blatantly misread the first that you declared you would read no more. Your attitude hasn't changed at all. You write here like you made up your mind a long time ago and no number of sources would ever convince you otherwise. We need to have some solution that involves outside parties here because this kind of conversation will go nowhere. -Darouet (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about the need for outside parties to get involved here. We're clearly at a point where no amount of reliable sourcing will change people's minds (see the Reuters/BBC thread above, where dozens of sources were met with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I don't know if dispute resolution is the correct venue, since it's frankly unlikely that many people will participate. Perhaps someone more familiar with the various community input mechanisms can propose a way forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious horse-beating rehashing minor issues and personal insults is not likely to make for attracting new editors here. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Anyone can read through the talk page (and the archives) and make up their own minds about who's been more civil here. I have no doubt about what a neutral third party would conclude. The issues raised above are not minor: whether to treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation or an established fact is a very basic question we have to get straight, because it affects how the entire article should be written. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Eyes Cryin: You can see my own position and the disputed sources being discussed here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Editorial policy: alleged -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Different sources have different editorial policies regarding the use of the word allegedly. We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you say which reliable sources constitute that preponderance? Also, if a significant number of reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation, why should Wikipedia take a more confident position? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, rather than getting ahead of reliable sources like BBC and Reuters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrghghgh. Stop it! We've done this. This isn't fucking Groundhog's Day where we relive the same damn discussion over and over and over and over and over and over again until it works out to your satisfaction. Your behavior is past being disruptive at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC

I'm not going to stop asking for sources. You and others keep saying things like, "We are basing the article on the preponderance of RS," without actually showing that that is the case. You basically want the article to be a certain way, without actually having to show that reliable sources support your preferred version. You just assert that they do, and complain when I ask you for sources. And when I or others who disagree with you show sources, you reject them out of hand (see the above discussion initiated by Darouet). That's what's disruptive here. If you'd just agree to deal with the sources, you wouldn't be living in Groundhog Day. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Channeling Sarah Palin..."all of 'em". SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Only use the talk page for discussion of article improvement. Responding with random jokes is disrespectful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the same answer that a couple of dozen other editors have given over a period of months. If one surveys "all of them" one finds the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream reports and discussions of the Russian interference does not express uncertainty as to the Russians' interference. The full details and connections to Trump and his associates are not yet demonstrated, and that's why we see those factors widely described as "suspected" "alleged" or whatnot. As a matter of fact, the juxtaposition of those two differentiated modes of reporting -- fact vs. allegation -- is the cat that eats the canary. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting all of our time. Back up your claims with actual citations or stop posting. Darouet showed that when it comes to BBC and Reuters, you're wrong. Obviously, Ars Technica has expressed doubt about the US government's case (see the Goodin article), and I've shown that major European papers, Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung, treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. I also showed the same for the Associated Press. That means that for at least five of the most influential news publications in the world, your assertion is wrong. Which papers treat "Russian interference" as fact, and why should we follow them instead of Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you really just accuse someone else of "wasting all of our time"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica reported that Trump fired Comey because the latter was not nice to Hillary Clinton. Did Le Monde and Reuters do the same? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• BBC uses alleged.

• The only ref in Süddeutsche Zeitung that I could find was an interview of Germany’s spy chief warning that Russian hackers are pelting his country with disinformation that could undermine the democratic process, echoing concerns already voiced by his domestic intelligence counterpart. [11]

• Here Le Monde states that the Democrats were hacked, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain En savoir plus sur, which is to say American intelligence imputed to the Russians, which is what this article says. It says that American intelligence announced the Russians hacked the Democrats; but it has yet to be tied to the Trump team. [12]

• Here’s the first related AP story I could find in the AP. [13]. It says: The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.. It doesn’t say alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can’t find any mention of alleged in this recent Reuters article. [14]

• I don’t even consider Ars Technica one of the better tech sites, much less a source of serious news.

Now, I just looked at your sources. Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into sources. Let's go through the ones you listed, keeping in mind Darouet's statement about the BBC and Reuters: “Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials”.

• I agree about BBC (and Reuters, based on the sources above).
• Reuters gives a summary of a Süddeutsche Zeitung interview with the head of German foreign intelligence: [15]. When the Süddeutsche Zeitung interviews someone, there's no implication that the SZ agrees with the interviewee's statements. We can take Bruno Kahl's statements as a reflection of his own beliefs, but not as a reflection of the SZ's editorial position. This is in line with What Darouet said about BBC/Reuters: “they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials” (emphasis added).
• The Le Monde article you linked does indeed talk of "piratages informatiques ciblant les démocrates, imputés à la Russie par le renseignement américain" (my translation: "hacks targeted at the Democrats, attributed to Russia by American intelligence services"). Le Monde very clearly attributes the view that Russia is responsible for the hacks to US intelligence, which is in line with what BBC and Reuters do. Le Monde doesn't take a stance on whether or not this attribution is correct. This is what I've found, in general, reading Le Monde.
• The AP wire you linked says that "The South Carolina Republican chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election." That's what the Senate Judiciary subcommittee is investigating. I don't see any statement by AP that Russia interfered in the election. I just see a description of the subject of the investigation.
• The Reuters article you link specifically attributes the theories expressed in the article to US intelligence officials: "A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters" (emphasis added). This is entirely in line with what Darouet said above about Reuters and BBC.

If this were a straightforward matter of reliable sources treating Russian interference as a fact, it would be easy to find statements in all these publications explicitly saying things like, "Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and passed the documents on to Wikileaks." But what we've found here is that most reliable sources don't make any such explicit statement. They either use the word "alleged" (or some synonym) or attribute the view that Russia interfered in the election to the people making the claim (normally, US intelligence officials). I don't think we should get out ahead of reliable sources like BBC, Reuters, SZ and Le Monde, and make statements of fact that those sources seem unwilling to make. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "Numerous sources have already been given of U.S. RS that do not use alleged." The sources that do not use "alleged" are mostly quoting from US intelligence officials. When a newspaper quotes someone, it doesn't mean that the newspapers is endorsing that person's views. A major problem is that many editors here are taking such examples (where a newspaper says, "US intelligence officials say that ...") as evidence that newspapers treat "Russian interference" as a fact.

We have many examples of newspapers explicitly calling "Russian interference" an allegation. We have very few examples of them endorsing the view that "Russian interference" is a fact. I think the balance of reliable sourcing is clear now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So the only people willing to address my point agree with me? That can't be right, I'd better give it another day. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have two points with regard to your initial post: First, our widespread practice is to use WP:SECONDARY sources, in this case reputable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets that have reputations for fact checking. Second, your apparent interpretation that an influence campaign in U.S. elections by Russia is somehow substantively different than Russian interference in the U.S. elections underscores why we use secondary sources. Primary sources are far more vulnerable to being viewed through the lens of editor bias, education, intelligence, experiences, culture, and language. Allowing any random person on the internet to interpret primary sources whilst editing Wikipedia articles would erode the integrity of the information that we try to preserve. I imagine that we would become about as useful an encyclopedia as Conservapedia, the 56,319th most popular website on the planet, instead of being the 5th most popular website on the planet.- MrX 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand why secondary sources are used, the issue is that the assertion in question is falsely attributed to the primary source instead of those secondary sources. But the issue I brought up here has been so thoroughly derailed that I see no point in wasting any more time on it. Funny how that happens whenever anyone points out demonstrably false statements in political articles. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's ironic that one of the extraordinarily small number of editors still beating this dead horse months later has the gal to accuse others of wasting their time. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Current Washington Post lede

Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment for Moscow

President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI director was the latest in a series of destabilizing jolts to core institutions of the U.S. government, actions that, although driven by the president, have in some ways amplified the effect Russia sought to achieve with its effort to undermine the 2016 presidential race. And while the Kremlin may have hoped for sanctions relief from the Trump administration, the tumult in the United States is a welcome alternative.

SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So what? Speculative opinion by a WaPo columnist stuck in a Cold War paranoid mentality, that's all. Do you really believe that the replacement of the FBI director is a "jolt to core institutions of the U.S. government"? The new French president abruptly replaced the head of their intelligence services, without even a justification, and nobody says it's a coup. The tumult in Washington may be fun to observe from afar, but it certainly doesn't undermine the U.S. institutions. Trump does irritate Washingtonians, who voted 95% for Clinton. — JFG ^talk 05:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That is the front page lead news story by a Pulitzer Prize winning news reporter in the Washington Post. The French bit is yet another straw man. Different law, precedent, context, and stated motivation. Misrepresentation is disrespectful to the community and to Mr. Miller. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And come on, even Trump's man Tillerson says they did it, without any 'alleged' in there [16]. I'm pretty sure even Trump agreed that they did it (I think the source for that is already in the article). The only question is how and why and who was involved. This is really a pointless discussion at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is really a pointless discussion at this point. I agree. I would like to point out that the onus for ceasing this endless argument lies on all editors involved, not just those pushing the minority POV. All of us should stop discussing this. I'm aware that the minority view is unlikely to heed my advice, but if the majority view does listen to me, the result will be the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion here [17] that NeilN consider whether reinstating the "no reinsertion without consensus" provision, which remains in place on most other ARBAP2 pages, would relieve us all of the edit-warring and the need to reply to repetitive minority arguments to change consensus. As it stands, when editors don't reply to each attempt to change consensus, silence is claimed to be assent and edit-warring ensues. The reinstatement of that provision would obviate these repetitive and needless rehash pile-ups. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How about asking for an admin to impose a "Silence is not assent" provision? This discussion has been going on for months. It is as old as this article, and the direction of the sources clearly favors the majority view. Hell, even without adding any provisions to the DS, one could place a note at the top of the page which would excuse 3RR violations which enforce the existing consensus. Something like "Note that other editors failing to respond to your proposal should not be taken as assent. If your proposal does not get any responses, you should check the page archives to see if it has been discussed previously, and you should abide by the decisions made there. I know for a fact that there are at least two RfC's in the archives covering the "alleged or not" argument. So that would solve that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants! I agree with you that the perennial disputes are as old as the article itself. When you exclude the occasional drive-by editors, there is a core constituency of people who would like to reflect a diversity of opinions about the article subject, and another core constituency who demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of "the mainstream view". That is imho not what a Wikipedia article should be. I have absolutely no problem laying out the majority view as dominant and widely accepted; I do have a problem when that view is the only one tolerated in the article. That creates a strong impression of systemic bias, which would be easily dispelled with a little less absolutism. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your description is correct, but lacking in one key detail. Namely that the consensus lies with the "core constituency" who, in your words "demand exclusion of any sources which merely question the validity of 'the mainstream view'." With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus. But until you can make such a case, the continual arguing over how to describe this is never going to accomplish anything except adding to the list of conservative editors under sanctions in this area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And of course, the editors of the consensus view are not the ones who have been blocked and banned for disruption. It's fine for editors to hold personal opinions contrary to the mainstream, and it's conceivable that the rotation of the earth will change and Lee Harvey Oswald will confess to the hacking. Meanwhile, we need to find a way to avoid this intolerable waste of WP resources and editor attention. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Calling one core constituency the "consensus" is an exaggeration. The two constituencies are similar in size, with the "represent only the views of US intelligence" constituency being a majority, but by no means an overwhelming one. The "treat the issue with the same caution as BBC, Reuters, and most other major news outlets" constituency is a very significant minority here. "Consensus" suggests something more than a 60%/40% split, which looks to be approximately what we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet one side consistently looses all RfC's by the numbers (not to mention by the arguments, but since that's been explained to you a hundred times, I doubt doing so again is worth much). And for the record, a consensus is not a majority. You should know this by now. A consensus can still be a consensus with only 10% of the vote, if that 10% can shoot down the arguments of the 90% and a neutral third party is the one who declares it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfCs are typically close. There's clearly a large minority that's in favor of a less US-intelligence-centric presentation of the subject matter. Obviously, I don't agree with you that the majority view wins by the arguments. For example, the minority view pretty obviously has the stronger reliable-source-based argument, and has done much more to show what the sources say.

The issue hasn't been the weakness of the arguments of the minority side - it's simply been the numbers being roughly 60%/40%. These RfCs are almost always closed based on sheer vote count, not based on an analysis of the relative strength of the arguments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"With enough reliable sources, you will be able to convince enough editors to change the current consensus." Sadly, this hasn't been the case. Above, Darouet went through BBC and Reuters reporting and showed quite clearly what their editorial stance is. That was brushed off (which was a great disrespect, in my opinion, since no one else on this talk page has done that much work to go through the source material). I went through a random assortment of press coverage of the issue a few months ago (here), but that also had no effect. Instead, I was accused of cherry-picking (I actually chose the first Google hits for the search phrase "Russian interference in us election"). That's why I'm baffled that every time this issue comes up, a number of editors show up and say things like, "We've already shown abundant RS that treat Russian interference as a fact." Looking through the archives of the talk page, the opposite is actually the case. The majority of the source work - seeing whether sources treat Russian interference as fact - has actually been done by the "constituency" that wants to present a range of views in the article. The other constituency has consistently blown off these discussions of reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My point above was that we need to STOP arguing about something you and yours stand no chance of winning. Whether you're ignoring that part of my comments for the sake of tendentiousness, managed to just completely miss the most obvious point of my comments or just can't help yourself really doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, and I'm going to keep advising everyone else to stop humoring you as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My point above is that no matter how many times we show that reliable sources, on balance, support a cautious approach to the subject matter, we're told to just give up the argument. I thought reliable sources were supposed to dictate how we cover an issue. Consistently brushing off any discussion of how reliable sources treat the subject, and then saying you're going to stop "humoring" this discussion, looks very much to me like a simple blockading approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the only who cares what it looks like to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we already knew your point above. Spoiler alert! Let's move on to the next content. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a fair number of editors care what it looks like, and a fair number of editors agree with my view about the systemic bias in this article. Refusing to address these issues doesn't make them disappear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough is enough. Even your own sources don’t always use the word alleged or any word like it. At this point, does anyone actually think there isn’t Russian interference in elections? Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

“Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials.” I don't know why, but you (and a few others) constantly ignore the bolded part of that sentence. Can you reply to the bolded part of the sentence? Do you agree that when a newspaper quotes or paraphrases someone, the newspaper isn't necessarily implying that that person is correct? If you agree, I don't see how you can use the absence of "alleged" in the articles you cited as evidence that Le Monde, Reuters, etc. treat "Russian interference" as something other than an allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously some editors do think that. But it doesn't matter because it's not a view supported by the sources, so can we please stop arguing about it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of thinking there wasn't Russian interference in the elections. It's a matter of not knowing whether there was Russian interference. Most reliable sources do not claim to know whether Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. That's been established pretty clearly by the above discussions about reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought I've already explained my views of your arguments about this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A GIF? A persuasive argument indeed. The above is really a great summary of your entire engagement here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

U mad, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

VOA Videos

Russia, Trump Team in Contact, Former CIA Director Tells Congress

Brennan testimony on Trump intelligence sharing

I just migrated these reports, please add them to the article if / where appropriate.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Julian Assange Section Addition

Two additions should be added to the Julian Assange Section. Neutral information. First, is to add to his claim about how a 14 ye3ar old could hack podesta's email. It should be noted that podesta's password for one of his computer was "username: jpodesta; password: p@assword" and Assange claims his password was literally "password". I've also heard it was "12345password".

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/

Second, is to add his claim that Seth Rich was one of his sources. The information related to his unsolved murder, the active investigation by the local police, and the non-investigation on the federal level, are all relevant. It should be written in a way that doesn't have a bias towards any conspiracy theory, but is very relevant information given Julian Assange's claim & the significant impact of that claim. Anyone could have murdered Seth Rich. It could have been a random robbery (although nothing was stolen - which should be mentioned), it could have been a US group, or it could have been the Russias. All relevant, but speculation should NOT be mentioned. Just the information about the murder & current investigation & statements by Julian Assange.

Third, It should also be noted that Julian Assange has a track record of substantiated evidence (unless you can prove otherwise; using evidence to disprove WikiLeaks claims). Meanwhile, websites like the Washington Post have significantly worse track records when it comes to the evidence validating/invalidating their claims. This is very important. It means nothing, but is relevant to the truth because it is evidence-based reliability. Using the Scientific Method, you can quantify both sources. If evidence has ever concluded to prove or disprove a claim, that actually matters. All of it should be written in an unbiased way though - the evidence is what matters NOT opinion. Unsubstantiated claims by Assange should be written as a "claim", not a "conclusion". Although the FBI "concluded" rather than "Claimed", despite the lack of public evidence. So this article already has a bias in favor of the US government, which IMO should be corrected as not all of us are Americans.

edit: Actually, I think it would be better to simply mention Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source, he was murdered, and then simply link to the relevant Wikipedia article. No reason to add anything to that section outside that brief sentence & single link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:f040:34:7db9:20b3:a5ff:becd (talk • contribs)

Assange's comments about Podesta's password are already in this article (albeit indirectly). I don't think we need to get down to the gnat's proverbial ass on this.

Could you please cite a couple of reliable sources for "Julian Assange's statement that Seth Rich was his source"?- MrX 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Assange never said Rich was his source as he does not reveal sources and if he received the emails through third parties may not know who the original source was. TFD (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing here worth adding to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?"

These article are significant. The Guardian is an excellent RS, and they contain significant details.

• What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia?

Here's something I noticed:

"In April, the Guardian published a story revealing GCHQ’s role, under the headline “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia”. On Monday, Clapper confirmed the report – an unusual move. Asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein whether the article were true, he said: “Yes, it is and it’s also quite sensitive … The specifics are quite sensitive.”

The linked article, which Clapper "confirmed" as "true" and having "quite sensitive" "specifics", is important too:

• British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia

References

BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You know I'm a liberal, but right now I wouldn't state as fact anything that comes from Clapper. Attribution should be required, as he is clearly not an unbiased source at this point. I'm not saying not to use interviews with him, but I wouldn't go overboard with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Attribution is the rule for opinions. Only uncontested facts (the sun sets in the west, etc.) don't get refs, and opinions do get attribution, especially if they are controversial. This has nothing to do with whether we actually use content from a RS. Of course we use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The article says we do not know anything, but quotes two controversial former intelligence officers whose previous statements have been questioned. TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What we "know" is ultimately irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. That can easily be judged as OR. What we do "know" is what RS say, and we document what they report, without censorship. If they have a bias, we must, per NPOV, preserve that bias, unaffected by editorial bias or censorship.

What we know is what the article says and it says we don't know anything. Accurate reporting of sources is not OR, it's what we are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with last sentence. That's what I was driving at. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, even if some detail of their statements has been questioned, most of their statements have not been questioned, but instead confirmed, and they certainly know more than any of us or the public, and definitely more than the Trump people, because they are being kept in the dark as any suspects would be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

When intelligence officers say "I'm not sure about the accuracy of that article", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. When news outlets omit important information, I'm not so willing. Politrukki (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed redundant ref. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Show a bit of respect for your fellow editor's work. I don't alter your comments, and you don't alter mine. Okay? These sources are potential content, so those refs may be helpful, even if you don't think so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Sorry I meant to move the refs to your comments so they weren’t always showing at the bottom of the section. I see that you did that. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Grahamboat, all's well. It also looks like someone else did it, and it looks better. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, what I was referring to with my comment earlier was to mean that anything which Clapper says about the investigation, Trump or Russia should be carefully attributed, including claims of fact for which he would otherwise be considered a reliable primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants, you also mentioned Clapper in relation to bias. We should expect everyone to have a bias, and that having a bias is not necessarily a bad thing in real life, and for Wikipedia's purposes, does not preclude using them. On the contrary. We want to document real, biased, opinions. We should just attribute them. No big deal and nothing unusual. He should not be treated any differently than anyone else (but if you were to put him up against Trump, he's obviously more honest and reliable). That goes without saying, so attribute both of them, as usual. We don't censor them or use them less because of any bias.

  NPOV is all about how editors must not alter biased sources and content. See my essay which goes in depth on this subject: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.

  If we really keep context in mind, Clapper MUST be dishonest at times, especially when dealing with Trump. That's his job as an investigator. He has to keep his cards close to his body so he doesn't compromise the investigation. IOW, he is likely understating things. Today, when Clapper said there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, he's probably sitting with several strong pieces of evidence proving it, but is just stringing Trump along and giving him more rope to hang himself. Some day we'll find out what's on those alarming taped conversations between Trump's people and the Russians which caused foreign intelligence agencies to notify our intelligence agencies. It must have been serious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: and anyone else reading my comments: I had a serious, ongoing brain fart. I had completely mixed up James Clapper and James Comey, leading me to be mistaken about what the sources were saying. I agree with you about Clapper and am striking my comments above (I still feel the same way about Comey, but as this isn't a case of Comey commenting on the investigation, those thoughts aren't applicable). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

Should be added. Both refused to do it.Casprings (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting development from the deep state/deep throats.- MrX 22:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, The few people in government Trump DIDN'T call to pressure on the FBI investigation must be feeling awfully left out.Casprings (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the key quote is the report is: --> "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements abt an ongoing investigation." and the fact that "Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA officials.Casprings (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, pretty telling. But, let's give it some time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed by CNN: Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html Casprings (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Patience. This is not a newspaper. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No. it is an encyclopedia that should be up to date. Very relavent information to the article.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Objective. Wait on it. It ain't going anywhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is now 3 independent news sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean WP shouldn't be up to date.Casprings (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

NBC News Confirms: Trump Asked Top Intel Officials To Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-asked-top-intel-officials-push-back-publicly-russia-probe-n763336 Casprings (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I do not think we should add every bit of tittle tattle I think this is very relevant, even if it is just an example of the total lack of trust Donny now suffers from.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added what I would consider the key points here. [18]. Of course we shouldn't just put in the title.Casprings (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we know if either of them documented their interactions in a similar manner to the Comey memos ? Sagecandor (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • All three sources say Coats did and WP says it is unclear if Rogers did.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In accordance with his comments here, Casprings added several sentences to the article lede. I reverted them, stating that some of the wording was problematic and the information did not belong in the lede. Casprings and I then discussed it at my talk page, here, and reached consensus that a modified version could go in the article text. We did not discuss where in the article the material should go. Obviously it should be somewhere in the "2017 developments" section. I would suggest the "Comey memos" subsection be renamed with a more general title, such as "White House attempts to influence the investigation" (too suggestive) or "White House contacts with law enforcement agencies". I think the existing material in the article about Comey's memos could be condensed into a single, better organized paragraph, and then the following material added:

In February 2017 it was reported that White House officials had asked the FBI to issue a statement that there had been no contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence sources during the 2016 campaign. The FBI did not make the requested statement, and observers noted that the request violated established procedures about contact between the White House and the FBI regarding pending investigations.

After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and Director of National Security ADM Michael S. Rogers to state publicly that the FBI's investigation had turned up no evidence of any collusion. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate and did not make the requested statement. Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request. In addition, senior White House officials reportedly asked intelligence officials if they could intervene to stop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn.

References

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. However, the title is a little too WP:Weasel. Many sources suggest more then contact. Fine without your original title, but we should title it something that tells the reader more what is being reported by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The text looks good, but it doesn't belong under 'Comey memos'. It should go under its own section, probably called 'FBI Collusion probe'.- MrX 02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not combine all this stuff (Comey, this, etc) into one section called "Trump Administration's Investagation Interference". Such a title is justified per WP:Censor. It would create a logical subsection and you could always create additional headings under this subheading if something(e.g. The Comey Memos) need to be broken out.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with combining it into a single subsection (Comey and the others), about the various attempts by Trump himself and White House officials to get the FBI to close down the investigation or publicly contradict some of the reporting. But I don't think the phrase "investigation interference" has been used by any Reliable Source; let's not get ahead of the reporting. In any case "interference" is not accurate since none of the reported attempts to influence law enforcement agencies actually succeeded - so the investigation has not been interfered with. I still prefer a neutral term like "White House contacts with law enforcement" but am open to other suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the RS in the previous section right above, we can use Investigation of suspected cover-up. This is the third phase of the existing investigations and is covered by much of Comey's, FBI's and CIA's current activities. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am cool with that.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Since an investigation necessarily comes after-the-fact, would Suspected cover-up be better? That would be all-inclusive, past, present, and future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter is better. Plus it's better at tell the reader the subject of the section.Casprings (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In preparation for restoring the content, and Casprings, you write well, so you're welcome to perform the honors , please keep in mind that content in the body has primacy over content in the lead. Add to the body, and then add a short summary to the lead. There shouldn't be any content or references in the lead which are not first used in the body (except certain types of minor facts). You can read more on the subject here: WP:CREATELEAD.

Also incorporate the references and their content found above in the previous section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I just have my phone on me right now, and I never edit articles with only my phone. I get too annoyed.Casprings (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "coverup". That term is not being used in connection with these White House actions; it sounds more like WP:SYNTH. Again, let's not get ahead of the reporting. Earlier I objected to "White House attempts to influence the investigation" but maybe that would be the best title for what we have right now. --MelanieN (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. My only point is that the sources support something more but I understand some would be nervous.Casprings (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN, that's a very good start, but I have some questions or suggestions.

1. Buried deep into WaPo piece is this paragraph: "In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange. [emphasis added]"
2. Then there's the quote from "a former senior intelligence official": "The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation. [emphasis added]"
3. "A former senior intelligence official" cited in the NBC News piece contradicts this: "The former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request, they believed, according to the official. 'I don't think [Trump] ever asked somebody to say something that they didn't believe was true', the former official said. [emphasis added]"

So did Trump make a different request to Rogers to Coats or were they both truthful and do we need to note this discrepancy?

According to NBC News, one of them wrote a memo because the request was "extraordinary", and they exchanged notes, but neither of them was not "sufficiently concerned that they reported it". We should add something about this.

I take issue with the last sentence ("In addition ...) – Flynn investigation is not related to the FBI's probe of alleged Russian election interference. If the sentence is to be included, it should mention the Flynn investigation, and the content should be moved somewhere else, separate from content that is directly related to Russia investigation. Section title that includes "cover-up" would totally improper because it's not based on sources. Politrukki (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with not using cover up. But if this a main heading for Comey, this, and others the section title needs to say something more then contacts. I would suggest, since this is going into the body, use the quote from NBC and WP to show the WP:RSes are somewhat conflicted. One source might say and view something one way and another source might view it another way.Casprings (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, User:Politrukki. My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. The sources (except for the "former senior official") don't say that either. In fact we (and probably the "former senior official", and probably Trump himself) have no idea whether such a statement would have been truthful or false, because we (and they) do not have access to everything the FBI investigation has turned up or is looking at. What we do know, per Comey, is that the FBI is looking into whether there was collusion. Whether the proposed statement would have been false, or simply inappropriate at this stage of the game, is not known, and there is no point in our trying to parse which it is. From a legal standpoint it may not even be important whether the statement they were being urged to make was true or false - simply that they were being (improperly?) urged to make it. What we do know: Trump and/or White House officials asked them to make a particular public statement; they decided not to make it; Rogers at least felt moved to document the phone call, possibly because he found it improper, or possibly because he always makes a note of such conversations. We can't go beyond what we know.

To your second point, that the Flynn investigation is "not related to the FBI's probe of Russian election interference", I disagree. We don't know what all they are investigating Flynn for, but there is at least a strong possibility that if there was improper contact he could have been one of the people involved. In addition, Flynn's hints that he has "a story to tell," and his obvious hope that he can obtain immunity or at least leniency by telling it, suggest that he has knowledge about the overall Russia situation involving other people besides himself. He could turn out to be this investigations's John Dean, an insider-turned-star-witness in the Russia investigation. Flynn material definitely belongs in this article and this section, and approaches by the White House regarding the Flynn investigation are no different from approaches by the White House regarding the overall investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify my proposed wording I have added "the investigation into Michael Flynn" to the "in addition" sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent parsing of the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposed wording does not say or imply that the White House request was asking them to lie. I saw that, and I thank you for being careful. "False" was used in the edit you reverted and in the discussion on your talk page (also, as you may have noticed, someone added "false statements" to Trump's bio and I deleted "false"). But I also wanted to highlight that I think the WaPo piece is very difficult to parse. Again, WaPo says: "Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion [emphasis added]". That's the biggest "if" I've seen in a long time. That's WaPo saying in its editorial voice that Rogers was asked to tell the truth (no, that would not make the request any less idiotic, in my opinion). We don't know what kind of request Trump supposedly made to Coats because WaPo doesn't say it – either because they don't know or because they refuse to tell – but they do call the appeals "similar". Here's what I propose:

After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. He also made a similar request to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats. Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.

References

Re: Flynn. It is true that Flynn could be under investigation for a number of things. Yes, NYT says

"The documentation of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. ... Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.

but also says

In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.

My interpretation of all this is that Flynn could be investigated for things that are related to Russia but unrelated to collusion. The cited WaPo piece does not even hint what Flynn is being investigated for. The immunity offer is a moot point because the request was rejected both in House and Senate Intelligence committees and not all experts even agree that Flynn's request was serious: "Some experts cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Mr. Flynn's request for immunity." That being said, you don't have refute me on this because I approve your edit. I'm just going to make one or three bold edits that add content.
And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial! Politrukki (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Politrukki. Just one comment, about Flynn: It's true he is under investigation for other things unrelated to the collusion issue. But he is also smack in the middle of the collusion investigation. According to this new report, Flynn and Manafort were the main "Trump associates" the Russians were hoping to use to influence Trump. I saw that you removed the Comey memo from the lede because it is about the Flynn investigation. I am OK with removing it from the lede as long as it stays in the article text. And I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text. In fact let's say so in a more prominent place - rather than the middle of another discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, it concerns me that you would make an accusation of SYNTH, when I have repeatedly pointed to the section above, where there are several RS which use the term "cover-up". Use of that word is indeed based on RS. It is the third phase of the ongoing investigation. The suggestion is also worded neutrally (Suspected cover-up). That is the most accurate and short description, and it's used by RS, including Elijah Cummings:

• "The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago."[19]

(Pinging Casprings & Politrukki) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you took that as an accusation, BullRangifer. I merely meant that we do not have the sources to say it. And having now read through the section above (I have been gone for a week) I still don't feel there is any basis for us to say "coverup" in Wikipedia's voice. Elijah Cummings is not an Independent Reliable Source in this matter; he is a partisan making a partisan accusation, not a neutral commenter saying something about which he has personal knowledge. This case may eventually turn out to prove the old saying "it's not the crime that lands you in jail, it's the coverup", but we have no basis for saying anything like that now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. We could possibly add a final sentence to my proposed material, saying that reported contacts such as these have caused investigators to expand their investigation into the possibility of a coverup. That much does appear to be documented. But it would be too much of a stretch to make that the title of the subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that right now I don't know time to go through your sources and they seem to predate Coats/Rogers reports. Can you provide a quote from a source that labels requests to Coats & Rogers as a cover-up? If you do, could also estimate if your sample is representative? As I said, Coats & Rogers believed that, according to a former senior intelligence official, Trump made a public relations request. Politrukki (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I think there's been enough time to get significant coverage and that it's fine to include this now. I think combining it with the Comey Memo subsection is the best way, along with renaming that section to "White house interactions with the investigation" or something similar. I'm okay with the wording as proposed by MelanieN, but I haven't read much past it in this thread, so not sure if any concerns have been raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have merged this wording with the Comey memo material, and have put it in the article in place of the Comey memo subsection, in a section titled "White House attempts to influence the investigation." We had not really reached a consensus on the section title but I felt there was sufficient consensus to add the material, leaving room for more discussion on the title. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede

I'd like to call attention to a couple of comments which are buried in the middle of a discussion above:

From Politrukki: And oh, for the love of muffins, people, please stop adding new material to the lead unless it's something crucial!

From me: I certainly agree with you that people need to stop adding the latest headline to the lede. (Today's example: all the edit warring over Feinstein's comment.) If something is new and relevant, put it in the article text, not the lede. The lede is only for summarizing the most important points from the text.

Bottom line: when you have new, sourced material that is relevant to this article, please put it in the appropriate section of article text, with references. Only after it is determined to be an essential part of the overall story should it be added to the lede as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — JFG ^talk 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wholly agree, if it is notable it goers in the lead otherwise keep in in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• No argument here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, but the lead paragraph is messed up, IMHO. It starts okay: "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." But then the lead paragraph goes into detail about that connclusion instead of providing more overview. So, I would suggest splitting the lead paragraph at the end of the first sentence, and adding more overview to the lead paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: there's an open RfC to re-shape the lead section. It's still time to participate before it gets closed. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not clear on what the problem is suppose to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have elaborated in the RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Lordy this is so freaking annoying. Why do people add shit straight into the intro that is not first in the body ? So stupid. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with MelanieN, with allowable exceptions for exceptional developments like the resignation of the President, revelation of "smoking gun" evidence, or grand jury indictments.- MrX 11:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorial policy: alleged

Some time ago I went through the BBC's articles on this affair, and saw that they always described hacking or interference as "alleged," unless they were quoting or obviously paraphrasing American officials. I also spent some time reading other wiki articles on this topic. Basically, despite longstanding objections from dozens of editors here, a cautious editorial policy (something that the BBC has somehow managed) is thrown to the wind. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC and Reuters

The BBC (News, Global News, Newsday, Newshour, Business Matters, Radio 4) routinely describes “alleged interference” or “possible hacking.” This appears to have been their policy in print and voice since the story broke, and it remains true today:

• "On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups."" BBC 26 April
• "Then the roiling controversy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election turned Moscow into a toxic subject in Washington." BBC 13 April
• “A US intelligence report released in January alleged that Vladimir Putin had tried to help Mr Trump to victory, allegations strongly denied the Russian president.” BBC 10 April
• “US Congressman forced to step down from the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.” BBC 6 April
• “Both the House and Senate intelligence committees and the FBI are investigating alleged Kremlin interference in the US election” BBC 4 April
• “US Senate to probe allegations of Russian involvement in presidential election” BBC 30 March
• “The committee is examining Russia's alleged interference in last year's election.” BBC 29 March
• “FBI chief confirms criminal probe into alleged Russian interference in 2016 US election” BBC 21 March
• “Did Russia interfere in last year’s presidential election? A US intelligence committee is hearing evidence about the Kremlin’s alleged involvement.” BBC 20 March
• “The US House Intelligence Committee will hear the testimony of the FBI Director James Comey as they look into allegations of Russian interference in last year's American presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “FBI director James Comey has confirmed for the first time that the FBI is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.” BBC 20 March
• “Hearings are being held on alleged Russian interference in the US election campaign, at Capitol Hill.” BBC 20 March
• “We speak to a Democrat Congressman about the latest on the allegations of Russian involvement in the US Presidential election.” BBC 20 March
• “President Trump's Attorney General says he'll step aside from involvement in any investigations about Moscow's alleged interference in last year's election.” 2 March
• “Last week President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US over the alleged hacking” BBC 7 January
• “US expels 35 Russian diplomats as punishment for alleged interference in the presidential election” BBC 29 December
• “President Obama vows action over Moscow's alleged interference in the US election.” 16 December

Reuters appears to do the same thing:

• “Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues. Those include alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election…” Reuters 10 April
• “Russian-state media service RT reported, citing his wife, that Levashov was suspected of being connected to hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election” Reuters 10 April
• “House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is stepping aside from the panel's probe of possible Russian interference in the 2016 election” Reuters for WSJ 7 April
• “Michael Conaway (R-TX) awaits for FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to testify to the House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election… But unlike Devin Nunes - who on Thursday stepped down as leader of the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, including possible collusion with Trump associates - Conaway was not a member of the incoming president's transition team. Russia denies the allegations… And in a January interview with the Dallas Morning News, [Conaway] seemed to make light of the alleged Russian meddling in the election” Reuters 7 April
• “The House Intelligence Committee wants Susan Rice, a top aide in the Obama administration, to testify in a probe of alleged Russian election interference” Reuters for WSJ 5 April
• “The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee will ask the directors of FBI and the National Security agency to appear in a closed session in its probe of allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections” Reuters 24 March
• “U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Monday it was not known whether any Americans helped Russia in an alleged hacking campaign aimed at swaying the Nov. 8 election” Reuters 20 March
• “FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the agency was investigating possible Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election” Reuters 20 March
• “The charges came amid a swirl of controversies relating to alleged Kremlin-backed hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election” 16 Reuters March
• “President Barack Obama retaliated for Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Reuters 9 February

(I have found one example to the contrary, from 11 April):

• “Even before Trump ordered last week's strike in retaliation for a nerve gas attack, Tillerson's visit was certain to be dominated by thorny issues, including Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election” [20]

Nobody here has ever articulated why (or how we'd know) that the BBC or Reuters are wrong to be cautious. Should we be cautious? Or should Wikipedia lead the charge?

Other language Wikis

I don't think our article at present accurately conveys what is known and thought, by reliable sources, about these allegations around the world.

For instance the French article on this topic is titled, “Accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.” The Spanish article has the same title, “Accusations…” and the German article is titled “2016 hacking affair between Russia and the US.” The French article contains an 8-part section titled “Skepticism of the hypothesis of Russian interference,”

• The Accusations contested:
• Absence of proof
• Credibility of authorities placed in doubt
• Alternative hypotheses
• Conspiracy theories:
• To direct attention from stolen emails
• The explain Clinton’s defeat
• To sabatoge Trump’s election

These sections do what one expect given the circumstances of the allegations: cite journalists, cybersecurity experts, and political figures who are skeptical, and sometimes provide alternative explanations for the allegations. Among those cited:

• Edward Snowden, “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.” Le Monde
• Investigative journal Mediapart: “despite multiple accusations, often proffered to the press anonymously by intelligence officials, American authorities have brought no definitive proof that the Russian government is behind Guccifer 2.0” [21]
• Cybersecurity expert Nicolas Arpagian, “we still have but solemn political declarations. But no proof, no distinct or incontestable element…” Liberation or journalist Stephane Trano, “American intelligence services… are not required to produce the least element of public proof, since their information is by nature classified.” Marianne Or cybersecurity expert Gerome Billois, to the effect of, “many people could have hacked the DNC” France 24
• Statement from le Quotidian, “it’s impossible to take Washington’s words as good coin” after the recent claims of WMD, or the Gulf of Tonkin for that matter [22]
• William Binney and Ray McGovern Baltimore Sun
• Glenn Greenwald Monde DiplomatiqueThe Intercept
• Jean-Paul Bequiast, Florian Filippot MediaPart blogLe Monde, and a humorous commentary from Afrique Asie: “After a careful reading of 25 pages of the declassified, redacted report concocted by the American Intelligence Community, the ODNI (CIA, FBI, NSA, and fourteen other agencies), just one word comes to mind: nothing” [23]

Congratulations, you've managed to cherry picked some opinions statements that exist on the internet. That's great. Why should we care? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

        Why should we care?  Because no one has come forward with actual evidence of the alleged hacking by Russia.  That's why. 8675309 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

By contrast, our article baldly declares the allegations are true (title), dedicates the beginning of the intro to a long quote directly from American intelligence agencies, and mostly quotes cybersecurity experts or former intelligence officials who believe the government has been too weak against Russia (except for instance in the “Joint Analysis Report” section).

We don't need to follow what the French Wikipedia does. But we need to consider how we've gotten to the point where we take an aggressive editorial line that this event really did occur (which it might have), when major news outlets like Reuters and the BBC don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur -- the article intro should either include "alleged" or be moved to Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment French Wikipedia is a joke. They are still trying to figure out who shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, and their article gives "equal time" between the Dutch Safety Board and Putinist propaganda. [24]. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet, they, the Spanish, and the Germans appear to generally follow a neutral editorial line as set out by the BBC and Reuters, whereas we do not. -Darouet (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other language Wikipedias do. And by "follow a neutral editorial line" you simply mean "I like those versions better". Which is your right, but like I said, irrelevant here. Different Wikipedias have different policies. Likewise, BBC and Reuters aren't encyclopedias so they also do things differently. See WP:ALLEGED. We've been over this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC or Reuters editorial policies and attitudes are not irrelevant: these are considered flagship sources globally. If they write that hacking / interference is "alleged," they are not treating it as a fact but as an allegation. We have to be honest that if we treat interference as a fact, we are diverging from their policies about what is known, or not known. And while we are not obliged to follow other wikis, I've listed the approach taken by other language wikipedias because those approaches are consistent with reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters, whereas our approach is not. -Darouet (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

From WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." That's exactly the case here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't an RFC on this subject closed today? Consensus is pretty clear and this seems like a dead horse. If you disagree, I would suggest challenging the RFC's close.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not challenging that RfC's close, since I think the issues raised here are broader than a choice between two options for a first sentence. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• We have to stop having this same discussion. That the Russian election interference happened is the neutral, widely-reported point of view. What is still to be determined is whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.- MrX 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The editorial position of the BBC and Reuters appear to disagree with you. Why is that? -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because they're not encyclopedias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I don't see your point. We're supposed to reflect reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX: No, that's not neutral at all, and what the above quotes that Darouet has put together show conclusively is that BBC and Reuters do not treat Russian interference as a fact. To reach compromise, we have to have a common basis to work from. One important aspect of that common basis has to be an acceptance by all editors here that reliable sources do not generally consider Russian interference a fact. We simply can't keep having this argument over and over again. Enough evidence has been presented to show that RSes generally treat Russian interference as uncertain, and to keep insisting that it's an established fact isn't reasonable at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• We must stop meeting here like this 😍 ... SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a signature and I'm too lazy to search the history. So who took a quote from Trump and tried to attribute that as being the BBC's editorial stance? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not even going to bother clicking on the rest of the links when the first one is that bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That is humorous: "alleged" is the BBC, the rest is Trump. If you are too lazy even to read one sentence, sure, why read anything else? -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The BBC says, On alleged Russian election hacking: "I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups." Notice that "alleged" is in the voice of the BBC. Before commenting, please read through the quotes more carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How the hell is WP:PASSINGMENTION not an essay yet? Apparently it needs to be explained thoroughly and in-depth to a number of users. Not by me, though. I don't have the patience to deal with editors still complaining about something that's been settled by countless RfC's and talk page discussions. But I'll give it the passing mention treatment: Trump's words are the ONLY part of that quote that actually makes a claim. The rest is just semantics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC explicitly calls it "alleged Russian hacking," as they regularly do when discussing the subject. We've had countless RfCs, but something I've noticed is that whenever we get to a discussion of sources, you and a number of other editors declare that we've already discussed this and refuse to actually acknowledge how the sources treat this subject. Darouet just listed a few dozen BBC and Reuters articles that treat "Russian interference" as an allegation or a claim of unknown truth, rather than as a known fact, but you're not acknowledging that fact. This is how most reliable sources are treating the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. I've already explicitly addressed this. Are you sure you understand what this discussion is about? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. You've been presented with a list of BBC articles that refer to "alleged" Russian interference, and your only response (other than that you're not willing to read them) is that one of the articles doesn't deal with the issue at great enough length. I'm sorry, but that's not a real argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your post addresses this at all. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it really seems like the problem isn't on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Whenever the BBC mentions "Russian hacking" or "Russian interference" in the US election, they always write "alleged." The same is true for Reuters. That is all this list shows - that they have had a consistent editorial policy that these are allegations, not facts. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has already proven this statement wrong, two comments below this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, VM did not do anything of the sort. VM quoted two articles in which Reuters quotes US intelligence officials. Quoting someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or in any way endorse what they're saying. News agencies quote Trump all the time, but that doesn't mean they agree with him. When Reuters covers "Russian interference," it generally uses "alleged" (or a synonym), unless it's clear that Reuters is quoting someone else. When quoting someone else, it's clear that "Russian interfernce" is an allegation, and Reuters doesn't have to use the word "alleged." This is a really simple concept, and it's incredibly frustrating to go round and round in circles on it. Darouet has provided proof above of the editorial position that the BBC and Reuters have taken, and you're essentially ignoring it. We have to have a basic agreement on facts if we're going to get anywhere, and it's clear that BBC and Reuters treat "Russian interference" as an unproven allegation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur: Many thanks for putting together this list. This shows us that BBC and Reuters do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact, but rather prefix it with "alleged," "possible," and similar phrases. To the editors who are quickly dismissing this (above: Casprings, Geogene, SPECIFICO, MjolnirPants), please take Darouet's effort a bit more seriously. Darouet has done us all a huge favor by going through BBC and Reuters articles and showing what their editorial policy is regarding "alleged." I really would like to think that Wikipedia is a collaborative place where people are able to reach compromise on how to present contentious topics - even topics as contentious as current American politics. But compromise requires that editors be open to changing their mind when evidence is presented. The above evidence shows that what several editors have been insisting (reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as a fact) is simply not true. If we can't have agreement on something as basic as this (something for which solid evidence has been presented), I don't think we'll be able to reach compromise on anything. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I typed in "Reuters Russian Hacking" into google. I got this [25]. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". The second hit was this. The word "alleged" does not appear anywhere in the article. Neither does the word "supposed". So I'm guessing the above lists was cherry picked to make a WP:POINT or is outdated. Regardless, there are also plenty of other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek, your first source attributes the claim of Russian hacking to US officials: "Russia succeeded in its goals of sowing discord in U.S. politics by meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which will likely inspire similar future efforts, two top former U.S. voices on intelligence said on Tuesday." Reuters isn't claiming that the claims of those officials are correct. Your second source does the exact same thing: "Congressional committees began investigating after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump." Darouet could have cited those articles as well, and they would equally have bolstered the case that Reuters always treats "Russian interference" as an allegation (whether by attributing the claim or by explicitly saying "alleged"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh. So "concluded" is synonymous with "alleged". Gotcha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what's being discussed. We're not discussing what precise wording reliable sources use. We're discussing how they treat "Russian interference." Do they report it as a fact? Do they report it as a claim that certain people/groups are making? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Robocop is riding a unicorn. Your argument is invalid. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there a point you're trying to make about the article? You said in your opening statement that you don't want to read the sources above, and now you're linking to random images on the web. I don't see what any of your posts here have to do with article improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just responding to your rebuttal with something equally valid and supported by evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Like for example, I could make a list for New York Times and Washington Post, maybe starting with Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election - Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Notice the absence of "alleged" in that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I frankly acknowledge that the NYT and WP often write about interference from Russia as a fact. Reuters and the BBC never do so: for them it is always an allegation. But all four of those sources would never doubt the truth of evolution by natural selection, or the fact of the holocaust. In other words, among educated people and reliable sources, we recognize that we can have certainty about many things, but the fact of Russian interference in the US election. Right now we are taking a different, radical approach that is inconsistent with what we know via reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I do take Darouet seriously and I dismiss him seriously. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? And stop gendering me. -Darouet (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Replying to bulleted point above beginning with concur. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. As a general rule we should always lean toward being careful regarding how we describe unproven allegations. In this case the number of sources describing the charges as alleged, or even openly questioning the lack of evidence backing the accusations, is overwhelming. This is not even a remotely close call. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concur: It's fucking crazy how Wikipedia basically just parrots CIA/DNC propaganda on everything these days. What the hell happened to being an encyclopedia anyone can edit. 108.41.8.44 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Reboot

The result of the RfC has properly been installed by Casprings. The wording is "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."

The RfC determined that "alleged" is not the proper word. "Concluded" is the proper word.

Why a "reboot"? Because the discussion is off-track because it is about what actually happened, not about the belief of "The United States government's intelligence agencies." One can have one's doubts about whether Russia was involved or not, but there can be no doubt that "The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded..." THEY are not in doubt. We write their conclusion, not what someone thinks actually happened. Those are two different things.

This whole thread is way off track. This should end the discussion. Rehashing the RfC is not an option at this point. Such a rehashing is disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If the opening sentence is to be as above, then this page needs to be retitled "What the US Intelligence Agencies Think About Russian Interference". Equally, given that this page actually has the broader title "Russian Interference ..", the topic should not be defined from the outset by one (interested) party's view of the matter. A page about a noted historical unsolved murder which has been the subject of wide-ranging inquiry and speculation would not simply start "The Police think Mr X killed Mr Y". As noted previously, yes the CIA et al have declared/concluded (with some caveats) the interference occurred but it remains, at the same time, an allegation, because the CIA is not a court of law with the power to declare facts. There is no contradiction there. The page should say at the outset that these are allegations; then go on to set out that the IC say this, others say that. Sadly, the reaction to the detailed evidence presented above as to how third-party sources are quite deliberately and consciously treating this story as an allegation (something which is obvious from watching and reading media in the UK) is symptomatic of the simplistic politicisation of the issue in real life and on this page. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of RfCs if they are ignored? Objective3000 (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but equally what is the point of RfCs if they are just railroaded by the same editors who have long been most active on the page and the outcome is at best wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? Plus as noted by the starter of this thread, the issue is slightly broader and relates to the structure of the page as a whole rather than simply the exact wording of the first sentence. AFAICT, the option was between two versions of phrasing to describe the views of US agencies. My point is that we shouldn't privilege the views of US spy agencies or frame the article from the outset around their views, however we describe them. N-HH talk/edits 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Railroaded? Wholly illogical and at worst politically motivated? You don’t appear to have much respect for Wikipedia process. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Time heals all wounds. Come back in 6 months. Maybe consensus will change. Maybe BBC will change. Nothing to see here for now. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean - the BBC and Reuters treat this as alleged for now, but maybe eventually they won't? That's not the way this works. "Nothing to see here for now" is equivalent to writing "who cares what reliable sources write?" -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not followed the discussion or the RFC, but I've just given it a quick read. I would strongly encourage you to move this article to Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because that's what it is. Moreover, the lede uses the word "stated" several times, when it should be "hypothesized." Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    How is it that we can claim Russia did something without actual evidence?  Is it possible?  Sure.  Has Russia been proven to be involved?  No.  Why are we acting like this happened?8675309 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Nevins revelations

At some point some mention of the new Aaron Nevins revelations should be added. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anthony-nevins-roger-stone-stolen-democratic-voter-analyses SecretName101 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. But, looks pretty weak. Objective3000 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation

Per WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jared-kushner-now-a-focus-in-russia-investigation/2017/05/25/f078db74-40c7-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_kushner-645pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Should be added to his section and someone this close to POTUS is a big deal. Casprings (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NBC Confirming: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jared-kushner-now-under-fbi-scrutiny-russia-probe-say-officials-n764826?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma Casprings (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

CNN: FBI Russia investigation looking at Kushner role http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/fbi-russia-investigation-jared-kushner/index.html Casprings (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

The Washington Post: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html 23:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-kushner-exclusive-idUSKBN18N018

Should be in article. Casprings (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT confirms article: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC Casprings (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Diane Feinstein comment

In a CNN interview three weeks ago, Diane Feinstein's responded "Not at this time" when asked

"Here's the question. And you don't have to provide us with any classified information, Senator. But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?"

This information is out of date (see, for example, this), and it's not particularly significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Based on what is known today, it represents a minority viewpoint that has largely been promulgated by questionable sources like Breitbart and The Washington Times. I think this material should remain out of the article.- MrX 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

4-word snippets off the tube present rather a target-rich environment to cherrypick UNDUE content, but one mustn't muscle it back into the text after it's been removed. The noteworthy content will have been repeated in dozens of other sources. The remainder is chaff. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: In your edit comment, you state: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia." Feinstein's comment is not a "viewpoint", it's her current assessment of the state of the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry as regards to suspected collusion between Trump and Russia. As one of the leaders of this committee, her statement is eminently WP:DUE. It was sufficiently interesting to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he repeated the question two weeks later and she gave an even more precise response, saying she has seen nothing tangible apart from rumors and press reports. That doesn't mean there is nothing, but that's a noteworthy statement coming from one of the bodies investigating the matter (and Feinstein can't exactly be called a Trump apologist, right?) No objection to adding her other statement of May 21 that you cite. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

BS. Cable news needs to fill endless hours of airtime. Cherrypicked chaff. Please do not reinsert content that's been challenged with reversion. Use talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

She was asked if she had info and responded not yet. How is that DUE? Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So one of the key people in the government investigating the subject of this article makes a statement saying they have no evidence for the claim, which is then picked up and covered by numerous RS is not due? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is insane. It's not a "minority" viewpoint (what people seem to really mean is "it doesn't tally with what I and some others believe"), it's the view of a well-known US Senator who had been presented with the available evidence and said, on a major TV show, in comments that were widely reported elsewhere, that she could see no evidence of collusion. AFAICT she has not retracted that, even if she has gone on to say other things about the investigation. Yes, she said, "not yet" but so what? That goes without saying, unless she can see into the future. It doesn't mean it *is* going to turn up. Editors here argue for filling this page with speculation and opinion from all sorts of people who say one thing, and all nod together about the "great sources" they are using, and then push the most bizarre pretexts for shutting out anything that runs counter to their preferred narrative. This page is nothing but agenda-driven politics. Is it not possible to look across the views and sources out there and create a measured, balanced overview? N-HH talk/edits 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Including this material would suggest to readers that there is no evidence, which is extremely unlikely based on recent coverage of the matter.- MrX 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes – as Rumsfeld once said about WMD I believe – and sometimes absence of evidence is indeed that, absence of evidence. What you or anyone else here thinks "likely" or "unlikely" is neither here nor there. You've kind of proved some of the points I was making about confirmation bias and following preferred narratives to be honest. N-HH talk/edits 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one here has said that collusion between Trump associates and Russia is a fact. Objective3000 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they did. But the most active editors are all clearly leaning in that direction. I mean just above you've got a pseudonymous WP editor simply asserting it's "extremely unlikely" there is no evidence of collusion, in a debate about the comments of someone who has actually seen much of the information and has said exactly the opposite. N-HH talk/edits 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The question appears to have been designed to elicit a response that can be used as a headline that investigation has concluded that there was no collusion. Congressmen in hearings and lawyers in trials commonly use this technique. We are in the very early days of investigation and should not suggest a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of silly. There are far, far more sources that point to inappropriate contact between Russians and the Trump crew, than that are sources that claim there is no evidence of such contact. That observation doesn't prove confirmation bias. At most, it shows that I don't get my information from Breitbart and Sean Hannity.- MrX 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion, which is a much stronger thing. Also there's a lot of debate about what is or is not inappropriate contact (campaigns speak to reps from other nations all the time). I for one have literally never read Breitbart or watched Sean Hannity in my life, nor have I tapped into much of the politically driven Democrat-led hysteria about this, or even looked that much at the mainstream US media (which of course is pretty uniformly hostile to Trump, albeit not without reason). I get most of my information on it from the UK media. The point with the allegations and speculation about Russian interference and Trump's possible collusion with it is that there is no clear answer as to what happened. That's why it's being investigated. Until there is a conclusion to those investigations, this page needs to reflect the diversity of views, not tie itself down to either narrative (and no, this is not "false equivalence" if you want to try that one next). N-HH talk/edits 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to edit this article according to WP:NPOV and in particular WP:WEIGHT without reading much US media. Anyway Sen. Feinstein was not expressing a "view" so this is the wrong floor for ties. and "narratives" are found in Millinery, aisle 4. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"The specific issue is not "inappropriate contact", it's collusion" Well, collusion falls under inappropriate contact. It's true that at this point there is no clear answers to what happened, but within the article both points of view about possible collusion are already presented. Feinstein's comment doesn't make anything any clearer. It's noise that will be forgotten once the investigation starts yielding results.- MrX 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JFG, the simple fact that Feinstein confirmed on May 18 that she has not seen evidence of collusion still doesn't convince me that this should be mentioned in the article. Others may disagree.- MrX 14:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given the enormous amount of coverage this topic has recieved and the huge amount of material (including interviews) that's out there, I agree that a remark in an interview (even by the ranking member if a committee) isn't inherently noteworthy here. We should only include such remarks if they get significant coverage in other, major newspapers or similarly weight-y sources. I have no idea if that's the case here or not, but if so it wasn't clear from the sources used. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are issues about not including everything given the volume of statements and opinions on this, and it is fair to say it was mostly picked up by conservative media, but that's not surprising really. But then you risk running into asking for meta-sourcing for everything rather than relying on what is already a good secondary source, ie CNN. N-HH talk/edits 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Very very very obviously it should be included. We discuss and discuss and discuss investigations about collusion. Now you want to omit that a person who has been amply briefed says those investigations have turned up no such evidence. Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. Please read WP:NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I just skimmed/searched the page for the specific word "collusion", and that seems a fair assessment, although it does include Schiff saying there is "circumstantial" evidence of it (as well as quotes from Morell and Clapper saying they have seen none). Feinstein's comments may or may not be worth including, but the dismissal of them, and the initial arguments deployed against inclusion above, were pretty weak tbh (and indicative of a wider issue). N-HH talk/edits 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Feinstein most certainly did not say "those investigations have turned up no such evidence.". She said:

"So, I would depend on this investigation that we’re talking about, that would bring forward any criminal activity, and, of course, has the right and the ability to charge people, select targets, look at them, bring about an indictment. And so, it’s a very big investigation, and I think somebody that’s as sophisticated as Bob Mueller is really the one to carry it out and see that it does not go awry, it does not overeach, but it’s what it should be."

- MrX 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What does that quote have to do with anything? The issue under discussion is her comments about evidence for collusion. She's addressed this twice now only this month, as this later quote makes clear:

• WOLF BLITZER, CNN: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me — and I’m quoting you now — you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”
• SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “Well, not– no, it hasn’t.”

That's pretty clear cut, and also refutes the claim that the previous comment is now "out of date". N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the article mentions the word "collusion" 20 times. It does not say, anywhere, "there is evidence that (named living person) colluded", so it's not a BLP issue. It does not even say "there is evidence that associates of Trump colluded"; all it says is that the possibility of collusion is under investigation. And as N-HH points out, we already have in the article both Morell and Clapper saying that at a particular point in time they had not seen evidence of collusion. So it's not a balance issue. So why is it so desperately important (Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. ----Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by a third person saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from the lead suggesting collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign:

“ Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015....Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone....On March 20, 2017, FBI director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation about Russian interference since July 2016, including possible coordination between associates of Trump and Russia.... ”

In contrast, there is not one word in the lead saying that no evidence of collusion has been found to date. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN not to include it, that assessment is the best one in this section so far [26]. Sagecandor (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and others that this doesn't belong. It is outdated ([27]) but also not particularly important/doesn't convey much information to the reader ("We don't know yet" is obvious and implicit in the statement that it's under investigation). Neutrality^talk 22:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not "outdated" unless it's been superseded. And she isn't simply saying "I don't know about X either way", she's specifically saying "I have seen no evidence of X". N-HH talk/edits 07:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, why? This is not a BLP issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Closed by admin Sphilbrick at that noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It may well deserve discussion, but multiple people questioned whether it was a BLP issue, and it seemed not to be. No sense cluttering up a page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's cluttering up everything everywhere. Sagecandor (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Sphilbrick at the BLPN talk page. That seems the best place to do so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet another page to add more clutter. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cluttering everywhere is obviously suboptimal. It is being discussed here, robustly. Not immediately obvious that it needs to be discussed elsewhere, but if someone judges that it needs more involvement, one option is an RfC, another is to determine the central issue and decide if there is a good, relevant noticeboard. It seems to me to be an issue of neutrality, and only involves BLP in a way that would allow almost anything to qualify. If this was a low-traffic page, I'd understand the need to take it elsewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better just to state that Feinstein said she had not seen any evidence. Not important how she phrased it, who was asking the question, where she was, what she was wearing, the temperature outside, etc. TFD (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, as long as we mention she's the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and mention when she said it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That phrasing suggests there is no evidence. And the Senate Intelligence Committee is only one of the investigations, and the investigations are in early stages. At this point in the Nixon investigations, little was known. We should have the patience to let this play out without putting out "BREAKING NEWS". Objective3000 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Feinstein's committee oversees the whole intelligence community, and Blitzer prefaced his question like this: "I know that you and some of your colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee drove over to Langley, Virginia, yesterday to CIA headquarters and you were briefed." As for Watergate, Bob Woodward says: "But this is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime on the Russian issue... in the case of Nixon, he had his former White House counsel, John Dean, for four days testifying that the president corruptly and illegally led the obstruction of justice and you have nothing comparable. Now, that doesn't mean, you know, we don't know where this is going to go. There is an immense amount of smoke." Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we know that Feinstein knows everything going on in the House Committee, or the Mueller investigation? We should be careful calling this “Feinstein’s committee”, since she hasn’t chaired it in over a year and we’ve already seen problems with briefing all members of the House committee. Objective3000 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That was true 23 days ago, who knows if it is true now, and if it does change, we won't necessarily find out about it in a timely manner. People favoring inclusion should agree to an "expiration date" at which it can be removed without disagreement. Best not to include in the first place. Geogene (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: Sorry, that was still true 7 days ago, when she answered the second Blitzer interview on May 19. Besides, we shouldn't place an arbitrary "expiration date" on information we include, otherwise the article would soon be empty… Feinstein's statement is afaik the first feedback from the Senate Intelligence Committee since they started their investigation in January: like it or not, that's pretty significant in and of itself. What if she had said "oh yes we've seen some serious evidence of collusion but we can't talk about it yet". Would that still be UNDUE in your opinion? — JFG ^talk 05:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, before the Ervin Committee was authorized (Feb. 7, 1973), seven men were convicted in the DNC headquarters break-in, including G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, who worked both for the White House and the Nixon reelection campaign. So yes there was conclusive evidence of crimes committed by people working for Nixon. TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds misleading. Yes, the Cubans that actually performed the break-in were taken to task early on in that long-running episode in history. But, clearly it did not end there, despite their promise to not rat out those that paid them. Long after, Nixon resigned due to the cover up. I simply do not understand how Feinstein's response is useful to an understanding of the subject of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not just the Cubans, but also G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, who worked both for the White House and the Nixon reelection campaign. Considering this article is about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections," it is relevant whether or not there is any evidence it happened and which people investigating it have actually seen it. Usually in criminal cases, evidence is considered to be important, but maybe this is an exception. TFD (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Conspiracy theories

An IP user has inserted a link to this article on Template:Conspiracy theories. I have removed it — given that the reliable sources do not describe the Russia affair as a "conspiracy theory" — but I wanted to flag the issue on this page. If you can, please add the template to your watchlist - more eyeballs always appreciated. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That is spectacularly POV, effectively equating this article with UFOs and men in black. It doesn't surprise me; I've seen seen persistent efforts to involve other Russia-related articles with that template. Geogene (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you on excluding such junk; however "spectacularly POV" may well apply to the whole article… — JFG ^talk 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about wiretapping tweets

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?. - MrX 14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kushner and secret channel of communication with Russians

[28]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Too early for us. Objective3000 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please show me policy that says WP should not be update with current information from WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kushner is a living person, making information about him subject to BLP. That means we need a) more and more definitive sources and b) some time to pass so that this can be evaluated before we put it in the article anywhere.--MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WaPo is a "definitive source". Here is more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And more

And more

And more

And more (I mean, Fox News is even reporting it! Whoa!)

Enough? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Also (b) above is not a policy nor a guideline. We don't need "time to pass" if there are plenty of reliable sources reporting it. Which there are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just rescanned WP:BLP and I saw nothing on the "time" part of your statement. Might have missed it. On sourcing, WP is a great source who maintains great standards. I would argue that it is fine for any BLP claim. That said, when/if this reporting is repeated this should be clearly placed into the article as soon as possiable.Casprings (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to wait a day or even two before adding this kind of information. That way every other paragraph doesn't have to begin with "According the Washington Post, unnamed officials said...". Hopefully we don't need a policy to tell us that a little bit of restraint will make for a more better article.- MrX 02:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT independtly confirms: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC

We should go ahead and add it. Two very high quality WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a response. Sounds DUE; but what's the hurry? Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You need a reliably sourced explanation of the connection between setting up a communications channel after the election with Russian interference in the election. TFD (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Even FOX news makes such connection [29]: "At the same time, a new Reuters report stated that Kushner had at least three previously undisclosed contacts with Kislyak during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Those contacts included two phone calls between April and November 2016. Seven current and former U.S. officials confirmed the information with Reuters.". My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than talk about this (or anything else) in the abstract, I find it almost always more productive for someone to put suggested language on the table (either at talk or through an appropriate edit). So if someone has a suggested draft? Neutrality^talk 02:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. - To make my view clear, we certainly should have something on this (extremely) important development, which has been independently reported by both Reuters and Washington Post. Of course, it may take some time to allow the developments to shake out. Neutrality^talk 03:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is increasingly becoming a parody. Gossip and speculation about every minor thing which could look bad for Trump or Russia? "Extremely important", "quality sources", "simply must be included". Something which suggests that while there's a lot of hot air around the topic of interference and collusion, there might not be much actual evidence of either of those things? "Undue", "outdated", "poorly sourced", "a minority view". N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not "gossip". Objective3000 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: Didn't you know this page is a testbed for WP's experimental new NPOV+ policy? — JFG ^talk 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, "according to sources" very much is "gossip" in the widest sense, albeit gossip given the imprimatur of having been reported by the media (plus I also said "speculation" of course). It's in the nature of the media to sometimes overplay every minor incident or comment. It sells newspapers. There may be something significant here, and I'm not saying it isn't relevant for the page, but this is certainly not a clear and complete exposition of what happened or what it actually means. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing all that much linking between this and the election interference (and this all still rumors of rumors stuff). If this was the "Donnie's links to Russia" page I would agree to inclusion now, it's not.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

its directly related to the infestation the FBI is doing on Russian interference on the election. The WP and NYT are the highest standard of journalism WP can use for sourcing.Casprings (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

IS it directly related, can we have a source that says there is a direct relation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: FBI deals with pest infestations now? ROTFLMAO! — JFG ^talk 13:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

RAID!- MrX 14:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Cell phones and auto correct. On being connected to the FBI investigation, that connection is made in literally every source I have seen on this. For example, The NY Times: https://nyti.ms/2r7tYaC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured. Made my day! — JFG ^talk 16:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary to lede by Enthusiast01

Disagree with this summary added to the lede [30].

This article is not just about the FBI investigation.

It is about the wider topic itself.

Though there could be another separate article about the FBI investigation only, and or the Special counsel. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I have rewritten the lede paragraph to include the other investigations (because they actually are covered in this article). Comments welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says intro sections should be no more than 4 paragraphs. This article is currently unwieldy at 6. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. After we settle the question of the lede sentence/paragraph, let's see if we can trim/combine/move some of the material into the body of the article and leave just a summary of the article in the lede as we are supposed to. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article, redux

Today's changes to the lead section by Enthusiast01[31] and MelanieN[32] have redefined the scope of this article as covering the investigations about Russian election interference and suspected Trump campaign misdeeds. In prior discussions, the scope had been defined as covering Russian meddling activities broadly construed, and not just the investigations about them. More recently, as the article grew to include various allegations about the Trump entourage, I suggested a split between the Russian election interference here and the Trump–Russia collusion investigations elsewhere (see draft), but this proposal was rebuked. Now, if the scope is redefined as all-inclusive of various investigations into Trumpian affairs beyond Russian election interference, then the title is grossly inappropriate. What can we do? I see three logical options:

• Option A: Accept new lead, focus article on Trump–Russia links and change the title to something like "Investigations of Russian election interference and collusion between Trump and Russia]]
• Option B: Keep current title and split article between Russian interference on the one hand, and Trump team collusion stories on the other hand, as proposed in Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (exact title to be discussed)
• Option C: Revert recent lead changes to prior status quo, defining article scope as Russian interference and its aftermath (several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed)

Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. This article should be about the wider topic, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, broadly construed. Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• I didn't think of the changes as "redefining" the subject, simply as "defining" it, per WP style for a lede sentence - rather than plunging right into the story without any introduction as the article did previously. In other words I saw it as a style change to conform to WP:LEDE, not a changing of the scope. So the problem you see is that the article isn't just about the investigations as such, it's about the broader story, of which the investigations are one part? That's a valid point - so how would you word a lede sentence/paragraph to get that idea across? --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. There are many RS accounts of these events that relate to investigations as to whether the Pres. Trump, his campaign people associated with it promoted and enabled the Russian interference. So I think that mainstream reporting on these factors is inseparable from current RS accounts of the interference. It would violate NPOV for us as editors to separate them, although many other articles may elaborate on various aspects of the suspected collusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option C. I reverted the bold edit because it doesn't make sense. The construct "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also called the Russia investigation, refers to investigations by agencies..." is poorly-worded and semantically incorrect. Interference is not a synonym for investigation. The edit also reduced the scope of the interference from U.S. election to Presidential elections, which has previously been discussed (with sources) on this page. Now I'm off to fix the grammatical error left by another user earlier today.- MrX 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, sources say the Russians interfered in multiple down ballot Congressional races, as well. Sagecandor (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? Which ones? Oh, you mean the report that a Florida candidate solicited and received information from Guccifer 2? I don't think we have anything about that in this article, do we? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ETA: Changing my !vote pending clarification of from MelanieN about "several off-topic or loosely related sections should then be removed". What do you consider to be off-topic or loosely related?- MrX 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were not my words, those were JFG's. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry MelanieN. I should read more carefully.- MrX 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I was referring to several "breaking news" stories about whatever is deemed controversial about something Trump tweeted or some meeting a dude he knows attended. Sure, some of those stories are noteworthy and should be mentioned but many are just fluff which can only be connected to the article topic (election interference by Russia) through mental gymnastics of the most speculative kind. Wikipedia is not meant to be a live detective story… — JFG ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• putting aside the options, the Russia investigation (no matter how it originally began) now definitely now covers questioning of Trump players vis-a-vis Russia. That is what the current discussion has extended to. This fact needs to be mentioned, even in brief, in the lede. I do agree though that the article is getting too long, and that the issue of hacking etc has been basically settled and that a separate article for "collusion" or coordination with the Trump team is worthwhile. This is what the current discussion is all about. It seems that that is where the current investigation is going, with hacking etc being a basically settled issue. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. You can't separate the question of Russian interference in the election (hacking and other stuff) from the question of whether that interference included actual cooperation/collusion from the Trump campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I also do not advocate splitting the materials, especially as the issues are closely related. I'm saying that that connection should be mentioned in the lede and not be treated as a side issue. The deleted summary lede paragraph should be restored. I would also suggest changing the name of the article to "the Russia investigation" as the investigation is now past merely the election period, and includes attempts to shut down the investigations, besides other controversial actions such as dismissal of an FBI Director, officials recusing themselves, appointment of social counsel, etc. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the lead paragraph was a bit nonsensical. "Interference" is not synonymous with "investigation". The interference was much more complex than simply "attempts to influence president candidate Donald Trump" et al.- MrX 01:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think we need to take more care about changes and additions to this article. Recent revelations are both unbelievable and believable at the same time. And, they are coming out in rapid fire. WP:Recentism applies more than any other article I’ve noticed. When events are curiouser and curiouser, WP should err on the side of caution. Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree with that. There's a lot of POV stuff and UNDUE stuff that is put into newsy articles but is not really worth the trouble to dispute. Soon enough, the central mainstream narrative becomes obvious. For example, we wasted weeks on marginal comments, nitpicks, and cherrypicked sources when the JAR was released. A lot of this is really wasted time because eventually the mainstream view was accepted by the consensus here. NOTNEWS really does free us to work on more important editing tasks. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have MAJOR non-related events?

Should this article have major non-related events? It seems like that would provide some context when reading a timeline. For example a SC justice being sworn in, health care, or a new war. I just think it would help the timeline because you would understand the other ongoimg Casprings (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is already far too much superfluous and tangentially related information in this article.LedRush (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No. People who want to read about other stuff can just click the relevant links… The joys of hypertext! — JFG ^talk 07:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it would detract from the main content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, as they are unrelated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized I posted this on the wrong article. Meant for the timeline related article.Casprings (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)|

Disclosure of classified information to Russia

I think the whole Disclosure of classified information to Russia section should be deleted as it does not go to Russian interference nor the investigation of officials. Enthusiast01 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

During the meeting, Trump told the Russians he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. That is why it is there and that is why it is important.Casprings (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: If we keep the 2 sentences about Comey, as I suggested below, are you OK with deleting the rest of the section? --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Enthusiast. This article is expanding well beyond its scope and is just shy of adding a kitchen sink to being an all-out position paper against Trump. Trump was talking about collusion, not interference, with his meeting with Comey. It is not the subject of this article and its presence here is highly prejudicial.LedRush (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The disclosure of classified information was related to the effort to defeat ISIS, and I'm not aware that had anything to do with Comey, the 2016 election, or the Russian effort to defeat Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is largely off-topic. It should be reduced to a brief mention in the section about Comey's dismissal. — JFG ^talk 07:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Comey related stuff definitely belongs in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, it is not really related.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the disclosure of classified information is irrelevant to this subject. I suggest that we transfer this sentence to the Comey paragraph - In a May 10 private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved "great pressure" on him. He stated, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," adding "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." - and delete the rest of the section. MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Disagree with deleting the rest. There needs to be some mention that in the meeting he also disclosed classified information, as that is also mentioned in every RS that discusses this. Moreover, it is important to the event. In a meeting which he disclosed classified information, he decided to also tell the Russians this.Casprings (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegations

Many people dispute the Russian intervention narrative including anti Trump progressives. Shouldn't the article be more neutral. There isn't really any conclusive evidence of Russian hacking and this is a polarizing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.54.222 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere will always dispute everything. We just use the reliable sources. WP:IRS Objective3000 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources refer to it as allegations by intelligence which is what we should do. No reliable sources dispute the intelligence, they just agree that it is at this point just allegations. TFD (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, D.C. police are investigating IT staff employed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other Democratic members of Congress for security breaches and theft of computers. TFD (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have an RS for this, it may be a BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See "House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation" Heather Caygle, Politico): "Alvi, Awan and three other House aides, including Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, relatives of Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, are all linked to the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Capitol Police. The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the probe." TFD (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Tried to follow it three times; but kept running out of breadcrumbs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Podobnyy/Page, Prince, Hayden, etc.

I've partially, but not fully, restored some content deleted by JFG (with the edit summary "Remove a bunch of off-topic asides and redundant opinions"), although I have edited the text of some to be clearer and more precise. I find much of the material at issue to be very much on topic and not redundant. Going in order:

• (1) Page's past contacts with Viktor Podobnyy before becoming a Trump advisor - although this incident took place in 2013, it's relevant because, as the sources reflect, Page was dumped from the team after the FBI investigation into the Podobnyy contacts came to light, and because the sources more generally cover it in the context of the 2016-present investigation into 2016 election interference. I added text to make clear that although the FBI interviewed Page in that case, he was never accused of wrongdoing, which I think we must mention. The relevant, full-length citations are:
  • Adam Goldman, Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump, New York Times (April 4, 2017).
  • Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with Russian spy in 2013, Associated Press (April 3, 2017).

• (2) Regarding Trump/CIA rupture - deletion of the word "unprecedented." - I can't understand the rationale for this deletion at all. The sources directly describe the rupture as being unprecedented. This is valuable historical information because it signals to readers how unusual it was. The citations reflect that:
  • New Yorker ("Never before has a President or President-elect spoken so dismissively of the C.I.A.")
  • ABC News ("an unprecedented public display of acrimony")
  • WSJ ("an extraordinary rupture").

• (3) Erik Prince section - this was deleted completely. I don't get this deletion as well. Although the Prince/Seychelles meeting occurred after the election, it's clearly related to the page topic. See Washington Post cite ("U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump."). We do appropriately mention that Prince had no formal appointment on the transition team, but that alone does not make the material irrelevant. If there is something we can do to shorten the text without omitting important information, or to add text that reflects any kind of doubt on the significance of the meeting, then of course I'm open to that, but wholesale deletion doesn't seem to be called for here.

• (4) Hayden sentence - I've restored a shortened version of the Hayden op-ed. Hayden is a very influential figure (he is more important than McMullin, who gets two sentences), the weight (literally one sentence) is proper, and it's clearly relevant here. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed rationale and partial revert with precise changes, that's refreshing. Here's my take on your remarks:

1. The Page anecdote of 2013 is over-extended but you explained it more clearly than the version I had trimmed, so I'm fine keeping it this way; some WP readers may appreciate spy novels…
2. I had removed both qualifiers "immediate and unprecedented" which are non-neutral; keeping "unprecedented" is fine, per sources.
3. This is a complete side story, entirely based on one source which quotes unnamed officials and remains prudent about the connection and the motives: "an apparent effort to establish a back-channel", "the full agenda remains unclear", "Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.", "alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump". Both the White House and Prince strongly denied the innuendo: "“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Therefore, I still think this entire section should be deleted. Or at least radically trimmed and balanced with denials.
4. Fine with the shortened Hayden citation. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad we can narrow the range of items under dispute. I don't think that a lack of clarity necessarily demands deletion; given the subject matter, a lot of this is shrouded in mystery. I understand that you would like to see the Prince section go altogether, but what do you have in mind for a "radically trimmed and balanced with denials" alternative? If you have some suggestion, maybe we can agree on a version we can all live with? Neutrality^talk 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We probably could agree on a trimmed version, although I still think this section should be entirely removed as a WP:BLPVIO. Let's first wait for comments on the BLP aspects, at WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince. — JFG ^talk 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I made changes on the entry for Prince.[33] It is perfectly fine to report allegations even if false provided they have received adequate attention. See for example "Freddie Starr ate my hamster." But we must always explain whether they are facts or allegations and if so whether they are disputed. Furthermore, in this case it is important to explain the supposed reason for the alleged meeting - to get Russian assistance on Iran. Otherwise the implication is that it was part of the alleged Russian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD, where did the idea that the meeting's purpose was "to get Russian assistance on Iran" come from? Maybe I'll have to read the source again. I just don't recall it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD - Half of your edit introduced content directly at odds with the source. There is no dispute that the meeting took place (Prince through his spokesman acknowledged that it took place, but said "The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump"), so the addition "allegedly took place" and "allegations" of a meeting is wrong). The statement "The Trump administration denies the meeting took place" is also incorrect (Spicer said "We are not aware of any meeting"—which is very different from an outright denial). Best, Neutrality^talk 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the article says, "Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions."[34] I now see that the article did not question whether the meeting took place. However, it is incorrect to imply that it's purpose was to subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known. TFD (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!! But are you saying that WP should not report on the foes of America who may subvert the oldest and strongest democracy the world has ever known? Battlestations! There's cleanup to be done on the Nixon, Jefferson Davis, & Alger Hiss. I'll take care of Tokyo Rose. You can work on the Rosenberg's. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. TFD (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See also, the collected speeches of Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help..." SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

After a few days of abundant discussion of this issue on WP:BLP/N#Erik Prince, there is an even split between editors who consider this story a BLP violation and editors who don't. Therefore we should err on the side of caution and remove the material until such time that it gets corroborated by independent reporting or new facts. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There's not an "even split". There are 8 for retain, and 4 to 5 remove. That's a clear supermajority to retain. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exact even split of 7 to 7 at the BLPN discussion; I have carefully listed all editors who commented there. But of course you reverted the contents claiming no consensus… Well we can say there's no consensus to remove the story and we can say there's no consensus to retain it, so how do you propose we solve this? Per BLP policy we must err on the side of caution, so "no consensus to keep" should trump "no consensus to remove" in this case (pardon my pun). — JFG ^talk 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you've miscounted; it's 8 to 4 or 5. If you'd like me to list each editor, I can. There is zero consensus that mentioning the cited Erik Prince activity is a BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This contention there's a problem with RS content is a nonsense attack that has been decisively rejected at BLPN, where it made its unfortunate appearance as an ex-post defense of a 1RR DS violation. And P.S. we don't count votes around here, especially by involved or self-interested parties. Anyway, the aye's are above the no's. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "especially by involved or self-interested parties." What do you mean by that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: and friends: it's interesting how you vehemently called upon BLPVIO to suppress contents you didn't like, and now you vehemently run the exact counter-argument to keep contents you like. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP/N outcome

The extensive discussion at BLP/N resulted in consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok. Consequently, here's my suggestion, shortening the current section:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian envoy in the Seychelles, allegedly to "establish a back-channel line of communication" between Trump and Putin. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates in order to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. Prince is the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and was a major donor to Trump's election campaign. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Extended content
References

It's still longer than "a line or two" in order to fairly represent the subject matter. Support, Oppose, Amend? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody commented in 6 days, so I have applied the proposal. Qui tacet consentire videtur. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You just reverted this change, saying "There was no consensus to short this at all." Perhaps you had not seen this talk page section and the BLP/N discussion which shows consensus to shorten? Looking forward to your comments. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus anywhere for your edit, which alters the meaning of the text and is less faithful to the cited source. Your "silence procedure" link has nothing to do with WP editing policy. In general, the more relevant issue is WP:BLUDGEON. Folks get worn out repeating the same policy-based arguments and so they retreat from being asked over and over to justify their clearly stated viewpoint. Maybe we need a "safe word". SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I did not see this discussion in which you incorrectly claim that there was a "consensus that "a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials" would be ok". You removed the corroboration by two intelligence official but you left in the shallow denial from the white house. I see no justification for shortening the material. - MrX 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Please read final comments by Dumuzid, Thucydides411 and Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive254#Erik Prince, a couple hours after your last contribution to that discussion. You did not object further before the thread was archived, so I took it as silent assent. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dude, all these are involved editors. That's definitely not "consensus at WP:BLP/N". Come on, quit trying to pull one here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were editors with opposing views on the BLP issue, who reached an agreement through civil discussion. I call that consensus. Note: Dumuzid and Masem were *not* involved in this page, as far as I know, they just reacted to the BLP/N thread. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX here. There was no closure in the BLP/N discussion and I don't see a consensus to shorten there. Even if it should be shortened as a matter of style or weight (not BLP), the shortened form that you propose is (as MrX and SPECIFICO write), less faithful to the cited source and emphasizes the wrong things. Like MrX said, I can see no justification for leaving in the White House's cursory denial but taking out the corroboration from intelligence officials. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I'd be happy to consider an alternative proposal taking your concerns into account. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How is a bilateral negotiation consistent with your view that there was a community consensus at BLPN? Wouldn't you need to reopen the whole thread if in fact there had been consensus there? Not clear what process you are proposing. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The process looks clear to me, but I'm happy to recap what happened:

1. Once upon a time, a new section on Erik Prince was created in the article.
2. I deleted it among a bunch of other things which looked off-topic or newsy.
3. Neutrality restored parts of my edit, improved the contents and started a discussion
4. I answered and found consensus with him on all disputed points except the Erik Prince part, which I considered a BLP violation
5. I opened a discussion at BLP/N.
6. Meanwhile, several editors continued tweaking the text here.
7. The BLP/N discussion demonstrated a sharp divide among editors considering this section to be a BLPVIO and others who didn't
8. On 19 April, three editors from opposing views at BLP/N reached a consensus to mention the affair briefly, with "two lines, including the denials". Nobody commented further.
9. Two weeks later (4 May), I posted a text proposal here to implement this outcome, soliciting comments.
10. After 6 days with no comments, I applied the proposed text.
11. MrX reverted, and we are discussing. (That's healthy!)
12. I have invited editors to amend my proposed summary, so that we collectively reach an acceptable version for everyone involved.
13. I don't think we should re-litigate the BLPVIO issue, but if we fail to agree here, I suppose we could request a formal closure of the BLP/N discussion.

Voilà, à vous la parole! — JFG ^talk 01:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The fact is you edit-warred your preferred version into the article, falsely claiming consensus in your edit summary, and a torrent of opposition ensued. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So you consider that applying the WP:BRD process in collegiality with opposing editors as a form of edit warring? Invoking the outcome of a bona fide WP:BLPN discussion is "false consensus"? You repeatedly tried to focus the BLPN discussion on a bogus DS claim against me, and you got sanctioned for that. Please address contents soberly instead. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

14. Ne vous Trumpez pas!- MrX 02:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good one. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Mr. X here This seems well sourced and relevant to the article. Did you post something on this page's talk page concerning the discussion at BLP/N? Other editors should have been able to talk part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly this is well-sourced, and I preserved the source, I just summarized the core assertions made in the source. I did post on this talk page when opening the BLP/N discussion.[35] Many editors participated in that discussion. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So your only notification to editors on this page was one message given as a response to an editor mid-thread and telling that editor to wait. Seems to be the conversation was going against you here and you were engaging in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPCasprings (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You did say in the original discussion that you would possibly approve a trimmed version. Would you be satisfied with my paragraph above summarizing the Washington Post , followed by the last paragraph in the current prose, summarizing the NBC News report about what intelligence officials added? Same question to MrX. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I still think that lacks important detail. We should stay close to the main source. Here is my proposed version:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in January, Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met with an unidentified Russian associate of Vladimir Putin, in the Seychelles. According to U.S., European, and Arab officials, the meeting was arranged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish a back-channel link between Trump and Putin. The UAE and Trump's associates reportedly tried to convince Russia to limit its support to Iran, including in Syria. The FBI is investigating the Seychelles meeting which took place after previous meetings in New York between Trump's associates and officials from Russia and the Emirates, at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community. Prince was a major contributor to Trump's election campaign, and appears to have close ties to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. The Trump administration denied knowledge of the meeting and said that Prince was not involved in the Trump campaign.

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

I tweaked the wording and arrangement of a couple of sentences. I removed DeVos who is not relevant in any of this.- MrX 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

First thoughts:

• Your version asserts as a fact that the FBI is investigating the meeting when actually the FBI declined to comment.
• When I rewrote the material, I assessed weight of many claims against the Washington Post piece and ten additional sources. If I recall correctly, DeVos was mentioned in all of them.

I think I would be ready to scrap "The FBI, however, refused to comment.", which I added, but not DeVos. Politrukki (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reports "U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump." No objection to editing the material so that it more closely aligns with the source, but there's no value in stating that the FBI didn't comment. I don't object to adding DeVos back in if other sources point that out.- MrX 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version looks good to me. It follows the sources, is appropriately concise but complete, and fair. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit too long on details. Here's a middle-ground variant:

On April 3, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Blackwater founder Erik Prince secretly met in January with an unidentified Russian associate of Putin in the Seychelles. The meeting was reportedly arranged by the United Arab Emirates to establish a back channel between Trump and Putin and to convince Russia to distance itself from Iran. U.S. officials said the FBI was investigating the meeting as part of their inquiry into election interference and Trump–Russia relations. Prince was a major donor to Trump's election campaign and has been linked to Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon. In response, the White House stated: "We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition."

Two intelligence officials confirmed to NBC News that the Seychelles meeting took place. One of them corroborated The Washington Post's account, but said that it is not clear whether the initiative to arrange a meeting came from the UAE or Trump's associates. The other official said that the meeting was about "Middle East policy, to cover Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran", not Russia.

Extended content
References

Good enough? — JFG ^talk 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There appears now to be consensus for MrX's version. The alternative directly above is weaseled and is less clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorter version looks less weaseled to me. Prior version is still long on content-free prose such as "at a time when any official contacts between Trump administration and Russian agents were coming under close scrutiny from the press and the U.S. intelligence community". Yeah, that's something we already say a dozen times in this article… — JFG ^talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, MrX, Neutrality, and Politrukki: Any comments on the two latest rounds of proposals by MrX and yours truly? — JFG ^talk 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If everybody else thinks that Betsy DeVos should be omitted, I could accept your latest proposal. Politrukki (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think she should be omitted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to adding DeVos again for context. I had her in my first proposal, MrX omitted her and added Bannon. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX's version per SPECIFICO.Casprings (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I support that version as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX + DeVos, then. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I still support my slightly longer version, with or without DeVos.- MrX 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is what everyone is supporting, the longer MrX version with DeVos. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Needs to be shorter. The editorial point about "major donor" should go. It still is only a single day story with absolutely no followup. The contradictory accounts by "sources" cast enough of a pall that we shouldn't be tossing the mud that the Washington Post couldn't make stick. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, the gratuitous disparagement of the Washington Post doesn't help advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial point" but the donation was a fact that both sources found noteworthy enough to report.- MrX 20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That amount does not make him a "major donor." $10 million is around the "major donor" category. WaPo's animosity towards Trump has been noted elsewhere. The comment was neither disparaging nor gratuitous but it is an accurate observation that neither party holds the other in high regard. If we are going to use one as a source, we should be honest with their intent. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to replacing "... was a major donor to..." with "... donated $250,000 to...". We have not disqualified The Washington Post (or The New York Times or CNN) as sources for Trump-related information, so I don't see how your comments in that regard apply here.- MrX 22:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would you cherry pick a donation out of the entire article? Stating a donation doesn't impart any relevance other than he supported Trump. Why not highlight the inconsistency in the article where it attributes Prince statements to UAE as a connection to Trump but when they really want to link it to Trump they say no meeting would have been scheduled without his explicit okay (which would thereby negate reasoning they use to introduce Prince)? It's like they are stretching whatever line they need to make it more nefarious but not realizing that it invalidates other accounts. Also, no one is investigating "Trump-Russia" ties, they are looking to see if there were links to the Trump campaign, not Trump the person or Trump as President. That is a significant difference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on BLP/N, with input from a number of editors who aren't normally involved on this page. It looked at the end of the discussion like the result was to include something about Erik Prince in this article, but to keep it short, with clear attribution of the various claims. The latest text proposed above is far too long, in my opinion. I don't see how a news story that blew over pretty quickly could possibly merit such a detailed treatment here. The initial proposal by JFG looks best.

The contradiction between a number of editors' stances on the Erik Prince material and the Joint Analysis Report section is baffling to me. The JAR is central to this story, since it's the one of the most comprehensive reports the US government has released on the alleged Russian interference so far. But the very same editors who are arguing vociferously that our description of the JAR (particularly the reaction of outside experts to it) must be curtailed are arguing here that we must cover a relative sideshow (that didn't even occur before the election, and therefore has questionable relation to the subject of this article) in great detail. The contradiction between these two stances is just confusing. I'm trying to formulate a coherent theory in my head that reconciles these two seemingly opposite stances, but the only theory I can come up with has to do with the political implications of the different pieces of content, not with any Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Prince reboot

So here we are, after a month of discussion here and at BLPN, instead of turning this story into a "brief mention" as agreed, the latest proposals still argue to keep most of the contents and innuendo in a rather lengthy paragraph. Meanwhile, this "mysterious" meeting did not get any more press coverage, nothing seems to have come out of the reported discussions, and "back-channel" stories are now focusing on other places and other people. One still wonders why Trump would need to open all those back channels to Putin if they were long-time BFFs colluding to steal the election. But as long as it's printed in a reliable source, it seems the most tenuous stories must be included in the encyclopedia these days… At least we should be relieved that this one didn't spawn its own article. Any volunteers to finally cut the wording on this particular "spy-novel-of-the-day"? — JFG ^talk 13:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's move on please. Sarcastic misrepresentation is not helpful here. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to form sub articles ?

This article is getting big.

Time to form sub articles and then to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE back here? Sagecandor (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposed split was rejected by most editors. It distinguished two phases: the election interference proper and its immediate aftermath, up to the expulsion of Russian diplomats over Christmas, then the 2017 developments around the Trump administration and former associates, with new inquiries and revelations. There would be a clear cut date between the articles, and they would prominently refer to each other. Got a better proposal or adjustments to that one? — JFG ^talk 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not too big. We could trim it a little, for example by removing the "disclosure" section as discussed above. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Many sections could be shortened, actually. For example, the Comey story is fully detailed in two separate articles (Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos); the essential points could be trimmed to a single paragraph here. — JFG ^talk 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The section "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" is a laundry list of detective clues, which kind of begs to be forked into its own article. Many of the reported contacts are indeed related to Russia but unrelated to the election interference. — JFG ^talk 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this article should only be about the election, with maybe a wikilink and a paragraph outlaying "CONNECTIONS".Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN about doing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here, trimming sizes of sections would help. Removing the "disclosure" section, and trimming the info on Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos to defer to a summary here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO we already have the Trump material "forked" into too many places. For someone who is trying to keep a neutral eye on those articles, it is impossible to keep up; we seem to get a new article with every headline. This is a coherent subject and I believe it should be kept in one place. For starters on the trimming, we could take any section that already has its own article and trim it to a single "highlights" paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this idea of a "highlights" paragraph, here, for topics with existing sub articles. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Three of us have now mentioned the James Comey section as something that could be trimmed. Considering that there is a full article, linked from the section, that does make sense. I'm going to start working on it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed the Comey dismissal material by about 3,000 bytes. It could be trimmed further if someone wants to remove some of the citations; it seems overcited to me but I decided not to prune the refs at this time. If anyone wants to, feel free. Now I'm going to work on the "Comey memo" section. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed another 2,500 bytes about the Comey memo. I didn't trim the material about the other reported attempts to influence the investigation, just the Comey memo because it has its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Public-opinion polls

Public-opinion polls

Way too big.

Can someone maybe trim this down, and or make it into a table format ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Commentary and reactions

Commentary and reactions

Whole entire section should be spun out, and or just judiciously trimmed way way down.

We are losing focus.

Time to see the forest for the trees.

Article should focus on the facts, events, developments, and not become over bloated with "Commentary" and "Reactions" that are not official developments and facts. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Are they facts or hypotheses? Very useful to know who says what, and this is on topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not asking for a "vote". This could be a separate article. As it is, it is over loading this article with bloat. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

And there is no consensus for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to bloat the article with cruft so much that it becomes unreadable and useless. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I can read it fine. Who else is unable to read it please? You need to get consensus before you make big changes.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian reactions

User:MrX: I don't believe it is "undue" to add a small subsection about Russian reactions. If it were five long paragraphs, it would be undue. I added two lines based on an article from the Financial Times, which were overdue. We need to include all relevant views. We are not an advertising website for the USIC; we are an encyclopedia. I'd like you to remove the "undue" tag and hopefully let other editors add a few more Russian reactions. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with edit summary explanation by MrX at [36]. Fringe opinion. Unreliable. Not noteworthy. No more relevant here than including "Russia Today" or "Sputnik News" as a source. Sagecandor (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Financial Times is not reliable now?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the edit summary by MrX said. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A Putin ally is, by definition, not a fringe character. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We need to have a global perspective on this (including Russia).Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What other reliable sources are quoting Andrei Kostin, chief executive of VTB, the [Russia] state-controlled bank? Please demonstrate that his views on election interference are noteworthy.- MrX 18:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If two other secondary sources quote this guy, we could maybe consider it as noteworthy. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a second one. We could add more Russian reactions, too. Hence the expand section tag. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole entire section Commentary and reactions is too big. It could either be spun off, and or judiciously trimmed down. Way too big. Article should stick to just the facts and events and developments. Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We are probably giving too much weight to US reactions, yes. Some are also biased; for example Mike Morell supported HRC for POTUS. But in any case, adding foreign reactions cannot hurt.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We can move the Russia Putin ally response to the Russia government reaction section. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Russian government reaction should be moved to the "Commentary and reactions" section, because that's what it is. We should keep all the reactions in the same place.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording "an ally...suggested" is too ambiguous for an encyclopedic article. What kind of ally? Does that imply he was speaking for Putin? Suggested how exactly? Why didn't he just come out and say it? The only justification for inclusion would be if it had received widespread media coverage, in which case commentators would have attempted to answer all those questions. TFD (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please e-mail the Financial Times journalists? Here's also quoted by CNBC. But the FT is very reliable; if they call him an ally of President Putin, we have no reason to question them. As for what he is saying, we relay content here, no matter how inconvenient that content might be.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made a copy edit to conform to the sources. I'm still not convinced that the material is noteworthy enough to include in the article. The lack of widespread coverage does point to an WP:UNDUE weight problem.- MrX 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)