Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Binney and McGovern's comments on James Clapper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Baltimore Sun article, written by Binney and McGovern, is used as the most current source in that paragraph [1]. And the statement above seems to have been derived from this source - a source which is a totally biased and seemingly agenda driven opinion piece. And, it is filled with supposition. Also, Binney and McGovern are using this article as platform to smear Clapper, for stuff that happened years ago.

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

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

@MelbourneStar, Steve Quinn, and JFG: I have used a direct quote from the Baltimore Sun piece to make it abundantly clear (I hope) that this is Binney and McGovern's view. Would you mind checking if this edit is reasonable? -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's no improvement, in my opinion. Please, see my comments below (at 15:01, 12 Feb 17). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

That's pure OH (original hypothesis not backed by any research). Also how is this WP:SYNTH? As for WP:BLP, go ahead and sue Politifact for libel. So no consensus. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be some sort of consensus here for keeping this out. Sorry Guccisamsclub, it seems you haven't offered anything to this thread just yet. But, thanks for your opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: Politifact is the original source for this"BLP smear" (or have you not read the article youre attacking? ...wouldn't be the first time). Also how is this SYNTH? Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because you claim (or assert) it is Politico that is the original, doesn't make it so. And the only who cares that it is Politico, Smitico, or Bitico is you - sounding like a strawman to me. I'm not attacking anything. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the Baltimore Sun article and check its url refrences. One of them will be politiFACT (NOT politiCO), which they cite in support of their "smear" of Clapper. Then read the Politifact piece. This is the third time you are being told to read the politifact piece cited in by McGovern and Binney. If you talk without reading, you are being disruptive. If you actively refuse to read, you are being intentionally disruptive. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:Your understanding is shaky. One month is "longstanding"? Not. -- Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us. Be that as it may, there's no "longstanding" here. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"more worldly and broadly read among us". Who do you have in mind? Yourself and Steve Quinn? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For this article, one month is long-standing. Above, MelanieN was talking about material that was not much older than that. Since there's no consensus for removing Binney and McGovern's commentary from the article, we can restore it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Moral Relativism at its worst! Time doesn't bend to your level of interest. My schedule doesn't quicken when guys like you want to edit 'round the clock. Enjoy it but don't think that puts a burden on the community to run ourselves dizzy keeping up with your American Politics adrenaline rush. Long is long and one month ain't long. I read it on the Intercept. If you think you have permission to edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over, please post a note on Arbcom Enforcement Talk and see what reaction you get. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Instead of criticizing your fellow editors, how about answering my rationale above demonstrating that this attributed opinion, grounded in facts, about a public figure, was not a BLP violation? I'm listening. — JFG ^talk 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. Immediately after your erroneous defence above. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean with this comment? You just assert BLPVIO again, you give no argument to prove it, whereas I give several arguments to disprove it. — JFG ^talk 04:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is one problem. First the Binney and McGovern opinion piece say input from Clapper in the Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is clearly absent. And that Clapper has a past of suppressing evidence pertaining to lack of WMD in Iraq and false testimony to Congress about NSA activities. There seems to be no connection between Clapper and the JAR at the time of this op-ed piece. Yet the above statement connects Clapper's past to being skeptical about "his" claims to Russian hacking.

BLP is seems clear on two a few fronts here. The above statement seems to equate with gossip WP:BLPGOSSIP in that displaying this information about Clapper in this paragraph is not relevant. Acting as if he is some sort of God and the only one to be believed or disbelieved is UNDUE - which BLP seems to consider as part of its policy in the intro as WP:NPOV. BLP seems to draw a line from that content policy to unnecessarily draging in dirt about a person.

And the reason people are bringing lack of conviction for a federal offense into the conversation is BLPCRIME, is because, again, it might be against good or stringent editing practices to drag in the dirt - recycle past offenses - if they are not relevant. Steve Quinn (talk)

I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking and even the Harper's reference should say this in some way. Clapper has a questionable (or worse) past and therefore this supports the following conclusion - whatever the conclusion - does not seem to work. Also, the Binny/McGovern OpEd piece is a primary source. So if BLP is involved more than this is probably needed - I would say. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's a BLP issue here, take it to the BLP noticeboard. I simply don't see any case for considering the material in question a BLP violation. First off, it's not "gossip" (i.e., unverifiable derogatory statements that pass from person to person). It's a comment on two widely known facts - that Clapper was involved in making the Iraq WMD case in 2002, and that his Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a prominent falsehood. We don't know these things through gossip. They're matters of public record, and Clapper's testimony is even on video. We're not repeating gossip here. As for WP:BLPCRIME, here's what the policy actually says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis added). Clapper is not relatively unknown. He's a public figure. And we're not even suggesting he's guilty of a crime. We're simply describing an opinion that notes a well known fact: Clapper's Senate testimony on NSA spying contained a falsehood.

"I am not seeing how it is relevant to connect Clapper with being skeptical about Russian hacking". You're not required to agree with Binney and McGovern's commentary on Clapper and skepticism about allegations of Russian hacking. All of us editors probably disagree with one or another commentary cited in this article, but agreement with commentary isn't (or shouldn't be) the metric we go by when deciding what commentary to reference. Binney and McGovern are fairly well known intelligence figures, so their commentary is noteworthy.

Finally, on the procedural issue here, the Binney/McGovern commentary was removed from the article, and this removal was challenged. That means that the second removal of the commentary was not in line with DS/1RR. This material has been in the article for more than a month (since 5 January), so it's long-standing. Above MelanieN described 58-day-old material as long-standing, and 37 days is a similar timespan. And to SPECIFICO's objection that this definition of long-standing puts an undue burden on editors, I'd just note that there are many editors here (SPECIFICO included) who edit this page several times a week. This material has been up for more than five weeks. How many times have you edited the article or commented on the talk page since then, SPECIFICO? This pace of editing clearly isn't an undue burden on you. So it looks like the correct course of action for now is for this long-standing material to be added back in, and then for anyone who thinks it violates BLP to take their concerns to the BLP noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I appreciate the above response. It is well articulated. I brought in specific BLP issues because JFG seemed to be requesting what specific BLP issues are relevant. Also, SPECIFICO and one other editor have brought BLP issues into this conversation. So, it might be premature to go over to the BLP noticeboard right now. I suggest seeing what others editors say about this. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I appreciate Steve Quinn's rationale although I disagree with his stance, and I fully endorse Thucydides411's response. As for process, I have now restored the contentious material, slightly copy-edited, into the article, pending the outcome of this discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence on Clapper needs to be deleted and the rest of the paragraph shortened. The lengthy quotes and indirect quotes give way too much prominence to these former members of the Intelligence Community. Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively. Binney says that he "… created many of the collection systems still used by NSA". We’ll just have to take his word for it, don’t we?

Did they shop their opinion piece (770 words) around and find one taker? "Contributions to the Opinion-Commentary page of The Sun are welcome and should be between 600 and 750 words including a single sentence bio for the author(s)." (You won’t get paid but we’ll use it if we need to fill space and if you’ve used complete sentences.) Note how their single sentence bio does not mention that McGovern retired in 1990? No other RS picked up the op-ed or reported on it.

You have to factor in the personal bias the op-ed writers may have, in the case of Binney and McGovern their history with their former employers and their association with Assange. Binney is a regular RT contributor, and McGovern is an Assange associate. Here’s McGovern "… spread[ing] some truth around" on Feb 7, 2017: "Bill says the snooping has progressed to the point where the initials NSA now stand for “New Stasi Agency,” because NSA has become the East German Stasi (secret police) on steroids."

Clapper. Worded in what appears to be Wikipedia voice in text pretending to be indirect quotes. "They also wrote that given James Clapper's false testimony … and his involvement in building the WMD case …". The reference says that he "admitted giving … false testimony". He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that pesky "protecting national security secrets" thing. As for who built the WMD case, it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had. And all of that warranting "… skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking …": They’re not claims, they are accusations, and they are not his accusations, but those of the US Intelligence community.

"Long-standing text": To keep up with the changes, you'd have to have a lot of spare time to read the entire article 10 times a day, especially when you take the time to look at the references. Stuff gets overlooked for a while. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite right 2x, and since disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases. Many cases, but not all. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:He didn’t, although he admitted to some tiptoeing around; there’s that pesky "protecting national security secrets" thing. He admitted his answer was "wrong", but claimed to misunderstand a clearly-worded question, an excuse nobody has been willing to buy (talk about fringe). The fact that Clapper also has an incompatible backup excuse in the form of "national security reasons"—the reasons for everything—has no bearing on the fact that he gave a "wrong" answer. It just means his words are dictated by political and bureaucratic imperatives, not by the facts. It also means that he can't make an honest retraction. Such a reliable source... it’s pretty well established that it was the Bush administration (or certain factions in it) bending and stretching whatever reports they had. Read the Iraq thread on this page. The idea that the intelligence community was NOT deeply complicit—which seems to be what you're implying—in the manufacture of false WMD intel is a transparently WP:FRINGE Nancy Pelosi talking point.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You have any verifiable statements you want to make, or just absurdly vague personal attacks? The only person consistently and successfully gaming Arbcom is you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

In their fifth paragraph Binney/McGovern make a claim ("Clapper admitted giving ... false testimony"), in their last paragraph it has become a given ("given Mr. Clapper's checkered record for accuracy"), and the indirect Wikipedia quote turned it into "given James Clapper's "false testimony ...". Pedantic semantics? Maybe so, but it's not neutral viewpoint, and the source is unreliable. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I simply disagree with you that Binney and McGovern are such biased sources, compared to other commentators, that their views should just be excluded from the article. Arguments about length of text are fine - I'm not exactly sure how many sentences they deserve. But zero doesn't make any sense. Both Binney and McGovern had careers in the CIA, and are both now well known critics.

@SPECIFICO: please stop impugning the motives of other editors, darkly hinting at conspiracies, and rather focus on content. By repeatedly assuming bad faith, promising various forms of retaliation, you are making discussion very difficult. This is an editorial room: we don't need drama. -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I impugn no man nor beast. However WP says BLP violations must be removed until there's consensus the text is OK. And it has nothing to do with good faith bad faith or any other faith. When in doubt, take it out. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you said above, "disruptive editors may be highly motivated and extraordinarily observant, a fog of POV edits, policy violations, and counterattack strategies at Arbcom Enforcement are successful strategies in many cases..." Who are you referring to if not the editors who have disagreed with you here? -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be so defensive. I'm a social scientist by training. I'm talking about the functioning of a self-governed volunteer community. Interestingly, your word "impugn" reminded me of the word "impunity" -- Good faith violations are still disruptive and that's not my opinion that is the mainstream Western view. I can't speak to Asian or other communities. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, well please consider striking your comments, or adding an addendum clarifying them. Based on your response here I will assume you're not referring to me other other editors on this page. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think my words are clear. I hope that you'll consider the underlying issue. Rather than focus on redacting talk page comments, perhaps you'll remove the disputed text from the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x, Steve Quinn, Casprings, and SPECIFICO here. Leaving aside BLP for the moment, I find the material at issue to be (1) undue; (2) out of scope; and (3) phrased in a POV way. (These are related concepts, but I think it's useful to think of each separately for the moment).

As to the first point, weight, as Space4 has noted before, "Any inside information Binney and McGovern have on the US intelligence community and its tools and methods is outdated by 15 and 26 years, respectively." Frankly, I do not find their views any more significant or salient than dozens or hundreds of other commentators and pundits. If we are to quote or paraphrase the views of commentators, I would far prefer the space be taken up by contemporary scholars of Russia, U.S.-Russia relations, or cybersecurity.

As to the second point, I think it's out of scope. Even if Clapper misled Congress about surveillance (and my personal belief, like many others such as Andrew Rosenthal, is that Clapper did lie to Senator Wyden), I don't think this has any direct bearing on Russian interference. To include this would be to make an atmospheric "he's not credible" argument that, if not misleading, at the very best requires an inferential leap.

As to the third point, Space4 is clearly correct that the indirect Wikipedia quote "given James Clapper's "false testimony ..." is improper and POV. It accepts as fact a highly contentious claim — one that Clapper has expressly denied (he has called his testimony "clearly erroneous" and said "I made a mistake. But I did not lie. There's a big difference."). Regardless of whether we find this credible personally, the news sources (not opinion sources) clearly don't say flat out that he lied (e.g., U.S. News: "To his critics, Clapper lied under oath"; PolitiFact: "A year later, Clapper’s testimony represents one of the great, and unfortunate, holes in timely fact-checking. The challenge in discerning whether those with privileged information, particularly on matters of national security, are speaking truthfully in public is a difficult, if not impossible, task.").

So yes, this should be excluded. Neutrality^talk 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) Agreed: their views are worthwhile, and so are others. Let's find some more. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(2) This "inference leap" is exactly the point of Binnen and McGovern's commentary, and it's fair game, given the "inference leaps" that the intelligence services want the public to accept. ("Looks like the DNC hacker spoke Russian, therefore only Putin could have directed such a complex operation.") As long as their inference is attributed and not misrepresented, I see no problem. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(3) Yes, we can and should work on the formulation to clearly convey the authors' opinion without distorting it, condoning it or dismissing it. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying to the points that Neutrality made, one by one:

1. undue: The fact that Binney and McGovern are no longer working in intelligence doesn't disqualify them as commentators. In fact, the section their views are included in is under the heading "Commentary and reactions : Intelligence community : Former members." Unless that whole section is undue, I don't see how Binney and McGovern's views are undue.

2. out of scope: Binney and McGovern are directly addressing the subject of this article: allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. They raise the question of Clapper's trustworthiness because he's one of the principle people publicly making accusations of Russian hacking. In Binney and McGovern's view, the evidence that has been presented publicly is weak, and the person asking everyone to trust the allegations is not trustworthy. You can agree or disagree with Binney and McGovern on this, but they are making an argument that is relevant to this article, and they are well known former intelligence officers. We're not really here to debate whether we think one commentator's argument is convincing or not, but rather whether it is relevant to the article and whether we're representing the range of opinions on the subject accurately.

3. phrased in a POV way: I think the claim that Clapper gave false testimony is clearly attributed (especially now that it's in quotation marks), but if you think there's a better way to phrase the relevant sentence, without losing the meaning of what Binney and McGovern are trying to say, then please propose an alternate wording.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The way that second sentence is presented is clearly a BLP violation. I also agree that this is essentially UNDUE, although I'm not clear on whether this is a "regular" opinion piece by Baltimore Sun or one of those "commentary" ones, which are really just glorified letters to the editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the specific part regarding false claims as that is the bit I find to be a BLP-problem. I do think the entire section is probably an undue reference, an opinion-piece in the baltimore sun does not seem to me to be notable enough for inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: in your article edit summary you wrote, "Quote does not appear in source, source only has two mentions of 'false' one of which states Clapper admitted giving Congress false testimony which AFAIK is not the case. Removed as BLP concern." However the Baltimore Sun op ed clearly states:

"Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans. Four months later, after the Edward Snowden revelations, Mr. Clapper apologized to the Senate for testimony he admitted was "clearly erroneous.""

My edit placing the direct quote in the article text uses the same language:

"They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and his involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking was warranted."

Do you see how those quotes are the same, and that your edit summary was incorrect?

It is a matter of record that Clapper gave testimony to congress that was incorrect: [2][3]. His lawyer has stated that his testimony - that the NSA (which he oversaw) was not collecting data on millions of American citizens - was "not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake." Clapper himself described his testimony as "clearly erroneous."

It is extraordinary to state that quoting former senior intelligence officials who call the testimony "false" amounts to a WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and attributing such a statement to officials is a normal part of neutrally, accurately describing the kind of conversation that takes place (and is taking place) in a Democracy. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

1. An opinion piece is not a suitable source for contentious claims about living people. 2. The source says 'Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans.' Which he has not, what he *has* said is that he gave information in error. They are not the same. 'I told a lie' is not the same as 'I said something that later turned out to not be true'. You are using the second to justify the first, albeit because the source does so. If this was a high quality reliable source the claim would at least have some weight behind it. This is an opinion piece which is not. Opinion pieces are rarely acceptable for claims about living people. 3.You are unlikely to convince me or anyone else who deals on a regular basis with BLP concerns that an op-ed is acceptable for a criminal allegation *as a passing comment* on a larger article, so I wouldnt bother trying. 4. It appears from above there are numerous other complaints about the piece in general (unrelated to the BLP issue) that indicate it fails NPOV/is UNDUE. So I suggest you concentrate on that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: If you have BLP concerns, take them to the BLP noticeboard. As it is, you're in violation of the 1RR rules here, and you should self-revert your latest edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP reverts are exempt from revert restrictions as you have been told multiple times. *I* am not required to take it you the BLPN, but if you wish to, feel free. I, Marek and others have stated here why that particular information is problematic. You now need to demonstrate there is consensus here to reinsert it per WP:BLP and since it was orginally removed by Specifico a few days ago, the BIG DS NOTICE at the top of this page states it should not have been reinstated absent consensus to do so. So even if you did manage to gain consensus its not a BLP concern, you still could not reinstate it per the DS notice above - and given the arguments below regarding the baltimore sun reference in general, that consensus is not yet forthcoming. So no, I wont be reinstating it, you have been made aware it requires consensus to reinstate it, if you put it back again you will be violating both the DS applied to this page and WP:BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I agree that it is fine to have a conversation about WP:DUE or WP:NPOV, but you are incorrect to think that comments by public figures calling Clapper's testimony "false" violate WP:BLP. Under the rubric you propose, any prominent, public criticism of powerful government officials that implies misconduct cannot even be reproduced with attribution here, unless those officials have been convicted of a crime. That would include statements by elected representatives of the American people, journalists, and in this case former intelligence officials and whistleblowers. This is not a standard enforced elsewhere, and certainly does not obtain at the page James R. Clapper. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The 'standard' is that in general opinion pieces are primary sources for the opinion of the author. This means they are treated on an individual basis depending on the opinion, where its published, the material it is supporting. Opinion pieces are almost never used regarding material *about* living people regardless of who is who, due to the BLP generally prohibiting primary sources in that context. Were the authors quoted by a reporter in a newspaper in a non-op-ed this would not be an issue. This is a standard universally applied across wikipedia and is reflected in WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:BLP Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We're not using an opinion piece to make any statements of fact. We're reporting the opinion of the authors, which involves the public actions of Clapper, a prominent public figure. The authors of that opinion piece comment on a well known scandal that Clapper was involved in, where he gave Senate testimony that turned out to be false (according to numerous reliable sources). The standard you're trying to establish would prevent us from citing any opinion that mentions misconduct by a public figure. That goes for Vladimir Putin as well, so unless you're prepared to also scrub the article of any mention of Putin's alleged involvement in the US elections, I think you'll have to rethink your position on BLP as it applies to public figures.

On the policy question, BLP claims are not some sort of wonder weapon that trump all other policy. There is some burden on you to show that your BLP concerns are actually valid (and as you see here, several editors disagree with your interpretation of BLP and public figures), and I think that if your case really is strong, you should bring it to the BLP noticeboard. But as the situation stands, I think you're using a very tenuous BLP claim to remove long-standing material, in violation of 1RR restrictions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I shortened the paragraph on Binney/McGovern. The other experts were cited in one sentence each, so citing this dissenting opinion in an entire paragraph with several direct quotes is undue. I removed the contentious sentence on Clapper pending the outcome of this discussion; shouldn't have been reinserted when it was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is clear as a bell. The material is contentious. It is sourced on an opinion piece considered to be bereft of facts. Contentious material regarding a living person must be well sourced. In other words, there have to be fact based secondary sources that state Clapper gave false testimony therefore intelligence regarding Russian interference in the US election should be treated with skepticism. So far no such sources have been provided.

Also, if we read carefully, Binney/McGovern are saying Trump should be skeptical. They do not say there should be skepticism. So, it seems to me, even this was incorrectly placed in the article. But I doubt it can be placed in the article anyway, because there are not enough reliable sources that say Clapper's false testimony equals skepticism for Trump or otherwise, about 2016-2017 intelligence reports on Russian interference in US elections. On that second idea, there might be sources that say Trump should be skeptical in relation to Clapper, about aforementioned Intel reports, I don't know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides has reverted my edit with the comment that there was no consensus for removal. Wouldn't consensus to restore have been necessary?. I stand by my reasons for removing the sentence on Clapper and shortening the rest of the paragraph to remove the prominence given to a minority opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia

Thucydides411 expresses an interesting angle to this dispute: what would happen if we applied SPECIFICO and OID's interpretation of the BLPVIO policy, being unable to cite anybody criticizing a living person, and unable to restore such material once censored by some editor who doesn't like it? Let's examine a few random snippets from this wonderful alternate world:

Article	Before	After
James R. Clapper, lead section	Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.	(This paragraph intentionally left blank)
Donald Trump, lead section	Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false. (Regulars at the Trump article will fondly remember the months of angst and megabytes of arguments expended on keeping or removing those famous two words "or false" — a case that is thankfully now settled)	Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial. (So much simpler, isn't it?)
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations	90 kB of prose, 20+ accusers	(Article deleted)
Hillary Clinton#Response to Lewinsky scandal	Public reaction varied. Some women admired her strength and poise in private matters that were made public, some sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior, others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions, while still others accused her of cynically staying in a failed marriage as a way of keeping or even fostering her own political influence.	Public reaction was unanimous. Women admired her strength and poise in private matters that were made public, and sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior.
Edward Snowden#Reaction	A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero,[309][310][311] a whistleblower,[312][313][314][315] a dissident,[316] a patriot,[317][318][319] and a traitor.[320][321][322][323]	Snowden has been variously called a hero,[309][310][311] a whistleblower,[312][313][314][315] and a patriot.[316][317][318]

I sincerely hope everybody sees the problem… — JFG ^talk 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Shoving my comment in here as I have been busy and I dont expect a response: The BIOs for Trump and Clapper should certainly *not* have op-ed pieces making claims about them. They should have either news reporting articles or other secondary sources to back up anything controversial. If you are stating that the Donald Trump article has *in the lead* contentious material sourced to an opinion piece, well I will be very surprised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a BS argument. No one is saying don't put in a well sourced fact about a living person. People are saying don't put in a tidbit from an OP about a living person in an article that is only tangentially linked to that person. To present this in this way is, in my opinion, willfully misrepresenting the viewpoints of other editors. I would ask that you hat this section. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: - Is it a fact that "Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath," or is that a BLP violation? Binney and McGovern say Clapper gave false testimony to congress. That's a BLP violation, but the "Media observers..." statement isn't? What about Snowden - "Snowden has been [called] a... traitor." Is that a fact, or a BLP violation? JFG is exactly right. -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Tidbit" is subjective and irrelevant. The substance of your argument, if I understand:

• Clapper's past testimony before congress – widely considered false and/or misleading – is only tangentially related to speculation about the accuracy of his most recent testimony.

Is that right? As best I can tell the chart above is an accurate representation of the BLP standards advocated for Clapper in this discussion applied consistently. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also interested in how we're going to apply this standard to references to Putin's personal and malevolent orchestration of the election of Donald Trump. Putin is mentioned... some 50 times in the text of this article? -Darouet (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:JDLI is a misrepresentation of some editors' view and is therefore POV. Also, this whole chart is WP:OTHERSTUFF. JDLI doesn't concern editors concerned with BLP, but it does seem to concern one editor who even uses it in the edit history as an explanation, as well as the talk page. For the record, I wish to state that JDLI is not really a policy or guideline. Moving on - of course Clapper's testimony and mea culpa has been widely derided by his critics - this is true. But Clapper himself admitted to only making a mistake. So either way, this does not seem like a useful bridge for countering the widely touted (or widely accepted) Russian interference in US elections. However, it would seem there could be some WP:RS that counters this view, even if it seems to be a minority view. I suggest bundling a bunch of contemporary counterpoint commentary and present day WP:RS and summarize it. Just an idea. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this chart (as well as some of the follow up statements by, for example, James J. Lambden, but as best I can make out, the argument seems to be "I didn't get my way on these other articles so I won't let you have your way on this article". How does that make sense? Also note that several of these other articles were subject to RfCs.

And yes, this is a strawman. Or rather strawmen. For example, with Snowden - if there's a ton of sources in which somebody calls him something, then yeah, we include it. Here we have a *single* source, which is an op-ed. The difference is not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't hard to understand unless you wish to misunderstand.Casprings (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This chart is obviously hyperbolic sarcasm meant to illustrate the extreme point where we would be headed if we took the arguments presented in this discussion literally. Now you say the standard to include an accusatory claim towards a living person is that several sources should be leveling the same accusation? Head over to James R. Clapper and find dozens of them, resulting in a pretty solid lead paragraph that I quoted in the chart. If said accusations (duly attributed) can be included there, surely they can be included here. — JFG ^talk 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And VM, please don't cast aspersions, there is no question of "having my way", I don't even care that much about the case in dispute here, I was just doing a routine revert among a bout of cleanup (16 edits). However some arguments advanced in this case drove me to seriously point out a flawed reasoning about BLPs taken to its logical consequences. Note that the absurdity highlighted in the examples I chose applies equally to polar opposites Trump or Clinton, Clapper or Snowden: it doesn't matter which POV editors have or whether they have one, it just censors any and all criticism of living persons "unless adjudicated in a court of law". Oops. Not my encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

People here and elsewhere have been asserting that Clapper is a "reliable source" and that the intelligence agencies should be trusted. So how is it irrelevant to point out facts that contradict this assertion? Binney and McGovern belong to the paragraph by virtue of being former intelligence officers, and these facts are relevant to the article by virtue being brought up by B&M (and others) in connection with the topic. (BTW if Snowden is a "traitor", Clapper is a "lia....") Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that the CIA have seen the data they are talking about (and we can assume so did Clapper due to his position), Binney and McGovern have not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: For the umpteenth time: US intel says they have seen "the data", which nobody else has seen, nevermind independently verified. When attempts are made to verify their claims, they sometimes turn out to be totally false. So your latest post demonstrates precisely why M&B's point is so important. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If I assume the text at the start of this is the text under dispute, they are not saying that the CIA are wrong, they are saying Clapper cannot be trusted. As this page is not about Clapper their opinions of him are not appropriate (that should be on his page). Moreover (as others have said) their opinion of his honesty is not really all that relevant, him being wrong (well alleged top be wrong) a few times does not mean everything he say is wrong. This seems undue as it is n not about the subject of the article, but about opinions about someones opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

wrong a few times does not mean everything he say is wrong. NOBODY HAS SAID THAT. alleged top be wrong. Clapper SAID his answer was "wrong". After Snowden, not a single RS believes Clapper's answer to have been true, because it would obviously be absurd. Clapper cannot be trusted Imagine that. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So then it is irrelevant if he has been wrong in the past, it says nothing about his correctness now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Another question, do we say Donald Trump or Vladmir Putin have told lies in the past?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: These are incredibly tone-deaf statements. "So then it is irrelevant if he has been wrong in the past" No, the fact that a source has a terrible record with the truth is relevant to assessing the credibility of statements that have not been independently verified. That's pretty much rule #1 of journalism, however hypocritically applied it may be. "do we say Donald Trump or Vladmir Putin have told lies in the past?" If this article had consisted overwhelmingly of statements from Trump/ists and Putin/ites — with editors and Russian sources chiming in about how those two are official "reliable sources" that know all and see all — then YES. Of course any editors who attempt to create such an article and to argue that T&P are "reliable", will not even be subjected to criticism of their "sources" — they will be swiftly and permanently banned. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So do we mention any other persons honesty (or lack of it) in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sure. Go ahead and find a source that says the Russian officials can't be trusted on their hacking denials because they are known liars. This may be harder than it looks. Decent sources tend to refrain from stating the blatantly obvious, because that's seen as condescension to readers and a waste of column space. That's likely how it will be seen by readers of this article. But if that's what it takes to keep M&B, I have no problem. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So no we do not. So this is a reason to exclude doing it in this case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone see that 180? Radical stuff. Yes, time to close the curtains! Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to close this

This is going round in circles, I think we now need to determine if consensus exists to include this, please just put your own opinion (as a vote) do not comment on others opinion here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note the wording: "if consensus exists to include this." This edit is a over a month old and comes from an RS (reliable for the reactions of two former intel members, at the very least). On those grounds consensus is needed to exclude this content. Consensus is needed to include this continent if and only if the BLP concerns have merit. It is clear that not everyone here thinks they do. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the concern shown about non neutral wording I shall change it.

Updated wording

This is going round in circles, I think we now need to determine if consensus exists to exclude this, please just put your own opinion (as a vote) do not comment on others opinion here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps if we find no consensus, we should take the fundamental issue to WP:BLP/N. — JFG ^talk 23:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You are free to take it to BLPN at any time. You're not free to edit war or to insert BLP violations into Wikipedia. You don't need to ask permission to get advice at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Let's see if we get an amicable consensual resolution below, perhaps including some re-wording to alleviate BLP concerns; that would be the best outcome. NOTE: I did not insert anything in this dispute, I did not write this text or find this source myself, I don't even have a strong personal opinion on the subject matter, but I believe this quote is a valid and relevant opinion that should be presented to readers among others. So I just restored what somebody else had written much earlier, after you deleted it. The ensuing slow edit war stems from a "who shot first" situation where you feel legitimate because of BLP and I feel legitimate because of DS. If we do not reach consensus here, BLPN can help us determine a logical outcome by clarifying whether Binney's position qualifies as a BLP violation against Clapper. If there is a BLPVIO, you are entitled to remove it. If there is no BLPVIO, my argument is correct and the content can stay (unless deemed undue by another consensus). — JFG ^talk 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing about BLPN advice that is not "amicable". As for your edit warring, you're flat-out contradicting what WP behavioral guidelines and DS have to say on the subject. There's no safe harbor. I suggest you read up on the subject of reverts and Edit Warring, not to mention DS. If you're hanging your hat on how you spin a comment here by MelanieN, I think that your hat is on thin ice, so to speak. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not warring. Please keep cool. We disagree on whether mentioning Binney's opinion is a BLPVIO, that's all there is to it. — JFG ^talk 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Include

• This info is relevant to the article, properly attributed, relevant to the section (reactions from former intelligence members) and not remotely a blp-vio. If people think calling Clappers statement on surveillance "false" is too harsh, we can substitute "wrong", which is the word Clapper himself has used. Either way, sourcing this is trivial (we can cite the politifact piece cited by M&B or a dozen other sources) and there's no conceivable reason for exclusion based on BLP. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I still fail to see how Clapper's admission that he gave a "wrong" answer when testifying to Congress on mass surveillance can be considered a BLPVIO here whereas it's perfectly fine in Clapper's article, including a long paragraph of multiple people accusing him of lying or misrepresenting the extent of the NSA activities; in the lead, no less. This is all established, sourced and admitted, there is no smear and no BLP violation. Binney develops an argumentation based on those historical facts and alleges that Clapper should not be trusted in this new case, well that's his opinion and we cite it as such. Readers are smart enough to accept or reject Binney's stance, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to condone it or suppress it. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Exclude

• As far as I can tell no one else's opinions of this have had their history of lying pointed out, so why this person. Seems Undue and POV pushy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have general NPOV/UNDUE issues with the entire section. Setting the specific BLP issue aside for the moment: Are the opinions of these people a reflection of a majority or a significant minority opinion? Are there other reliable sources (read: not directly related to Trump and/or Russia) that indicate that the dossier is problematic based on who (Clapper) supports it/believes its credible? I dont think so, so NPOV indicates to me this particular source is UNDUE. RE the BLP issue, specifically alledging *admission of* a crime requires much better sourcing than an op-ed. So that needs to stay out regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Per my detailed comments above. My position is based primarily on UNDUE concerns rather than BLP or NPOV, but the BLP concerns are colorable, so the burden of establishing consensus to include it likely rests with the proponents to the content. Neutrality^talk 15:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is something that needs to be decided on the merits of the contentious material. If a majority decided to include, there’d still be the problems of undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text) and POV. "Writing in the Baltimore Sun" - makes it sound as if it was the paper’s position when it was merely an op-ed piece stating the writers’ opinion. As for the sentence on Clapper, it’s ad hominem, attacking the man rather than the substance of the argument itself, shooting the messenger to kill the message. Removing part of the sentence was an improvement but what’s left is still POV made to sound like undisputed fact when it’s not. See also my comments above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Writing in the Baltimore Sun" - makes it sound as if it was the paper’s position when it was merely an op-ed piece – Quite the opposite: this wording clearly establishes that Binney and McGovern did the writing, not the Baltimore Sun reporters. We could certainly make it extra-super-crystal-clear by saying In an opinion piece published by the Baltimore Sun, Binney and McGovern wrote that… Agree to this? — JFG ^talk 12:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Extra-super-crystal-clear"? How about the following text (I haven't included the references)? Removes the undue weight given to these minor luminaries of the minority opinion by extensive citing and quoting and the contentious claim against/smear of Clapper, and makes it clear that the Sun piece is an op-ed, i.e., unsolicited and unpaid by the Sun.

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.[205] In an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking and that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.[206]

On the significance of Binney/McGovern’s opinion as cited in Cockburn’s Harper’s article: The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Binney/McGovern at all, i.e., they're not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Clear BLP violation and UNDUE and marginal cherrypicked source to confirm a Trump denial BLP-smear narrative. And BLP violations are often associated with UNDUE weight and NPOV violations that should be apparent to any thougthful, policy-focused WP editor. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is coming from an OP and it is one source. Not one source that represents multiple, but a lone source. Casprings (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• First, I agree with Space Time. The quote in Cockburn, is cherry picked out of an article that covers a different topic "threat inflation", a Cockburn thesis. It is undue and POV to give prominence to this quote. The quote as placed in this article gives the impression Cockburn's article is about downplaying hacking/interference. The Harper article's scope is much broader than that.

Second, relying on a flimsy opinion (primary source) piece to back up Binney/McGovern comments that say email leaked by insider is introducing POV, when multiple reliable sources say this is not the case, is giving undue prominence in this article, to less than marginal commentary. Independent reliable sources are needed that say this is so, not just this flimsy opinion piece.

Leaving aside BLP for the Clapper comment. Again this is introducing POV, giving undue prominence, to less than marginal commentary, because no independent secondary (reliable) sources cover this in this way. Especially get rid of the email leaked by insider comment - this is pure conjecture because not even Binney/McGovern offer any evidence, besides other reputable sources not saying this. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Clapper sentence

It seems, according to the AE decision, the following sentence was not supposed to be restored: "They also wrote that given James Clapper's involvement in building the WMD case against Iraq, skepticism about his claims of Russian hacking was warranted.[209]". A consensus is needed for this to be in the article. No consensus has emerged, so I think the sentence should be taken out, until such a consensus is apparent. Any volunteers? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I put my head on the chopping block and removed it since there is a 7:2 majority favoring removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem with removing the lengthy quote, however I feel that we still need to mention that they questioned Clapper's integrity; adding a brief statement. — JFG ^talk 07:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing Binney/McGovern paragraph

Putting my proposed version to a vote (references same as in current text)? My version removes the undue weight given to these minor luminaries of the minority opinion by extensive citing and quoting and makes it clear that the Sun piece is an op-ed, i.e., unsolicited and unpaid by the Sun.

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.[205] In an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the report published by the FBI and DHS on December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of the goal of proving Russian hacking and that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.[206]

On the significance of Binney/McGovern’s opinion as cited in Cockburn’s Harper’s article: The Belfer Center's Russia Analytical Report, Nov. 15-21, 2016, summarizes Cockburn's article under the heading "New Cold War/saber rattling". The only mention of the hacking/interference/whatever is this: "Cockburn ... begins by shedding some doubt on allegations that Russia was behind the infamous hacks of the U.S. presidential campaign." And that's all it is: A "currently in the news" intro to a long article about an alleged new cold war. The summary mentions two interviewees by name and does not mention Binney/McGovern at all, i.e., they're not important enough to mention as "significant commentary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Space Time I appreciate your efforts here. However, I can see no content policy support for having this in this Wikipedia article. Anything pertaining to that OPed piece by Binney/McGovern is marginal to the point of obscurity. For me, the point is, there is no independent secondary sourcing that support any of their views as stated in the OPed piece. Also, their (Binney/McGovern's) opinion in Cockburn's Harper's article is not supported by independent secondary sourcing - so this also should not be in this Wikipedia article. It is equally obscure.

I think the best we can do is cite the quoted summation of Cockburn's Harper's article that you provided - using the Harper's article itself and The Belfer Center article for sources. In other words, use that summation, and use those two citations. This could replace the entire Binney/McGovern paragraph - all this is imho. What do you think of my reply? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the Clapper sentence only lasted 19 hours despite the majority vote (JFG feels "that we still need to mention that [Binney/McGovern] questioned Clapper's integrity"). I think the whole paragraph needs to be deleted, but what are the chances that any edit not lauding these famous experts will survive? That’s the only reason I proposed a compromise between deletion and its current state of undue weight and bushwa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I view that as a reinsertion of the content without consensus and a violation of the DS that Arbcom has required us to observe here. I urge JFG to self-revert this violation and pursue discussion on talk if he still rejects the consensus view. This material has multiple problems that have caused editors to reject it here. I'm very disappointed to see it reinserted this way. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted my brief mention of Clapper while the discussion is ongoing. I agree that Space4Time3Continuum2x offered a good summary (the whole paragraph was too lengthy and the Harper's quote don't bring much insight). I would however suggest adding the significant fact that they are questioning Clapper's integrity, and I will repeat that this is not a BLP violation, per my detailed argument in #The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia. Here's my amended proposal:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks.^[205] In an op-ed published by The Baltimore Sun, Binney and Ray McGovern wrote that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of proving the allegations. They questioned James Clapper's integrity and opined that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider.^[206]

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I am sorry but putting anything that Binney/McGovern said in that OPed piece has no backing in independent secondary reliable sourcing. Placing your modification in this article, gives the impression they have more impact than they have - I believe this is what UNDUE is about. I think the only acceptable compromise is to say:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, expressed doubt about reports of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. Binney and Ray McGovern said that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 did not prove the allegations.

I think any quotes attributed to them gives the impression they have more impact than they have. I think this is too much, but I am willing to settle for this. Also, I still think the summation (as a quote) I mentioned above with those two citations could be added to this to make a paragraph. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss this, and thanks for self-reverting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's really time to "drop the stick" on this Binney bit. And the report, rather than the hacking, is of diminishing importance. You'd need secondary independent RS that characterized Binney or his views especially significant. There's consensus against this. Please don't try to reinsert it again, and let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I have to agree - due to a lack of significance in independent secondary RS. I don't understand having more in this article more than offered in compromise. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO just deleted the whole paragraph about Binney and McGovern, citing UNDUE and "talk page consensus". I'm sorry, we do not have consensus to remove it all, we are in the middle of discussing how to summarize it properly. Please self-revert. — JFG ^talk 05:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's cause there was documented consensus. And please don't trot the "longstanding" pony around the track again. It's been rejected by multiple Admins and it's going to land you in the soup if you keep asserting it. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There was documented consensus to remove the reference to James Clapper's prior actions; there was no consensus to remove the whole paragraph, much less the whole section. I see several proposals of rephrasing and we should be able to agree upon a formulation. My request for you to self-revert still stands. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's an amended version taking Steve Quinn's remarks into account, shortening the phrase while keeping the substance of their criticism, minus the Clapper bit:

William Binney, a former high-ranking official in the NSA, and Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA analyst, wrote that the Joint Analysis Report of December 29 "fell embarrassingly short" of proving the allegations of Russian involvement, and opined that the DNC emails were instead leaked by an insider.^[206]

There was no consensus to blank the whole section, and I am proposing to restore relevant parts. — JFG ^talk 04:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This bit is more UNDUE every day. The "experts" are not acknowledged experts, per consensus, and the whole denial of Russian involvement is no longer treated seriously by any RS as the current assessment. So to reinsert the opinions of two folks with very dubious connections or expertise after such opinions have been rejected by every mainstream account -- that would be UNDUE bordering on fringe. Let this stuff have its decent burial and move on to recent revelations and reports. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I second that. This reminds me of global warming denialism. As with global warming, it's fine if a couple of wonks somewhere disagree, but they generally don't get their say around here. No reliable sources credibly doubt that Russia is behind the hacking, or that Russia routinely meddles in Western elections (France and the Netherlands could soon have their own versions of this article). I'm not sure this content is bordering fringe, by now it is fringe. Keep it out of the article. Geogene (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is marginal stuff. And with Binney/McGovern it is a case of seeing what they want to see, as well as using this as a platform for castigating their old boss (which is not in this newest version). There is no support in reliable sources for the theory that someone was physically "leaking" emails. Even Binney/McGovern offer no support for this statement; they essentially just make the statement.

Even JFG has not offered any RS that says physically leaking is being considered as a viable alternative. What they think of the JAR is not relevant, because that is just one piece of a very large map that has been presented to the public via mainstream media, reputable cybersecurity firms, and agreement across the aisle in Congress that Russian hacking to influence U.S. elections really happened.

Republican and Democratic Congress-persons and Senators are going to lie to the American public en masse [4] ? This is highly doubtful. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody asserts that Congresspersons are lying en masse; they are simply repeating the IC assessment en masse. As numerous reputable experts are questioning said assessment or the political use thereof, their views should be represented to describe a complete picture of the affair. We can't just dismiss everything non-official as fringe; readers should be exposed to various alternatives and left free to make up their minds. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not well-sourced explanations

• This [5] WP:UNDUE marginal and fringe commentary only sourced with self-authored opinion piece. But is seems that it was added back in [6]. Also, notice the wording change at the top of the second paragraph. There is no good reason for this and this is also against consensus [7]. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I have trouble making sense of your comment. You consider the text about technical means of hacking "marginal and fringe", although the incriminated tools have been described as freely available, outdated and not particularly sophisticated by several computing and hacking specialists. In fact, this is close to the majority view in those circles; nobody was impressed by the technical prowess of the attacks, and most serious commentators noted that links to Russian government were mere hints with no solid proof. There are literally dozens of sources making this case, Ars Technica being a pretty solid one. Carr is cited by Ars, other experts are cited by ZDNet, I don't see how you can call this material "only sourced with self-authored opinion piece". — JFG ^talk 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To your "against consensus" remark, I repeatedly asked SPECIFICO to point me to a discussion showing consensus for her version of the cybersecurity analysis, and I got no answer, so her revert citing consensus was invalid, and anyway the paragraph has evolved since then. — JFG ^talk 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Earlier, people were complaining that we were not citing "experts" (as if Greenwald, Gessen, Kovalev etc were not "experts" on international and cyber politics). Well, Carr is a cyber-security expert par excellence. Independent cyber-security experts are on a spectrum regarding how strong they think the publicly available evidence is. The only reason, Carr appears utterly fringe is because editors have spent the last several months doing nothing but purging any and all reliably sourced opinions that deviate in any way from the "official" truth (as reported in the sophomoric JSA and ICA brochures). This was possible due to a set of rules that made it possible to delete any and all material you did not WP:LIKE without consensus and contrary to BRD. Since this rule of "challenging material" by deletion has been lifted, consensus is now a two way street. Carr may be at the extreme end of that spectrum—which you appear totally oblivious to—but he is not the only one pointing out just how difficult attribution really is. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Article incomplete

This article does not explain why the leaked emails were harmful to the Clinton campaign or what misinformation the Russians supposedly planted. My understanding is the emails showed that the DNC showed favoritism to the Clinton candidacy against the Sanders campaign and Donna Brazile provided answers to Clinton for a CNN debate. Part of the fallout was that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz resigned as head of the DNC and Brazile was fired by CNN. None of this is mentioned in the article. Also, it would be helpful to know which fakenews stories the Russians wrote as opposed to the sort of fakenews written by Americans. Since the Russians apparently influenced the election, there should be lots of sources on this. TFD (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be WP:COATRACKING because this article is about Russia, Russia, Trump, associates, links, ties, Russia, Putin and finally, Russia. Russia! Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say, I seem to recall a discussion about the scope of this article above. The conclusion reached was something a long the lines of anything. So probably good to go. PackMecEng (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look back far enough in the article history, Debbie and Donna were mentioned; there was even a picture of DWS. All of this has long been removed; no objection against re-instating relevant parts.

About TFD's request, yes I'd love to read what the Russian government actually did besides funding RT News, which nobody disputes is a propaganda channel but nevertheless gets a substantial audience so can be construed as influencing the election… just like any news outlet, really: free press, first amendment and all that jazz. — JFG ^talk 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Besides funding RT News" - have you read this article? Or even this section, where TFD references the hacked emails? There's also the investigation into the flow of financial resources between Kremlin and Trump (though that section should be expanded).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! It seems that the whole affair rests on the assertion that Putin and his minions hacked into the DNC and passed the details to Assange. That's bad if it happened, but it's not Earth-shattering, is it? The rest of the ODNI report is mostly complaining about RT, as I'm sure you have read it. Investigations into financial flows were launched and have led nowhere yet (and yes I've read it, I even wrote parts of that section). — JFG ^talk 18:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see some information about what RT did to influence the election. TFD (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They aired interviews of Trump by Larry King and Assange by John Pilger. Oh the humanity! Surely Trump and Assange are tools of Putin thanks to King and Pilger. It's called journalism. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Trump administration response

Based on two articles (the AP and The Washington Post) I sketched in a subsection about the Trump administration. This information seemed to be missing. It could use the help of anyone here who has a wider view. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Undid for the night. Maybe someone can improve it or I will try again tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It appears to be within the scope of this article. I added it back in the article. Here is the diff [8]. Thanks for doing this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

False denials in lead

This addition is an unholy mash of WP editor synthesis and op-ed claims being presented as fact and is wholly inappropriate for the lead. It presents a quick USA Today round-up of denials of specific incidents of alleged collusion and then declares them, in WP's voice, all to have been false, based on a New York Times op-ed (which refers to the USA Today list while saying, generally, that there was some contact: it makes no specific claims as to the individual 20 incidents). Also the second half cites this story as evidence that Flynn (as well as Sessions) admitted Russian contacts after first denying them. I can't see that in there, nor am I sure that is how the Flynn story played out: AFAIK his contacts with Russia were known (and entirely legitimate as part of his job), it was what was said that was in dispute. Finally the question of whether Trump's people are wrong to say there was no campaign contact because individuals with links to the campaign may have met or spoken to Russians in another capacity is not a simple one, as many serious sources have pointed out. This para is utterly misleading and poorly sourced. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be explained precisely what any of this has—or might have—to do to do with election interference, otherwise none of this information even belongs in the article, never mind the lead. I should remind editors that the topic of the article is not "Russia, Trump, Putin, connect the dots." The only theory that can be supported by the facts is that members of the Trump campaign have been making friendly noises towards Russia, and have sometimes met with Russians, and that this might have inspired the Russians to hack the DNC. If this theory can be sourced, then add it. If not, this stuff about Russian "ties" (whatever the fuck that entails) should be trimmed by about 90% because it is off tangent. It certainly has no place in the lead, since these "ties" are still under investigation with conclusive (if any) theory linking it to Russia's intervention. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(This is a response to both N-HH and Guccisamsclub) This is just a summary of the content of the article, per WP:LEAD. The denials have been made and they did turn out to be false. Why did Flynn resign? Why did Sessions recuse himself? This isn't at all controversial. And the sources DO in fact link these links and conversations to Russian meddling in the election. It's like you guys have settled on a strategy of "ok, we can't keep well sourced info out of the article so let's at least make sure it's not summarized in the lede". Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Relevancy of email leaks

@Volunteer Marek: I am puzzled by two of your recent edits in the "Background / Email leaks" section:

1. removing the sentence about the leak of Podesta emails as "not about the email leaks themselves so by itself this is undue";
2. removing the link to Hillary Clinton email controversy as "not really related".

Regarding the Podesta emails, do you mean that they are not part of the Russian influence on the US presidential election? WikiLeaks would have been fed the DNC emails by Russian intelligence, but gotten the Podesta emails elsewhere? Didn't the Podesta emails play a central role in the attempts to denigrate the Clinton candidacy a few weeks before the election? This was a blatant attempt at influencing the election, which Assange himself admitted. Was he no longer a tool of Russia in October, but just a rogue actor?

Regarding the Clinton Secretary of State emails, those are exactly the emails that Trump wished Russia to find and publish, so the article link is legitimate to provide background information for readers. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whaa? Clinton's emails were "found" by the public after the State Dept. released them. There is no doubt the grilling by Comey (a Republican) was very bad publicity as election day neared — as damaging as wikileaks. But since Comey is not Russian, this is not generally considered "election interference". Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The FBI scrutinized part of the State Department emails (the ones "voluntarily returned" by Clinton's team); another part was bleached and never seen by the FBI. By the time Trump called for Russia to hack those emails, the server they were hosted on had long been dismantled, which makes the political accusations of treason all the more implausible… — JFG ^talk 18:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see I see what you meant. Yes, it is clearly relevant in that sense. My bad Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Material restored and expanded with a Podesta citation claiming Russia hacked into his emails and leaks thereof distorted election results. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope of the article?

What should be the appropriate scope of this article? Is it about the intelligence agencies' conclusion, about the US government's accusations, or about the Russians' supposed activities and denials thereof? Is it about political infighting? Is it about cyberwarfare? Is it about espionage? All of the above? All of the above but only from official sources? All of the above and the kitchen sink? Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 23:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Is it about the intelligence agencies' conclusion, about the US government's accusations" - it's about that. "about the Russians' supposed activities and denials thereof?" - and about that too. Obviously the two are related so I don't know why you're sticking that completely inappropriate "or" in there. "Is it about political infighting?" - not in general, but maybe if it relates to the topic, hard to tell without you being specific. "Is it about cyberwarfare? " - not in general, no, but to the extent that was part of ... Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, yes. "Is it about espionage?" - ditto. "All of the above?" - more or less as long as it pertains to the main topic. "All of the above but only from official sources?" - all of the above but only from reliable sources. As always. "All of the above and the kitchen sink? " - no, not sure why you got to drag a perfectly innocent kitchen sink into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

VM, I fully agree with you about the scope. Then two questions:

• Why should the lead sentence be reduced to speaking only of the US intelligence agencies' reports, instead of covering the broader scope of the affair?
• Why are all sources which do not conform 100% to the official view deemed "unreliable" or "fringe", and sometimes aggressively so, complete with naming and shaming good-faith editors who try to make sense of the whole palette of reactions for the benefit of readers? (Note this is not a personal accusation against you, just a general remark on the toxic environment we have all witnessed here.) — JFG ^talk 08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

These are loaded questions. The first questions assumes that the lead does not "cover the broader scope of the affair", whatever that is suppose to mean. The second question assumes that "sources which do not conform 100% to the official view", whatever that means, are "deemed 'unreliable' or 'fringe'". Since you've sneaked in the conclusions you want into the questions you're posing, I don't really see a point in addressing them. Maybe if you ask good faithed questions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice deflection and WP:ABFing, thanks. Those are honest and straightforward questions, pertinent to improving article quality. You assume non-existent assumptions… — JFG ^talk 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, they're loaded like a baked potatoes at Thanksgiving. You've literally written the answers you want into the questions themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment states well-evidenced facts about this article and the discussion thereof, considering the article scope that we agree upon, and the questions ask why this is so, not what is happening. I take note that you do not wish to answer. That's unfortunate; perhaps some other editors have a clue. And please discuss contents, not editors or their assumed motives. — JFG ^talk 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not "well-evidence facts". These are your opinions which you inserted into your loaded questions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the scope of this article is supposed to be. Is it about the 2016 US election? If so, it might be better to reduce it to a subsection of United States presidential election, 2016. Is it about the hack of the DNC emails, or of Podesta's emails? If so, we should merge the content here with 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Podesta emails. As it is, the scope of this article is ill defined, and I'm not sure why this article exists as an independent article. It seems to be tying together several related subjects, plus whatever Russia/Trump-related stories appear as time goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this article is "Russian interference in the 2016 United States election".

"Is it about the 2016 US election? " - Yes. "If so, it might be better to reduce it to a subsection of United States presidential election, 2016." - no, it would not be "better" and this has been discussed to death. The proposal itself is ridiculous. "Is it about the hack of the DNC emails, or of Podesta's emails?" - yes, that's part of... "Russian interference in the 2016 United States election". "If so, we should merge the content here with 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Podesta emails." - no, no we shouldn't, there is no reason to do so... well, no GOOD reason to do so, and this also has been discussed to death.

The scope of this article is perfectly fine. This is just trying to come up with an excuse to gut it/merge it/delete it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to get Mr Ernie banned from AE because of supposed aspersions, but just look at the tone you've brought to this talk page. This is how you choose to interact with other editors? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not "casting aspersions". Both of you have said and tried to take action to have this article deleted and/or merged. Indeed, you are proposing the very thing right here in this section. I am simply re-stating what you yourself proposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No aspersions on editors' motives please. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your motives are, but that the purpose here appears to be merge/gut/delete is readily apparent from *actions* and *statements* that have been made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. My motive is to expand the article so that it provides a balanced and NPOV view of the story and its many ramifications, instead of sounding like a propaganda piece. — JFG ^talk 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nope" what? I just said "I don't know what your motives are" (nor do I care) so why are you nopin' me and telling me your motives? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "the purpose here appears to be merge/gut/delete"; I just denied this, plain and simple, and explained my goal. What is your goal? — JFG ^talk 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States Election and anything that is related (e.g. Commentary, historical context, etc). The first sentence does not have to contain the whole article. However, the first sentence sentence is a good way to start the article because it gives the most historically important fact, namely that the United States concluded that the Russian government did interfere in the election. Casprings (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't know what the US government concluded. In a few decades, once everything is declassified, I assume we'll have a much better idea. We do know, however, what the US government has stated and alleged. Those two things are not always, or even usually, the same. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The US government's intelligence community released public conclusions. You can get to that document by clicking on the ONDI statement at the the top right of the article. Casprings (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In other words, we know what they've stated. But do you know that their classified findings match their declassified publications? It's not at all unusual for there to be a very wide gap between what is publicly released and what the intelligence agencies internally conclude. See, for example, Darouet's long post on this above: [9]. We can say with certainty what US intelligence has publicly claimed - that's in the ODNI statement. But we can't state with certainty what they've internally concluded - that's classified, and we probably won't know about it for many years. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources say "concluded". We follow sources. Not make up original research stuff that suits our fancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the point of this section. The article scope is very clear from the title of the article. I think what is happening here is that the OP is asking "If the scope of the article is not narrowly limited to accusations or conclusions only, then why can't we add primary sourced commentary from the tiny minority of individuals who disagree with 18 U.S. government agencies, senators, security analysts, a presidential administration, intelligence experts, and journalists?".- MrX 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OP speaking. The question was meant to determine consensus among interested editors about the scope of the article. This will be helpful to assess whether anything is due or undue worth mentioning or not, without moving the goalposts at every new development of the affair or editor discussion, so that we can debate sanely. I think VM's description of the appropriate scope is on point; would you agree? I would also like to read various editors' opinions on the two followup questions that I asked above. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: -- You say UNDUE is determined by the topic. That is false. Please read the WP documentation on WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in general. Unless the scope of the article is "random opinions of people who do not have access to the facts, and are not currently recognized as experts concerning, publicly released non-classified documents relating to..." You could start such an article. It wouldn't pass AfD I don't think. And why is that, one might ask?? ANS: B'cuz you prolly can't find those blokes discussed enough in RS to cite them as qualified, non-expert, uninformed. opinion sharing, report-commenters. What we have here is an NPOV malady verging on WP:FRINGE fever. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The scope is anything directly related to the subject as determined by reliable sources. SPECIFICO is correct that the article scope is unrelated to WP:UNDUE, which part of our neutral point of view policy. - MrX 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean DUE or UNDUE in a policy sense, l mean "worth mentioning or not" with regard to scope. Amending my remark above to avoid confusion. What is your view of the scope I agreed with VM, and do you have a hint about my followup questions? — JFG ^talk 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, we require editing "in a policy sense" so I take it that you concede my point? If not please explain and provide policy-based rationale for this undue/fringe stuff against consensus. It's WP:UNDUE and we do not include what's UNDUE in any sense, "policy" or "not worth mentioning" so Testa o croce (just kidding, I know you're a good sport.) What say you? SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the cinematic reference; we probably share some cultural background. I am discussing the SCOPE of the article, i.e. which subjects are worthy of mention. THEN we can discuss which sources are acceptable and which viewpoints are DUE according to WP:BALASP and other relevant policies. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Two examples of legitimate scope questions:

1. Is the Steele dossier of opposition research against Trump relevant to the Russian government's purported intervention in his favor?
2. Is Jeff Sessions' discussion with the Russian ambassador more relevant than his discussions with dozens of other ambassadors in his official capacity?

To me, #1 is part of the "perfectly innocent kitchen sink" category and should only be mentioned in passing, if at all. #2 is sensationalist WP:RECENTIST fluff (resulting in articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens) which we should refrain from copying into every Trump-related article just because it's the hot topic of today's news cycle. And don't get me started on BLP aspects. — JFG ^talk 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Are these serious questions? I honestly have trouble telling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I guess you are being serious. Ok. *Obviously* the Steele dossier is relevant to Russian government's intervention. ANd *obviously* Sessions' contacts with the Russian ambassador, and then him lying about it under oath, and then the GOP platform on Ukraine being changed by Trump's team, are all relevant. Indeed, this info is underpreresented in the article currently. Calling this "Recentist fluff" is pretty ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Expert dissent

Ladies and Gentlemen. That long thread clearly shows consensus against the Carr, Binney and other deprecated commentators. Moreover, at this point the articles/web pages in which they were published are out of date. So, #1: That reinsertion of Carr, calling him an "expert" when nobody has called him an "expert" except himself, in his promo's should be un-done. #2: The simple success strategy for editors who may wish to document dissent from the mainstream description of the Russian hacking is simple: Find recent RS citations from acknowledged experts who dissent from the mainstream view and demonstrate that such dissent is shared by enough commentators that it constitutes a significant minority view. This is WP-editing-101, so nowza time to drop the stick on Carr and Binney and find some unimpeachable sources that show everyone that you're on firm ground wrt WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, you are not the sole arbiter of who can be legitimately called an expert. When RS such as Ars Technica or Süddeutsch Zeitung quote experts who happen to doubt the mainstream account of events, you cannot dismiss their views simply on the basis that other RS echo another viewpoint which happens to be the official story. Shall we say NPOV 101? — JFG ^talk 18:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't get my drift. Who (aside from Jeffrey Carr) has called Jeffrey Carr an "expert", i.e. what WP:RS? Ars Technica calls him a "consultant" -- which is pretty far down the totem pole from "expert". What credible independent source has called him an expert in the past 24 months, say. You're an experienced editor. You understand the difference between who is a noted expert and who some editor thinks is an expert. "Sole arbiter" is nowhere in my words. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

From the main thread, here are five sources for "expert": [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] A search for synonyms would likely yield more. I've reviewed the main thread and don't see the consensus (much less "clear" consensus) you describe. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

*** Twilight Zone!!! Those sources do not use the word "expert" Gazooks. I mean except for the ones that are non-notable blogs. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of the five articles only the zdnet is a blog. The others are RS (ie not blogs) and clearly state he is considered an expert. I am not sure what articles you were looking at? PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Each of the five sources uses the word "expert" (directly or indirectly) to describe Carr. Either you commented without reading the sources or you read then misrepresented them – concerning behavior either way. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The "challenged material" (namely: Carr, Errata and Wordfence) has nothing to do with Binney, Binney has nothingto do with Carr, and the rationale for deleting Jeffrey Carr has nothing to do with deleting Wordfence and Errata Security. As for Carr, he works in cyber-security and has authored several books in this field, published by premier IT publishing houses. That means he's qualified to talk about hacking. Your "consensus against ... deprecated commentators" is just handwaving. No, you don't to get to delete—or even challenge—anything without presenting a coherent and concrete rationale grounded in specific sources. Before, editors could get away with using the act of deletion to justify deletion. This was due to the "do not restore challenged material" rule. That's now over, so change gears. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are trade publications -- But even among trade and vocational publications, some are important. Can you cite a couple of book reviews from RS references. That might help your case. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts, please! First we must demonstrate why Carr's opinion is DUE because his opinion does not match the official story. Then we must find better sources because you don't like the provided RS. Then we must justify Carr's own notability, because you dispute that he is an expert at whatever job he's been doing for decades. Then we must prove notability of his book because you don't think it's a valid book to be cited (note that we don't cite the book here; various RS refer to his book as an element of his credibility on the subject). It never ends; you are abusing policy. — JFG ^talk 21:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @S. Agree, he is not a notable expert. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I know you "agree". The question is WHY. Read your sources and argue your case.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you my friend. We'd all like to be proven wrong so this nonsense will end. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Why? I replied specifically to your OP. You now complain that my response was not good enough. OK, why? What is this "burden" that I'm supposed to meet? Your present reasoning can be used to justify any edit to any article. It's pure nihilism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"What BURDEN?" ? Why, the WP:BURDEN in that link I gave you just upstairs. If you can convince the talk page on that basis, you will be "In like Flynn!" (oops, sorry.) SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So it fails to meet WP:BURDEN because you've wiki-linked WP:BURDEN? Try harder. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice job bulldozing Carr's article there, Specifico. You might as well have sent it directly to AfD… — JFG ^talk 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well no, we don't just go immediately to AfD -- we tag the article to attract editors who might find some RS that are not currently in the article so that it can be kept. I have combed the article and looked around the searchable internet for any RS indications of notability for Mr. Carr. I found only the Ars Technica citation I added to the article. Not everyone in the world, and not every thoughtful professional with opinions and a resume, meets the WP notability hurdle. I hope editors find plenty of RS to establish notability. If that doesn't happen then, yes AfD would happen sooner or later. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time SPECIFICO has done this sort of BLP bulldozing to prove a WP:POINT on this page. She done the same thing with the Clapper bio. WP:NOTHERE?Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted back to previous version on Jeffrey Carr, please review and discuss on the talk page regarding recent edits. Thanks, Shaded0 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shaded0: You may be new to this article, but there's been extensive discussion of Carr and others quoted in various websites and other media outlets, and there is no consensus to reinsert that content. It's got many problems which you can see discussed in talk and talk archives. As you may have seen from editing his own article, the guy is currently consulting for legal and medical practices on setting up their IT for data integrity and selling encryption keys for business travelers at his new "20kleague" web page. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You just had to keep digging, so I might as well come clean about this whole "affaire Le Carr-é." "Jeff Carr" is actually a Kremlin hoax and "20K league" is a Fancy Bear front organization, focusing on under-the-radar micro-infiltration (0xUR-MIg) of "legal and medical practices" and other private networks. "Carr" himself actually knows nothing about cybersecurity and has been a drag on our operation (I mean sheesh, the loser even edited his own wiki article haha). "Carr" has relied on a team of "Cozy Bears" to ghostwrite for him and run his "companies". Obviously no charade can be perfectly airtight: you can't fool all the people all the time. It was the same with that imbecile Guccifer 2.0 claiming to be Romanian, but having (ahem) "language diffikulteez" and calling himself "Felix Edmundovich" haha. In a last ditch effort to keep the truth away from prying eyes, Sergei Kislyak telegraphed me with definite instructions to "Stop SPECIFICO's before she completely exposes our Le Carr-é operation on wikipedia. FULL STOP." After it became clear that my attempt at damage control had failed to convince SPECIFICO, my immediate superiors instructed me to cut losses and fold Operation Le Carr-é by issuing this public disclosure. -- Samuil Gucci(fer) 21:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Denials

I have removed the text relating to Russian denial from the lede. It is sourced to a shaky source and the text was not verified by the source. We need a better source, we need text verified by the source, and I suggest we await the outcome of the RfC concerning Assange before working on a better solution. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't actually need any sources in the lead, provided that the material is supported by the body, which it is in this case. More importantly, most of the RfC "arguments" for keeping Wikileaks' denials from the out of lead imply that Russia's denials should also be kept out. Be consistent. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a wikileaks denial in the lede? If so you may carve the turkey. (That's an American expression for "excise", I am told). SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, we have whole section about it [15] and it is well sourced. Should this be noted in the lead? Yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This entire article is about the accusation that Russia interfered in the US elections. Every relevant wikipedia policy - WP:DUE, WP:SCOPE - would require some prominent mention, in the lead, that Russia dismisses the allegations. It is likely that Russia's response should receive more substantial coverage in the lead than a single sentence, since they are one of the two main parties in this episode. -Darouet (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This depends on how much coverage there is pertaining to Russia's dismissals of the facts. Also, prominent mention would not apply if this is a marginal view. I'm pretty sure Russia's dismissals are not deemed credible either - which is related to a marginal view. There are a lot of facts that indicate, in detail, Russia interfered in 2016 US elections. In contrast, are there a lot of facts that tell Russia's side in detail? I think there is only their assertion, which is denial, and not much else. There is just not that much to go on. I could be wrong. Please feel free to present sources that detail Russia's side of the story, and we can take it from there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether denials by Russian government officials are credible or not is a matter of personal opinion. The central theme of this article is a number of accusations of meddling in the US presidential election, purportedly directed by the highest spheres of power in the Russian government, so their position on this affair is obviously and eminently DUE, including in the lead. Will add an appropriate sentence. — JFG ^talk 11:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it is a marginal viewpoint then I am likely to remove it. I asked for sources first. I will see what sources are in the article pertaining to this. We are not required to accept Russian assertions on face value, which seems to be the rationale for simply adding content about this to the lead. And it does matter if it is credible or not. Because if it seriously lacks credibility then that is a fringe view. This is according to content policies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: you write "We are not required to accept Russian assertions on face value" but on the other hand the whole premise of the article is that we are required to accept US intelligence assertions at face value. Do you sincerely not see the contradiction? Besides, "we" as Wikipedian writers of an encyclopedia are not "accepting" anything, much less "required to accept"; we are merely reporting what is being said on both sides, properly sourced and attributed. Why we should report only one side is, again, totally lost on me. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"on the other hand the whole premise of the article is that we are required to accept US intelligence assertions at face value" - no, completely wrong and misleading (strawman). This article, like all our articles, is based on the premise that we are required to accept reliable sources at face value. If reliable sources were saying US intelligence is full of shit, we'd put that in. You're trying to pull a little switcharoo there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not at all: I accept all the RS saying that cybersecurity firms analyzed this and that and intelligence agencies concluded that Putin did it. But I fail to see why a lot of editors here fail to accept RS saying that Russian officials denied any intervention and that Assange said what he said. This is totally mind-boggling. — JFG ^talk 23:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And to your second point, there are plenty of RS that said that those intelligence reports were essentially "full of shit", as you say, but by some miracle they were all meticulously edited out of this article by calling them fringe, undue, unsubstantiated, not credible, POV-pushing, BLP-violating, whatever. Total hypocrisy. — JFG ^talk 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The ones that were fringe, undue or non-reliable were indeed removed. That's not "hypocrisy", that's "wikipedia policy".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And I have no idea why you think that editors here "fail to accept RS saying that Russian officials ... Assange ... ..." and all that. Both of these things are in the article. You're acting like they're not. They are. So... what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, denials by Russia and Assange are deemed worthy of being in the article, and the lead section is supposed to provide a balanced summary of the article contents, therefore a one-sentence summary of the Russian official position is DUE in the lead. Same for Assange / WikiLeaks, although both questions can legitimately be assessed separately. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG, you can't come to the article talk page to broadcast a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and then expect your POV to be adopted as the core of the article. In fact you can't do that anywhere on WP and you can't come to article talk to promote fringe alternative history regardless of whether you expect it to be taken into the article. Darouet, this article is not "about the accusation" -- it's about the event, which is not disputed by almost anyone except certain Russian individuals and certain cherrypicked pundits and certain WP editors. A well-sourced one sentence mention of the Russians's denial can go in the lede. The deprecated text on Russia was not well done. Assange & Wikileaks are not the subject of this article and from what's been posted above, nobody is arguing that A&W need go in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The position of the President of Russia, his spokesman and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not WP:FRINGE. The only POV being pushed on this article is the one from the US intelligence agencies! — JFG ^talk 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you write that the Russian intervention "is not disputed by almost anyone except certain Russian individuals and certain cherrypicked pundits and certain WP editors". First, that's a lot of "except", second don't forget that 45% of the American public was not convinced that Russia intervened, and if it did, only 36% believe that such intervention had any effect. But you once decided that #Public opinion polling does not belong in the article, so you may have forgotten that an awful lot of people dispute the US intelligence agencies' version of the events. — JFG ^talk 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -- And just as I thought. No facts back up the Russian officials' assertions. Just denials (opinions). Here are the sources that merely tout denials" [16], [17], [18]. As in "Oh, take our word for it." Hence, marginal besides being not credible per fact based assessment that Russia did seek to influence the 2016 election. The Reuters source is basically nothing. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember that it is impossible to prove a negative. Supposing for a minute that Russia really had nothing to do with the DNC leaks, what else can they say than "hey, we had nothing to do with it"? Well, they did say a bit more, calling the US assertions "silly", "baseless", even "hysterical". But apart from political hyperbole, they can't PROVE that they did nothing. On the other hand, the US intelligence agencies and the Obama administration should have been able to prove their allegations, but all we have seen so far is innuendo such as "looks like Guccifer 2.0 is not really Romanian" and "we've got tons of proof but we can't show you because they are classified". The only proven thing is that RT broadcasts pro-Russian news; wow, if the CIA didn't tell me, I would have never guessed! So neither side can prove anything, and we are left with assertions of what they say. Credible or not, that's not our job as editors to determine, we show what's being said and readers can make up their mind. — JFG ^talk 23:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what we can say, based on the citations in the recently removed text: "A Kremlin spokesman denied that Putin personally directed how the hacked material was leaked and otherwise used". That's what the sources say. No "repeatedly denied..." without stating what was denied. We must limit this to what the sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Russian govt denies having had anything to do with the leaks, which obviously includes what you jus mentioned. Do you seriously not know that? What's next, saying that Russia denied that "Putin personally and directly intervened explicitly to help Trump win with the goal of ending sanctions over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine"? Stop trying to set "acceptable bounds" for the dispute. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of gittin' all inna snit, how's 'bout y'all show us an RS reference that tells "Russian government repeatedly denied..." -- That version is just plain ol' bad editin' which is why I's done d-leted it. As I have repeatedly explained. I've also endorsed a properly sourced succinct reference to the Russian reaction, so... SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well golly gee ware to find ... oh: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Russian_government_response.

Public opinion polling

I see this as trivia and have removed it from the article. First, although potentially verifiable public opinion data could be located for pretty much anything, Wikipedia articles as a rule do not cover public opinion polls. Including it in this article goes against the normal practice. Of course if "public opinion" as represented by those specific polls, and that specific interval time interval, were of permanent importance to the subject matter--as represented by widespread, non-routine coverage in secondary sources--then that would be different. There is no evidence of this, and the burden of proof is on those wanting inclusion. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. We must have the presence of mind and perspective to recognize what is/isn't encyclopedic. This is related to the problem with all the self-styled cybersecurity pundits who are eager to get their names in print and fill a void when more qualified notable experts have nothing to say. The facts have developed so rapidly that most of the media and former security workers' opinions and reaction in the article are of no lasting importance whatsoever. The reader would have no idea what facts were known and published as of the dates of past polls or punditry. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I know of no rule regarding opinion polls. What goes into articles and what is omitted is determined by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. In this case the source used is the Wall Street Journal, which is a highly respected mainstream newspaper. Since the article is about allegations rather than proven facts, the degree to which the American public believes it is important. It is even important in cases of proven facts (climate change, evolution, 9/11), where substantial numbers of the population do not accept the facts. We include that information not to question the facts but because they are part of the story. If you are thinking of becoming a climate change scientist for example you might want to know that the general public may have doubts about its authenticity. TFD (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking of becoming a Russian hacker. Will my cousins believe me when I tell tales over Thanksgiving turkey? Shucks. I think that the core issue is whether RS provide any narrative about these polls in relation to the topic of the article. For example, it may turn out six months from now that WP would source text to an RS that tracks increasing public acknowledgement that the Russian interference is a fact to future Republican political events. But in terms of the interference itself, what is the meaning of isolated polls without some correlation to the news background, the known facts as of each poll, or to how public opinion shaped some related events or outcomes? SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You would not be wasting your time on this article if everyone in the U.S. believed that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta's emails and provided them to Wikileaks. TFD (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a diff that points to the content in question [19]. Most sources in question are primary. The Wall Street Journal is primary, not secondary, in this context because they commissioned the poll and are merely reporting their own numbers. Since it's primary, it doesn't establish weight convincingly by itself, because it seems likely (to me at least) that the WSJ would have published those results whether the results were surprising or not; after all, they paid for them. I agree with SPECIFICO above about encyclopedic content: the Weight and Neutrality policies are written with the understanding that there are some fundamental differences in newspaper vs. encyclopedic content, we don't usually publish weather forecasts for example, although there is no rule against that either and plenty of usable sources. The reason: it's just data out of context with minimal useful shelf life. That's exactly the way I see these polls. But if I'm wrong on this, that content should include sourced analysis so readers can see why these numbers from that point in time are permanently useful. That way we aren't just flinging old data at them. Geogene (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of what "primary source" means. The WSJ is a secondary source, for our purposes. The problem with using primary sources is mainly that they require us to do original research to interpret. It would be wrong for us to look at the polling data and come to our own conclusions, but citing what the WSJ reported about the poll would be fine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is no difference between the WSJ running an article on their own poll or another company's poll, they both provide analysis. TFD (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You may both want to read WP:PRIMARY and its explanatory supplement which includes WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That describes the poll. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." That describes the article about the poll. TFD (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: You counter-reverted my restoration of longstanding text removed by SPECIFICO; technically this constitutes a violation of DS restrictions in force which state: You […] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Note that it says "challenged edits", not "challenged text", and my revert was a challenge to the deletion edit. I suggest that you self-revert to restore the disputed material pending consensus outcome of this discussion. I do commend you for opening said discussion. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not "longstanding" content. That fish don't dance. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the discussion here, I don't see consensus to remove (3 editors want to keep the material, 3 want to remove it), but of course SPECIFICO sees no consensus to insert and threatens to drag me to AE. Chilling effect. For the record, I believe that reporting on public opinion about this delicate affair is eminently WP:DUE, but I'll abstain from restoring the material until we get some solid guidance from admins. I also maintain that Geogene violated DS by deleting the material a second time after I reverted (REVERT step) his SPECIFICO's first deletion (BOLD step). Even without talking about DS, this should be basic WP:BRD practice and courtesy to keep the contested material in until consensus is reached. — JFG ^talk 07:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG my removal was not in error, not a DS violation, and not discourteous. Also, pinging me once per article talkpage per day is sufficient. Don't do that again. Geogene (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Geogene, I usually ping editors that I mention, as a courtesy so they are aware of the discussion, there was nothing special about you. Per your request I am not pinging you this time. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the consensus has to be to include. If there is no consensus for inclusion, the material is removed, per WP:BURDEN. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You say the consensus has to be to include, I say the original version stays in until consensus is reached. In this case, the original version has a section on opinion polling, which Specifico removed and I restored; discussion is ongoing and I believe you shouldn't have deleted the material again, but please note that I haven't edit-warred on it. We just happen to have a different interpretation of the DS/1RR restriction, and this is being debated at WP:AE where several recent cases stemmed from this difference of interpretation of the rules, among several good-faith editors.

Regarding WP:BURDEN, it is part of the WP:Verifiability policy and says that any content must be backed up by reliable sources. The content about opinion polling was properly sourced, so I don't see the point of this line of reasoning to exclude the material. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You say: the original version stays in until consensus is reached. If you could defend the content in that version, you would. You're not, so you're misinterpreting policy. You're wrong, and the content stays out. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The original virgin? Oh, version -- Well I think all this original longstanding meme has been debunked at AE, so let's not go there again. There are no excuses for edit-warring. The reverted content needs to be removed, and I urge JFG to do so promptly until consensus to reinsert is demonstrated here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your request is moot as I haven't re-instated the contents after my revert of your deletion was counter-reverted by Geogene (in violation of DS but I let that slip in the interest of peaceful resolution of content disputes). — JFG ^talk 00:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The public opinion poll should be kept out of the article. The WSJ is PRIMARY in this instance, and is not sufficient for using this is as a source without secondary sources that show the poll's impact. As PRIMARY itself points out, WSJ is close to the source, and fits the definition of PRIMARY. This cannot be considered a reliable source, per WP:RS. Also, Geogene has correctly pointed out BURDEN says reliable sources must be provided to restore this edit. Steve Quinn (talk)

As SusanLesch recently opened a new section with fresh polls, I have restored the previously deleted polls, which do not address the same question, in order to provide a more complete picture of public opinion. Feel free to add more recent data if any can be found. — JFG ^talk 01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On attempts to influence public opinion and providing measurements thereof

A lot of the political maneuvers on both sides of this issue are intended to influence public opinion: Russia apparently tried to influence US public opinion of Trump and Clinton, and US intelligence agencies apparently tried to influence US public opinion by stoking hostility towards Russia. Clinton has blamed Russia for Trump's election and Trump has blamed Clinton for scapegoating Russia. Democrats have accused WikiLeaks of being a tool of Putin, whereas Wikileaks has accused Democrats of trying to deflect people's minds from their own blemishes. Opinion polls provide an informative measurement of the persuasion of all these contradictory messages vying for influence in public opinion. Such numbers are WP:DUE, and can be sourced to polling institutes, with no need for editorial comment about them. Nowhere else in Wikipedia have I seen a request to provide secondary sources that show the poll's impact as an argument to exclude a relevant poll of public opinion about the article subject. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I'm impressed! That is pure poetry, and devoid of any fact, logic, policy, connection or purpose that might contribute to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Double standards for polls?

Curious about this edit by SPECIFICO: why are you adamant that the section dedicated to opinion polling must be deleted, and you now boldly insert an opinion poll in the lead? The correct action would be to restore the prior section, add your new poll there, and perhaps then provide a summary of the polls in the lead. — JFG ^talk 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. You will see the explanation in my second comment above in this section of the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean your comment that starts with "I am thinking of becoming a Russian hacker"? Well, I wouldn't hire you as a hacker but you sure have a bright future as a politician… Back to the content issue at hand: your comment above says that for a poll to be included, the source should "provide [a] narrative about these polls in relation to the topic of the article". Both the polls you removed and the poll you added pass this test, so I fail to see why they should be treated differently. — JFG ^talk 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

James Clapper and the "Intelligence Community"

It is worthy of note that in this article (as well as in the entire affair), James Clapper is referred to as a credible authority. The fact is that he is a proven pathological liar who has publicly perjured himself and belongs behind bars.

The other "authorities" from the "Intelligence Community" likewise are devoid of credibility. They are professional liars.

This entire story has no credible source. It is nothing but fake news. ---Dagme (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

not pro-Trump?

Remember to prioritize in the article that the Russian interference was not pro-Trump.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC) (rephrasing sock's OP: did the Russians hack the DNC with the goal of helping Trump win?) Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't? You might want to explain that to the FBI and the CIA. [20][21] --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a fact either way: "What we don't know? [...] What specific evidence does the intelligence community have that shows, beyond trying to hurt Clinton, that the Russians actively sought to help Trump?"CNN. "Actively helping Trump" presumes that Russians were expecting a Trump victory, contrary to all the polls. Assuming that Russian spies are not idiots, this is counterintuitive. There has probably been some analysis along these lines somewhere in the press, though it's not easy find in the haystack of stenographic stories about what "officials say". Remember too that "officials" are not RS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well here's one: "Mark Galeotti, senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague, said he believed another motive for the hack - if Russia was behind it - would be to portray U.S. democracy as venal and chaotic and so take the sting out of Western accusations that Russian elections are corrupt" --Reuters Unlike, the CIA and FBI, this is a reliable source. I'm not sure I'll be adding to the article due to the hostile editing environment here, but it's something to consider. Guccisamsclub (talk)

And here's is more in the same vein (CNN), where former Intel officials and experts speculate that the (anticipated at the time, unreleleased) thesis about "helping Trump" was partisan and rushed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Denial by Russian officials

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

---

Should the denials by Russian officials of interference in the US electoral process be mentioned in the lead section? — JFG ^talk 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ever since this affair started in June 2016, Russia has denied any involvement in the DNC leaks specifically or in the US elections in general. The article has a section dedicated to the Russian position, as expressed by several top-level government figures, notably the President and the Foreign Minister of Russia. A one-sentence summary of those denials was in the lead section since the early days of the article until recently removed. It originally said Russia denied involvement and Russia disputed reports of Putin's involvement. Later it evolved into The Russian government repeatedly denied it had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. This sentence was removed from the lead by SPECIFICO on March 4. A new sentence was proposed by JFG on March 6: Russian government figures have repeatedly denied and condemned the allegations of interference in the United States electoral process but was reverted by Steve Quinn. Discussion in section #Denials above is leading nowhere, with some editors fiercely defending the inclusion and others fiercely defending the exclusion. Hence an RfC is appropriate, in order to gather broader input from the community. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Take this to discussion or some appropriate board
The following discussion has been closed by Darouet. Please do not modify it.
@JFG: please place your discussion where it belongs on this thread. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) The RfC is properly formatted, with one short neutral question first, and a longer rationale explaining the context and why an RfC is necessary afterwards. No need to move anything. — JFG talk 00:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) We can ask an admin to have a gander. Also, do you *really* think it's helpful to have two threaded polls on the same subject going at once? Cause I don't. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Same subject? There are three RfCs open: one about Assange's statement, one about the Electoral College episode and McMullin's statement, and one about Russian officials' statements. — JFG talk 01:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I didn't say 2 RfC's did I? Your statement that the treaded discussion of the Russian denials was "leading nowhere" came curiously enough after various editors refuted your dissembling and deflection as to the issue. You can hat this and allow the conversation to continue, or you can choose not to. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Dissembling and deflection? No idea what you are talking about; if you have a criticism of my actions, please be specific. So I assume you are talking about the #Denials section which you opened above after recently removing the lead sentence mentioning denial of the charges by Russian government officials. In that discussion I count 4 editors who defend inclusion and 3 who defend exclusion, and both "camps" seem to be increasingly talking past each other, therefore I considered that opening an RfC was the appropriate next step in the consensus process. You are free to disagree, just as you are free to contribute to the RfC. — JFG talk 02:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Well the way I think it would appear to any impartial witness, you got beat up by several editors who deconstructed your inability to defend, or even cogently to present, any rationale for your POV. So you decided to unilaterally declare that active discussion void and come downpage to template "RfC" in case it would attract editors who might dilute the views that had failed in the established thread. "just sayin'" SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include – The central theme of this article is the purported intervention by Russian secret services in the US electoral process, as directed by the highest levels of Russian government. The position of the accused party needs to be mentioned next to the accusations, however briefly, properly sourced and attributed. — JFG ^talk 00:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include In all articles about criminal accusations we should mention if the suspects acknowledge or deny guilt. Even Joe McCarthy asked people if they were members of the Communist Party. TFD (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - This should be judged by WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. The fact is, the coverage of the intelligence conclusions and the following other pieces of information on the hacking has far outweighed the coverage of the denials. While reported, WP:RS have not given these denials as much creditability or coverage. While it may seem fair to include this, we are not guided by what is fair. We are guided by the relative weight given to this by WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include and add material reported by Russian media to the body of the article as well. Russia has repeatedly stated it was not responsible for the leaks that are the basis of its alleged interference in the 2016 elections (though a few statements have been ambiguous):

1. 15 June, "I absolutely rule out the possibility that the government or government agencies were involved in this," Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, told journalists in a curt statement." [22]
2. 8 October, "Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a statement Saturday that Washington’s accusations are an attempt to heat up anti-Russian sentiment as the U.S. presidential election nears...“our enemies are continuing to blame Russia for interference in U.S. domestic matters.”... The denial came a day after U.S. officials..."[23]
3. 12 October, "“There is nothing in Russia’s interest,” Putin said in Moscow at an investment forum organized by VTB Capital. “The hysteria aims only to distract the attention of the American people from the substance of what hackers had put out. And the substance is the manipulation of public opinion.” (note, not a denial) [24]
4. 22 December, "Russia denies any involvement and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Moscow was not the source." [25]
5. 29 December, "Moscow denies the hacking allegations." [26]
6. 29 December, "Russia has repeatedly denied hacking accusations." [27]
7. 29 December, "Russia has repeatedly denied any accusations that it interfered with the elections in any way, as has WikiLeaks." [28]
8. 6 January, "Russia says US allegations that it ran a hacking campaign to influence the American presidential elections are "reminiscent of a witch-hunt". Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Moscow was tired of the accusations. He said a report released by US intelligence agencies detailing the allegations was groundless." [29]
9. 6 January, "Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in hacks on the U.S. election." [30]
10. 15 February, "The U.S. intelligence community said hacks were carried out by Russia in order to disrupt the election and eventually help Republican Donald Trump win. Russia has repeatedly denied the hacking charges." [31]

It is patently ludicrous to maintain, in an article titled "Russian interference...", that the position of the Russian government is immaterial, FRINGE, should not receive coverage in the article at all, and does not even merit a mention in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include, obviously. The very fact that we're even arguing about whether or not to include Russia's denial in the lede is a sign of the severe dysfunction on this page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include To document a controversy at the high level like the lede, dismissing one party's sourced counter-statements as UNDUE is absolutely inane. A short-form summary should brief summarize the stances of both sides of a controversy, the body then can be judged by UNDUE/WEIGHT. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Include Close and restore text deleted only a few days ago, on the blatantly false grounds it was "poorly sourced". That botched edit was not even meant to be permanent, but seems to have developed a life of its own, with users quickly jumping in to prove new rationales after the initial one did not wash. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Snow Include Why does this even have to be explained? Objective3000 (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include per JFG, Objective3000 and others. Weight is not synonymous with area of text coverage and a brief denial seems essential, to the extent such has been made. There is no need for 'repeated/sincere/etc.' denials but whatever is the clearest denial position (ie if one individual and qualified, then we follow suit, if explicit, general and unqualified, likewise). Pincrete (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include – it would be undue and absolutely ridiculous to exclude a brief denial. The denial is a significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC is a pointless, pointy bit of nonsense. The issue that's been raised is the sourcing and language of the lede text. Instead we get a broad, useless RfC on a general question that's not in dispute. It accomplishes nothing, it clutters the talk page where real substantive issues remain unresolved, and it stokes snark and snippets of battleground recrimination. This abominable RfC should be withdrawn so that we can discuss the form and sourcing of the text. In my opinion the appropriate text in the lede is something like "Russian officials have denied the interference." SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just three days ago you removed lede text that read, "The Russian government repeatedly denied it had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks." What is your argument against "repeated denials," which are documented by the WashPo, CBS News, BBC, Reuters, Fortune, RT, and Forbes above? -Darouet (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This gives a taste of the alternate text that SPECIFICO wished to see yeasterday: "Here's what we can say, based on the citations in the recently removed text: "A Kremlin spokesman denied that Putin personally directed how the hacked material was leaked and otherwise used". That's what the sources say. No "repeatedly denied..." without stating what was denied. We must limit this to what the sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)" I am at a loss for words. Even after I pointed out just how wrong this was, SPECIFICO remained undeterred: "That version is just plain ol' bad editin' which is why I's done d-leted it. As I have repeatedly explained. I've also endorsed a properly sourced succinct reference to the Russian reaction, so..." Now she suggests yet another version: "Russian officials have denied the interference." WTF does that even mean? Did they say: "No ref, that was no interference play"? Yeah, let's make the article as vague and incomprehensible as possible. SPECIFICO: Why are you doing this? Please stop. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Intelligence agency distribution of raw intelligence

Should this be included under U.S. intelligence analysis or have its own section? The focus here is on policies re distribution, not on the 'intelligence' itself or its analysis.

The NY Times reported:

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government.

…

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.

References

Should more or less be included from the article?

Alternative title:: Intelligence agency distribution and classification of intelligence Humanengr (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I think that the way in which this material was presented in the edits you recently made does not convey the sense of the sources and their discussion of context. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Who are you talking to and which edits are you talking about? Hard to understand out of the thread; please be specific . — JFG ^talk 20:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and JFG: Thx for your edits to my faulty start, and yes, this is a bit of a challenge. Another point I neglected that, imo, deserves inclusion for proper context is that "none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama." Given that there are separate sections for U.S. intelligence analysis and Obama administration, I thought it appropriate to segment the material to fit 'intelligence agencies' issues into the former and 'White House officials' and President Obama issues in the latter. So my proposal now is to accept SPECIFICO's edits for the former and for the latter (which Volunteer Marek had reasonably removed on the grounds of duplication), something like:

The NY Times article cited above in Preservation, processing, and distribution of evidence indicates that, in the last days of Obama administration and without direction from President Obama, "some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government …."

Thoughts? E.g., does the 'preservation' material need repeating here or is the pointer sufficient? Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

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

---

This is based on the edit by user:JFG, [32] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [33] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [34], which was agreed to by myself [35] with no editor raising a red flag. The basic issue was also discussed here in the talk page for Russian interference. Casprings (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(A) The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.

Versus

(B) The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.

Reference list
References

Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there.Casprings (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note 2: Past debates involving the proposed wording have occurred at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and United_States_presidential_election,_2016. This RFC, being posted on both pages, is meant to provide consensus for both articles. On this issue, an admin user:coffee stated "As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them" [36] However, the discussion is also ongoing here. Casprings (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• This must be option "B". Yes, the agencies made such conclusion, and there are numerous publications about it. What's the problem? Telling "agencies" is more precise than the "government". Besides, what government? I am not sure that current government makes this accusation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B concluded. Also, "determined" is used in many RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A as determined by RfC above, with perhaps additional tweaks mentioning Russia was accused and sanctioned by the Obama administration. The paragraph is also too long imho. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Don't see the problem, it's clearer and RS'd. Also concur the 'Gov.t accused' is vague, which govt, who in that govt? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC) ... ps also don't see the necessity of "United States government's intelligence agencies", this could be "United States intelligence agencies", also, if we use this, should we add the "moderate to high certainty" of the conclusion? Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both kinda - the A is about the government, the B is about the intelligence services. For intelligence services I think 'conclude' is solid. For the US government -- I'm thinking that should be included in altered form, more properly 'Obama Administration imposed sanctions' to differentiate it from the Trump administration and note it's not the full U.S. Government. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A amdneded to the former Obama administration. MSM saying there is evidence is different to there actually being evideice. There is also no saying they didn't aid Hillary Clinton, and that must be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This speculation is based on ... what, exactly? Neutrality^talk 21:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B As OP. This statement states a clear fact "The IC conclusion was.." and it matches WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neither It's unclear what is meant by government. It could mean for example the Obama administration. And intelligence agencies don't make conclusions. And unless we are mind-readers, it is difficult to know what these people concluded as opposed to what they claimed. So we could say, "The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Or we could say that it was a conclusion of a report by the agencies. TFD (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B concluded, but would not object to a reformulation which captures both the IC's conclusion, and the government's formal accusation based on the IC's conclusion. Would strongly oppose "claimed," as this is not the common framing in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both options are, in their own contexts, accurate enough, but I would go with option B as it was the conclusion which prompted the accusation. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a variation of option A elsewhere (after B is used) in the article, or even a combination such as "U.S. Intel concluded that Russia interfered, prompting the Govn't to publicly accuse them." Pardon the unecyclopedic terseness, but I'm sure we can all see what I'm getting at there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B with two small changes. First, it should identify the intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence). Second, the Fox News opinion piece shouldn't be cited as a source. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A, or something similar. I think that The Four Deuces' point about being more precise is correct. We should specify that it was the Obama administration that made the claim. We can (and already do) say later in the lede that a number of US intelligence agencies have claimed Russian interference in the US elections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option C, "United States government intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." This is most accurate, since we know what the agencies have publicly revealed, either to media, or sources. The internal conclusions of intelligence agencies are often complex, contradictory, and public statements may convey exactly the opposite of what agencies internally conclude (as I noted above [37]). If that isn't possible, I would support Option A, being more accurate than B. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B per cited sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B per WP:WEIGHT - more accurately reflects the cited sources. Also, no need to specify agencies - this is for the lede. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A The title of the current source (Washington Post) for the claim in question is "U. S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections". We all know that governments and spy agencies lie. We don't know if they really believe that Russia "hacked the election". All we know is that they are accusing Russia of doing this. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - more accurately reflects sources (also, didn't we have this discussion already)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The lede sentence has one citation. That citation does not say 'conclude'. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B, per the overwhelming majority of RS. --Tataral (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority of reliable sources" is false. As I stated, the first reference cited in the first paragraph actually uses the word "accuses". The other source cited by the first paragraph is a NYT article from January 6, 2017. This article starts out "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released on Friday a report that detailed what it called a Russian campaign to influence the election". Note the use of the words "what it called". So neither of the sources cited by the first paragraph are just taking what the "intelligence community" says at face value. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The cited WaPo source isn't a very good one for the semantics of this RfC. Yes, according to WaPo the Obama administration "accused" the Russians of interfering in October 2016. Then CIA "concluded" that the Russians interfered and the FBI and DNI agreed with that "assessment" in December 2016. A joint report was described as "conclusions" in January 2017. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Both secondary sources used for the first paragraph acknowledge that the primary sources (the Obama administration and the "intelligence community") are not necessarily reliable in what they are communicating to the public about this topic. Wikipedia must use mainly secondary sources rather than primary sources. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing using primary sources here. I'm talking about what The Washington Post published in its own voice, just as you did. You pointed out that the Post used "accused," and I pointed out that the Post later used "concluded." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to use recent sources because we no longer see any uncertainty in mainstream reporting. The "only an accusation" or "phony CIA scheme" narratives are FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk

Both Specifico and DrFleischman seem to think that Wikipedia should report on statements by the Obama administration and James Clapper's office as if they are fact. My position is that Wikipedia needs to recognize the possibility of error or deception in public statements by a government or spy agency, which is exactly what the New York Times and Washington Post articles do. How could anyone forget the false accusations that Saddam possessed WMD or Clapper's lie that the NSA was not doing any mass surveillance? Jrheller1 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The most current information says Intelligence agencies "concluded". If you have RS that says there is the possibility of deception about Russian interference in the US election of 2016 by US intelligence agencies then please present it. I don't think this is exactly what the WaPo and New York Times articles do - that sounds like a misreading of these two publications. Also, bringing a 2002 intelligence report into the discussion is a strawman argument. And we don't base articles on what people believe or suppose. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Jrheller1, you seem to be cherry-picking sources to distort a comprehensive analysis of the sources. I already pointed out that The Washington Post transitioned from used "accused" to using "concluded." Your continued citation of the Post's use of "accused" as evidence that the agencies' views might be wrong (of course they might be) suggests bad faith, or at least a failure to listen. Please convince me that I'm mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option A: (A) we can say for certain (B) is speculation. We're not in the speculation business. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Well-stated re 'certain' vs 'speculation'. Would add date and fix tense for clarity. Humanengr (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B as more factual, better supported, and more neutral language. I suggest a slight wording change: I think "have concluded" would be better than "concluded". Also, why are we using references? This is for the lede, isn't it - where we don't normally use references? --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Short answer to your questions: you are mistaken or you have been misled. Politrukki (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, MelanieN is correct. We normally don't use citations in the lede, but we make an exception when the statement is controversial (either among editors here, or in the wider world). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked the wrong link and mixed United States elections, 2016 with United States presidential election, 2016 – only the latter includes something about Russian interference in the lead. However, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is more or less a breaking news story and currently there at least 21 sources cited in the lead. There's no benefit of removing citations from one sentence in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Politrukki (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option A – although we should say that it was the Obama administration. Option A is consistent with the reliable sources and better sourced, at least for now. Weeks have passed and still nobody has bothered to answer my question for why cherry-picking of sources that seem to support option B is justified. Politrukki (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect - it wasn't "the Obama administration" only. First, the U.S. government's conclusion was based on the assessment of career intelligence officers, not political appointees. Second, the U.S. government has maintained and indeed strengthened its conclusion. Trump has conceded Russia's interference in the election; here (WaPo), and here (NYT: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election"). CIA Director Pompeo has officially backed the intelligence report on Russian hacking in testimony given to Senate Intelligence Committee. And FBI Director Comey has repeatedly reaffirmed the U.S. government's conclusions, including in Senate Judiciary Committee just days ago. Neutrality^talk 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option B hesitantly, as I think the article needs to be WP:NOTNEWS and the community around the page needs to move towards summarizing the entire episode in WP:NPOV. This whole page has turned into a tit-for-tat of line-by-line direct quotes from sources. Per WP:IMPARTIAL: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." IMO, page needs a cooling off period and then a rewrite with focus on encyclopedia summary rather than continued conflict over quotes by a factionalized sets of page editors. - RYPJack (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Formal request to close RFC here. Casprings (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Most oppinions have already mentioned my point of view for this issue. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option A Accused. Is this a U.S. pedia or a global pedia? Leading with “The U.S. … concluded" lends unwarranted authority to the "U.S.” as determiner of ‘facts', and introduces a bias inappropriate to a global ‘encyclopedia’. Humanengr (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option B per sources. Note: this is an RfC about page United States presidential election, 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option C per Darouet is most clear and accurate. If that is not possible, Option A per reasoning by Humanengr. Adlerschloß (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Both options are reliable sourced and B is more complete information. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. It's the one that's neutral to reporting in the bulk of reliable sources. Odd that I'm only finding this RFC now. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B Based on reliable sources that I've seen. [38] Happysomeone (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B as supported by reliable sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - While A is true, it grossly understates the reality of the situation and tends to cast doubt where almost none actually exists.- MrX 10:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - Both are true. B is what we see in most RS. If readers feel that the United States government's intelligence agencies are not trustworthy, they still have the right to not believe the conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. All major RS are clear about this now. Whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, there is no doubt that the intelligence agencies are not in doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Only readers of Breitbart, RT, Infowars, and other purveyors of "real" fake news (not the Trump kind) still have doubts. In fact, such editors should not be editing here. If they can't tell the difference between reliable sources and extreme propaganda bias and fake news, and therefore imbibe such garbage, their mindset renders their presence here a constant disruption. That's what we're constantly seeing on this page. If an editor won't change their mind and bring their thinking into line with what RS say, something's wrong with their thinking and/or sources of information. If they'd only imbibe RS, they would not have these problems and then cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - would it be possible to include the option (C) The United States government's intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[4][5][6] ? I think this communicates their statements (which we know) without attempting to infer what intelligence agencies, whose conclusions are by definition highly secret, have internally assessed (which we cannot know). Pinging Casprings. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is too far along to add another option. After it closes feel free to bring it up for discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that Darouet's proposal above is by far the most neutral way to word the issue. We don't have a crystal ball to know what the intelligence agencies internally assess, but we know what they publicly state. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: A or B, not baby makes 3. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – source ­#4 is an opinion piece. It would be unwise to cite an opinion piece without proper attribution. Source #3, which is used in option A, sort of supports option B: it says "In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election". Politrukki (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some issues with the mark up of this RfC and how it fits into this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes: because it's been transcluded in two places, it's hard to tell whether editors are commenting on what should be the appropriate text in one article or in the other. See WP:AN#Question on Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So basically this whole RfC is one big cf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's just say the closer will have an interesting job… — JFG ^talk 07:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus clause, that is currently being clarified at ARCA on the ARBIA front, does not apply to this one article. El_C 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would point out that some US intel agencies had not been so conclusive. It should be clear that this is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. There was some ambiguity very early on, but the U.S. Intelligence Committee statement covers the view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. And the FBI is on the same page. See Washington Post ("FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House"); USA Today ("FBI accepts CIA conclusion that Russians hacked to help Trump"). Neutrality^talk 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

• @Exemplo347: I'm concerned your close does not address the arguments presented in detail. Your wording could be applied (equally relevantly) to any of a dozen RfCs with options A and B. While the reasoning behind those words may be detailed it is important they be reflected in the closure. If anyone can advise me on the process and propriety of challenging such a closure I would appreciate a note on my talk page. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: The reason may be succinct, but no additional detail is required. I have assessed the consensus of the discussion and explained my reasoning. Challenging a closure because you don't feel that my reason is wordy enough... well, that doesn't seem like a policy-based argument. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump group contacts with Russians

This article needs to take account of recent RS reporting about Trump campaign and Trump affiliate contacts with the Russians, including at the convention. Rachel Maddow is doing nightly reports on these relationships now. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk shows are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And raccoons don't speak French. I did not refer to a "talk show". Check it out. [39] [40] [41]. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know, ever talked French to one? As to the rest, are these RS, I doubt it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's been plenty of recent RS reporting as to Trump associates trips to Russia and visits with Russians, e.g. at the Republican Convention. I haven't chosen references for the article yet, just presented reliable reporting so editors can pursue this matter, which will certainly go into the article when it's properly framed. Some of Maddow's narrative is RS journalism and some is discussion. She is clear about separating the two, at any rate there are many other sources. Trump associates/Wikileaks connections: [42] [43] SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So use those RS then, and not dodgy ones.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Those sources do not establish weight. It was the same thing 8 years ago when Glenn Beck and other talk show hosts featured anti-Obama speakers which was picked up by right-wing media. Whoever thought that corporate Democrats would become the new birthers. TFD (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Maddox isn't the source to use. Don't watch her, but from the little I have seen, she basically provides coverage of the reporting done in the NYT, WP, and others. That said, the mulitiple and ongoing links between trump and russia are well reported and need to be covered in detail. It is OR to say where there is smoke(and smoke, and smoke, and more smoke) that there is fire. However, the multiple links are related to this article and should be covered. Casprings (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: If I had all the sourcing and weight worked out, I would have added to the article already. I'm sure you don't really mean to be comparing the Glenn Beck show to NBC News, so I won't comment on that one. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I am comparing the Glenn Beck show on CNN to the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My point is that having a talk show on a major news network does not make someone a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I buy you a straw hat to go with your straw man? Let's look at the merits -- not specious comparisons. You're just teasin', I know. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop a using this folksy-polksy tone. Nobody is amused. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Folksy-polksy? Back atya. Please focus on content not contributors. TFD and me are old pals. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Maddow uses facts and evidence and points in the right direction. She also uses other sources to illustrate a point. I don't think it is a problem to back up her coverage with reliable sources. I believe one of her March 10 segments was based on an NYT article and she interviewed one of the reporters who wrote that article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If Maddow, or anyone else, is doing nothing more than a bit of polemical TV punditry, based on the more substantive reporting of others but with added dot-joining, I'm not sure what value including anything she says would bring. WP pages are far too full of fairly empty and unilluminating contemporary commentary on topics or events that individual editors happen to have seen and agreed with. N-HH talk/edits 16:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested using her opinions in this article. Yet, anyway. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Maddow posits many opinions. But, you have to watch the show to know this. She often points out facts and offers conclusions other sources have presented. What opinions she (herself) presents are minimum. She is unique. I note this is in contrast to the "The Last Word" which is the show that follows. I think it is really good, however, Lawrence O'Donnell (the commentator) offers interpretations (opinions) on what sources have said. And, I don't think Glenn Beck and Maddow have the same type of program. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable media and unnamed sources

@SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, and Thucydides411:Can you point to guidelines re BuzzFeed as "hardly a reliable source on serious matters"? Re "unnamed sources", nobody objected to that for the several other "unnamed sources" attributions on this page. Please explain. Humanengr (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved this over to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Buzzfeed_reporting_remarks_by_unnamed_senators if you care to join there. Humanengr (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is currently a related discussion taking place over at the Reliable sources noticeboard "Buzzfeed reporting remarks by unnamed senators". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: There are many problems with this content and sourcing. We need to write an article that is fit for an encyclopedia and avoid details that will be unimportant in a longer term overview of the subject. Anonymous sources saying that they don't think something will happen doesn't fit the mold. The marginal sourcing suggests that even mainstream media whose job it is to report the day-by-day play-by-play do not consider it noteworthy. The matter will be resolved one way or the other in due course. Do you think this content will still be in the article 6 to 12 months from now? Or will it be replaced by facts as they occur on the one hand or it falls by the wayside? This is a long article on a complex subject but it can't be a platform for conjecture and predictions that this or that will not occur. Otherwise WP would have to include mention that Justice Thomas will not resign next year or that Putin will not be convicted of a crime. SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: As I noted above, there are other 'unnamed sources' in this article, e.g.,1) "In December 2016, an unnamed FBI official stated that Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful." 2) in the Current members section. IMO, the latter section in particular warrants some editing. I appreciate the argument re encyclopedia; but note that it is not a document in isolation but rather contributes (albeit largely on the periphery) to the very activities it is describing. Humanengr (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not following the "contributes" thing? SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the Buzzfeed content in question is any worse than this, which is happily relied on for content currently (and very selectively, as it happens). As noted at RSN, there's an issue with relying too much on "political sources told me"-type reporting, whether from the NYT or Buzzfeed, but it's easy to end up with a lack of consistency in application of principle. And this is not random conjecture about things that no one is even speculating may or may not happen, but comments from people involved in the investigation, which has already had "several briefings and preliminary inquiries", saying the evidence that people are expecting is there may well not in fact be there. N-HH talk/edits 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

WP forms part of the context (to greater or lesser extent) for everyone (public, media, primary actors); else why are we doing this? Humanengr (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The general problem here is that there is a group of editors who one can reliably count on to argue that any sentence that casts any doubt on the idea that Russia interfered in US elections is undue, fringe, POV, poorly sourced, a BLP violation, etc. The fact that this group of editors is so much more aggressive in editing the article, and so shameless about editing in this way, has horribly skewed the article. The article, as it is, is a real travesty for Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and this battleground editing climate has pushed some contributors to disengage. NPOV has seemingly been redefined as "anything that doesn't exactly match the official assessment by intelligence agencies is undue". Here's an egregious example: we had long discussions about James Clapper's integrity being tarnished by Binney's opinion, resulting in any counterpoints to Clapper's utterances labeled FRINGE and BLPVIO. The case was dropped. Now recently Clapper said that no evidence was found linking Trump's campaign to Russia, and suddenly his words have no weight, and the RS citing him have no credibility. The only conclusion is that when anybody, be they a concerned party, a politician, a geek or an intelligence analyst, says something reinforcing the official narrative, dominant editors defend it like Gospel, and when they happen to say something casting doubt on the Trump–Russia collusion story, any attempt to quote them is blocked. I don't see how to remedy this without being accused of POV-pushing and edit-warring, so I have mostly disengaged from the article at this point. Is there any venue where neutrality can be assessed and defended with concrete examples? — JFG ^talk 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also largely disengaged. I noticed that after I was sanctioned (unfairly, as several admins even admitted) for a week for my editing here, several editors who generally favor some inclusion of dissenting views in the article disengaged, and there was a major "cleanup" of the article by those editors who consistently remove any view that questions Russian interference in the US elections. The sanction seemed to have a chilling effect on one set of editors, and it gave free reign to the other set of editors. I've come to the conclusions that most of the time, admins are likely to rule in favor of editors who represent a certain political view. This is based on the discrepancy between the sanctions handed down vs. the behavior of different editors, and the really shocking views voiced by several admins on this talk page about US intelligence agencies being reliable sources.

I really wish this page were not such a battleground. But there are active editors here who consistently remove any material that questions the idea of Russian interference, using flimsy and inconsistent justifications (e.g., the largest daily newspapers in Germany and France are somehow not reliable sources, or the famed US intelligence analyst William Binney is from the last century), and then slanted enforcement from admins. I'm not trying to do the reverse - to remove any material I personally disagree with - and it would be anathema to me to do so. I'd actually like to see an article that reflects the range of views given by reliable sources on this topic, but achieving this does not seem possible in the current editing environment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal ruination belongs on your personal talk page. Auf viedersehen. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We must focus on content, no matter how assumptions of good faith are getting stretched. I do not believe in any WP:CABAL. Just get on with well-sourced content representing various credible viewpoints fairly. WP:NPOV will be upheld in the end. — JFG ^talk 02:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like nothing more than to just get on with writing well-sourced content representing various views. But unfortunately, most of the well-sourced, neutrally written content I've written has been blanked. One has to fight in this article just to get a short statement that Russia denies the charges of hacking into the lede, or to get Assange's statement about the origin of the leaks into the lede. That's the point we're at, which makes just going about and editing futile. I really wish WP:NPOV would win out in the end, but there's an evident systemic bias (which doesn't require any cabal) that makes that unlikely. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

False denials in lead

This addition is an unholy mash of WP editor synthesis and op-ed claims being presented as fact and is wholly inappropriate for the lead. It presents a quick USA Today round-up of denials of specific incidents of alleged collusion and then declares them, in WP's voice, all to have been false, based on a New York Times op-ed (which refers to the USA Today list while saying, generally, that there was some contact: it makes no specific claims as to the individual 20 incidents). Also the second half cites this story as evidence that Flynn (as well as Sessions) admitted Russian contacts after first denying them. I can't see that in there, nor am I sure that is how the Flynn story played out: AFAIK his contacts with Russia were known (and entirely legitimate as part of his job), it was what was said that was in dispute. Finally the question of whether Trump's people are wrong to say there was no campaign contact because individuals with links to the campaign may have met or spoken to Russians in another capacity is not a simple one, as many serious sources have pointed out. This para is utterly misleading and poorly sourced. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be explained precisely what any of this has—or might have—to do to do with election interference, otherwise none of this information even belongs in the article, never mind the lead. I should remind editors that the topic of the article is not "Russia, Trump, Putin, connect the dots." The only theory that can be supported by the facts is that members of the Trump campaign have been making friendly noises towards Russia, and have sometimes met with Russians, and that this might have inspired the Russians to hack the DNC. If this theory can be sourced, then add it. If not, this stuff about Russian "ties" (whatever the fuck that entails) should be trimmed by about 90% because it is off tangent. It certainly has no place in the lead, since these "ties" are still under investigation with conclusive (if any) theory linking it to Russia's intervention. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(This is a response to both N-HH and Guccisamsclub) This is just a summary of the content of the article, per WP:LEAD. The denials have been made and they did turn out to be false. Why did Flynn resign? Why did Sessions recuse himself? This isn't at all controversial. And the sources DO in fact link these links and conversations to Russian meddling in the election. It's like you guys have settled on a strategy of "ok, we can't keep well sourced info out of the article so let's at least make sure it's not summarized in the lede". Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

" This isn't at all controversial. And the sources DO in fact link these links and conversations to Russian meddling in the election." Yes, how? Explain it in the article. "It's like you guys have settled on a strategy..." That's really rich. No, we are rightfully concerned about the quality of your edits. Your edit to the lead implying that all of the denials have been false was flat wrong, just as your previous edit alleging that the "ties" in the Steele dossier have been corroborated. Now you want to add content to the lead without even explaining what it has to do with the topic of the article. This is a carte blanche for WP:COATRACKING. For example, what do Flynn's meetings with Kislyak after the election have to do with Russia's election interference? Explain, using sources. Most likely you'll find some sources saying that Flynn's "link" to Kislyak was utterly routine and had nothing do with election interference, and others saying it should be investigated as a sign of a possible quid pro quo. Whatever the exact opinions on the matter, the onus is on you to explain what the link to the article is. Anyone can posit suspicious links and leave it that, but wikipedia is not Glenn Beck's chalkboard. However, I can see why it may be tempting to leave the elaboration of the "link" up to the reader's imagination: the reliably sourced facts and opinions are going to be much less damning here than fantasies. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub:@JFG: --> Who's "we" ? ("we are rightfully concerned") SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think this addition was justified. Yes, this is simply a summary of something already on the page. Moreover, what it tells is a matter of fact. Yes, there were several denials, and these denials turned out to be a lie, leading to resignations. This is just a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The implication of the wording is that the contacts many of the individuals in the Trump campaign/administration had with individual Russians were part of a conspiracy to subvert the election, which is nonsense. Even if we accept the 17 Intelligence agencies conclusion, its unlikely that most of these contacts had anything to do with it. Even if it did, we would need a secondary source to connect the dots. TFD (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved it further down, corrected some shit, and left a short summary in the lead. Hope this works. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You had left the full text in the lead; I trimmed it, and copyedited the rest which frankly had poor grammar. — JFG ^talk 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

yeah, oops. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight to one side, dubious neutrality, "This article approved by the Ministry of Truth"

Until the United States Intelligence Community provides actual proof that any "hacking" took place (Podesta giving out his password willy-nilly =/= "hacking", it's just "being tech-illiterate"), shouldn't the opening paragraph state that the USIC is making an allegation? Otherwise, it just makes it sound like Wikipedia has suddenly become the Orwellian propaganda arm of a certain section of the US government, which, I don't think is one of the functions of this site. I know most English-language editors age going to be American, but what exactly makes the spies in the US government who say "yup, Russia definitely did it, trust us, even though we haven't shown you any proof" any more trustworthy than the Russian government, who is obviously going to deny the accusations? Or are we really gonna take on faith the word of people whose job descriptions involve being professional disseminators of misinformation (& I say this as someone who has previously worked in that very field)? Remember, the Burden of Proof is always on the accuser, & in this case, the accuser has failed to furnish any proof - they've just doubled-down on what, to many skeptics, looks like a ridiculous conspiracy theory ("are "Russian hackers" so good they managed to hack Hillary's brain & force her to rig the election against Bernie Sanders?") made up to desperately shuffle the narrative away from the Democratic Party's catastrophic failure despite having the entire establishment from Wall-St. to the media on their side, & find some scapegoat, no matter how absurd, to unload the blame for their own failures on.CitationKneaded (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a government propagand-, er, PR page either. CitationKneaded (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

While you certainly editorialized your criticism here, I agree that this article is extremely biased as are most articles relating to the election and Trump at this point. It reads like the PizzaGate wiki, nothing but a bunch of unverified media reports by random anonymous sources. This reflects the problem I think is crippling this encyclopedia, which is the fact it is becoming a repository for media reports rather than an accurate representation of reality. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

by design, all wikipedia ever does is mindlessly regurgitate whatever journalists say, and 90% of journalists are left-biased.

Confirmation of details in dossier?

I've removed the sentence, "Subsequently, parts of the report, those concerning conversations between Trump's team and foreign nationals, have been independently corroborated by US investigators," which was sourced to this Yahoo article. The sourcing is weak, so I've removed the sentence. Specifically, the source is mostly about Congresswoman Maxine Waters' claim about details from the dossier being verified, but the source points out that she hasn't provided any evidence. The sentence I removed seemed to be based on a single sentence in the Yahoo article: "It has since been reported that US investigators have corroborated aspects of the dossier concerning conversations between foreign nationals." Where has this been reported? Which aspects of the dossier have been verified? If better sourcing is available, especially sources that point out exactly which details have been corroborated, then something similar to the deleted sentence may be warranted in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See below, though your "sourcing is weak" is weak. It's a reliable source, other sources back it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what?

In this revert User:JFG removes the sentence "Subsequently, parts of the report, those concerning conversations between Trump's team and foreign nationals, have been independently corroborated by US investigators." with the, strange, edit summary of "Misrepresentation of source, which reports Maxine Waters' unsubstantiated opinion about Trump's sexual adventures"

This was previously removed with the equally false edit summary of " they definitely don't say "independently corroborated"".

Here is what the source says: "It has since been reported that US investigators have corroborated aspects of the dossier concerning conversations between foreign nationals."

So. What in the carrot stick does this have to do with Maxine Waters??? How is this a "misrepresentation of a source" which says right there "US investigators have corroborated aspects of the dossier"??? I mean, if you really want to push it, you could add "it has been reported" or something to that effect. What does this have anything to do with Trump's sexual adventures???

If I wasn't AGFing like a rutabaga, I'd suspect that these reverts were made simply to provoke myself, or someone else, into committing a 1RR violation, because they are so clearly baseless, and their accompanying edit summaries are so patently absurd.

Then these reverts were followed by Thucyides (gee, tag team anyone?) who at least had the decency not to pretend that the source is being misrepresented. Rather they used the completely specious reason of "Need to find better sourcing for this". Look celery, the source is just fine. It's reliable. There's no problem with it. But hey, here, have some others: [44], [45], [46] and a few others.

So can we please stop playing games here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we please remain WP:CIVIL here? Thanks for providing other sources than the Yahoo weaseling one-liner thrown in the middle of 30 lines of Maxine Waters' allegations. So let's examine the relevant prose in the longer source:

(CNN) The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs. But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

Some conversations betweens Russian individuals were intercepted. Doesn't say they are conversations with Trump or his team. Doesn't say what was discussed. Doesn't even say whether they discuss Trump, Clinton, Obama or the Pope. OK, Steele may have correctly identified some people talking to some other people on some day in some place, so what?

Now let's see what you wrote in the article (emphasis mine):

(VM) Subsequently, parts of the report, those concerning conversations between Trump's team and foreign nationals, have been independently corroborated by US investigators.

That's not in the source you originally quoted, and that's not in the more detailed CNN piece. That's nowhere to be seen, hence it's a misrepresentation of sources to push a POV. Three editors independently called it what it is, but all you can do is assume bad faith, call edit summaries "patently absurd" and accuse people of tag-teaming? Please give it a rest. — JFG ^talk 05:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo is an aggregator. Smart shoppers look at the ingredients not the label on the can. SPECIFICO talk 05:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And I've been talking only about the "ingredients", as you say. One tablespoon intercepted honeydew with 2 pints fresh Water(s). Mix well. — JFG ^talk 05:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Your claim that my edit summary was false is false. "Independently" in "independently corroborated" does not mean a thing. Without context it's just puffery. Who is the one who is independent? If it's not the publisher, it is even slightly misleading to say "independently". We expect all reliable sources to independently check all statements they make in their editorial voice.

If you remove well-sourced material (word "unproved" sourced to The Washington Post), choose one story that stemmed from Maxine Waters's false statement, pick one paragraph from it, and spice it up with your personal opinions like "independently corroborated" and "conversations between Trump's team and foreign nationals", it is abundantly clear that everything was not alright.

I honestly wasn't sure what "US investigators have corroborated aspects of the dossier concerning conversations between foreign nationals" was referring to, though I assumed it was a reference to the CNN report. But some Wikipedia editors have claimed or hinted that multiple details in the dossier have been corroborated. If we want to summarize the CNN report, we summarize the CNN report in NPOV fashion or we say nothing at all. I took at look at Donald Trump–Russia dossier and had there been a neutral summary of corroborated details, I would have used that in this article.

Please also see related discussion in Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Lede does not accurately reflect what the article says, which would benefit from having more comments. Politrukki (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. But rather than removing it completely you could've simply reworded it to better reflect the source (and Politurkki's edit summary and Thucy's were bunk).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding the point. Now let's see you or SPECIFICO self-revert the erroneous material, and move on. Have a great Sunday! — JFG ^talk 06:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert what? Thucydides already reverted it, no? So actually, can you please restore a properly reworded version? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right, it's gone. And I'm gone for the day too… — JFG ^talk 06:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see much of a point in restoring it. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump. So what then does this have to do with the section? One could argue that the memo's unsubstantiated allegations about Trump appear more credible now that some other unidentified allegations have been verified, supposedly. But I haven't seen any sources that leap to this WP:EXCEPTIONAL conclusion, and you'd need quite a few impeccable ones to make it stick. Maxine Waters is obviously not enough: according to her Putin has recently invaded South Korea (if not Limpopo). Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The corroboration of some of the info in the report is presented in sources in the context of Russian interference in the US election. So yes, it is relevant and I don't even know what "CNN has not confirmed ..." is suppose to mean. You're inventing some threshold not based in Wikipedia policy. Again, Maxine Waters doesn't have anything to do with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is a little tl;dr for me, however the claim itself is definitely something described in a number of publications. Hence restore. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If we do restore this: it must be modified per source; it must be restored to the Steele dossier (definitely NOT the lead); it must be accompanied by a statement that the really juicy stuff hasn't been corroborated, otherwise it's UNDUE and a BLP-vio. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I removed the sentence at issue again. While you wrote "per talk" in your edit summary, I don't see consensus here. The sentence about details being confirmed is poorly sourced. The Yahoo! article being used as the sole source only touches on the supposed corroboration of details in one sentence, and doesn't say where/how/by whom the details have been corroborated. The Yahoo! article is mainly about Maxine Waters' comments. If the article is to include something about corroboration of details in Steele's dossier, then we really need a source that talks about what has been corroborated and who did the corroboration. And whatever claims of corroboration we reference in the article should be clearly attributed.

By the way, Volunteer Marek: the title of this talk page section is very uninformative. It's better to write section titles that give a clear indication of what's being discussed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, huh? Please be more clear. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your edit still doesn't address the problems I raised directly above. What details, in particular, have been corroborated? Who have they been corroborated by? And the claim of corroboration should be attributed to whoever is making the claim. By the way, I think what I wrote is perfectly clear. Your comment, "Incidentally, huh?" - not so much. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How? SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Could you take a look at the above talk-page behavior? I'm having a difficult time figuring out whether SPECIFICO's comments here are meant to troll us all, or whether I'm just missing something. In any case, it's getting a bit trying at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, I added the references that verify the content, which was the subject of this thread. Obviously the subject of the thread is clear enough because it has grown and prospered. I am at a loss to understand your complaint and if you don't want to explain it, I doubt others will be able to respond in any useful way. No "behavior" involved, just not understanding the point. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I looked at the two extra sources you added (Washington Monthly and CNN), and there's still nothing there about confirming any conversations between the Trump people and Russian officials. Really, Marek's text was wrong and still is; even he admitted his error. If you want to add some other text about what the sources actually say, go ahead but stop the edit war here. — JFG ^talk 07:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Financial Flows"

(My edit summary was wrong - it's not breaking news) But the objection stands. Please do not add this anonymous sources crap to the lede. story is a month old and based on anon sources. No "financial flows" have been discovered yet. In actuality, both financial flows and communications are all being scrutinized to see if there is anything there to "tie" (one way or another) Trump and the Kremlin. This makes it look like the issue is that the Trump campaign might have been bankrolled by the Kremlin, or that Trump paid Putin for the leaks, or something. This is all totally insane. The Kremlin can pay its own hackers and Trump did not need Russian money for his campaign. If there is really "conspiracy", it sure as hell did not play out this way. This is just stupid. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Reinserting content challenged by revert

Don't do it. Thanks. It clearly violates the spirit of DS. Regardless of the fact that this is not explicitly stated here any more, it is stated on most of the other DS pages and it reflects the spirit of 1RR. Muchas G! SPECIFICO talk 05:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Who are you talking to? About which edit(s)? Again, please be specific… — JFG ^talk 06:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Any and all instances. This is a universal declaration. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This particular restriction was recently lifted by admins because it was encouraging chilling effects and accusatory behaviour among editors. No need to admonish people along those lines, really. Just apply BRD on specific issues, as per usual Wikipedian practice. — JFG ^talk 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my! It's not an admonition. Not an accusation, obviously because you didn't even know what prompted it. It's a request. But unfortunately this little request appeared to be necessary because within the space of less than three (3) hours, we had two instances of this non-BRD style editing here [47] and -- yes, here [48] So this does need some chilling], and so be it. Fortunately, @My very best wishes: soon got us back on track and RSN is confirming his judgment. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hello??? You ask everybody to avoid "violating the spirit of DS" by not "reinserting content challenged by revert", and then you do exactly that??? Please self-revert, by your own rule… — JFG ^talk 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I was sure you just forgot to read the cited reference, which clearly belies your edit comment. Have a peek. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point (and thanks for WP:ABF'ing me: of course I did read the source, that's exactly why I removed this statement and called it a misrepresentation). Now that I looked at the history, this phrase was first added by VM yesterday, removed by Politrukki, re-added by VM, removed by me (unawares of the edit history), and now restored by you. As soon as Politrukki challenged VM by reverting his edit, they should have come to the talk page to discuss whether the statement reflected the source. Once again, please self-revert and then let's open a discussion if you wish to defend this statement. — JFG ^talk 03:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: & @Volunteer Marek: "Parts of the report, those concerning conversations between Trump's team and foreign nationals, have been independently corroborated by US investigators" is false and not in the given reference, which says only "It has since been reported that US investigators have corroborated aspects of the dossier concerning conversations between foreign nationals." Yahoo is just paraphrasing CNN's "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier," which states: "US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering" and "Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump." You need to read more carefully.--Oxbird (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Time's for a change, I think, especially in the snark dept. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ali Watkins

This is a continuation of prior discussion first above at Reliable media and unnamed sources and then at the RS noticeboard, where the discussion ended with User:Masem saying

The question is not which sources are reliable to consider their viewpoint appropriate to include within UNDUE - all the sources including this buzzfeed one are "equally" reliable for this argument. The point to make is more about UNDUE appropriate per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DEADLINE and that intermediate comments made by authoritative figures in the midst of an unresolve debate are necessarily appropriate even if many many RSes exist to support those points. Which is no longer an issue about reliability but appropriateness, and thus separate from this board.

Can anyone identify any aspect of WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:DEADLINE that might apply? Humanengr (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To continue my advice from the RS page: think about how this article will look 5-10 years from now, considering all the potential outcomes. Does all the current intermediate opinions, theories, etc. really apply to what will be in that article down the road? It's great that we can write day-to-day as this story develops but that's not an encyclopedic approach; this does have to be covered as an encyclopedic topic, but per NPOV, we shouldn't be trying to navigation the complex maze of opinions and theories at this point and instead focus on just getting what facts and key events (as known) there are across to the reader without trying to include every major politicians' and analysts' spin on the matter. Trying to include them all is what makes this fail NOT#NEWS, and we can wait to include them if they turn out to be relevant per DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How will how this article will look in 5-10 years? "Russiagate was a conspiracy theory promoted by Clinton supporters in order to deflect blame for losing an easily winnable election." TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One point at a time: re "Does all the current intermediate opinions, theories, etc. really apply to what will be in that article down the road?". Some of the many examples from the article where that standard was not been applied: [I'm not asking that these in particular be removed, only presenting re 'intermediate opinions', 'theories'] "CNN reported that an unnamed senior administration official told them that the White House was confident Russia interfered in the election."; "McCain said: 'The facts are there' …"; "According to McCain, Russia's meddling in the election was an 'act of war.'"; "White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was critical of Trump's rejection of the idea that Russia used cyberattacks to influence the election.", etc., etc. Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sub-thread on the general evolution of the article moved to #Long-term perspective below. — JFG talk 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, there is very little meat to this article if we remove all the "he said, she said" chit-chat. Let me try penning a neutral, factual, short summary (just as an exercise in clarity, not advocating for this to replace the article, although it would probably be a good lead section if we could actually write from an encyclopedic perspective about current controversial events…): Following the publication of DNC internal communications by WikiLeaks in June and October 2016, several US intelligence agencies affirmed that Russia had attempted to intervene in the presidential election, indicating a preference for candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In retaliation, President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and expanded sanctions to individuals linked with the Russian secret service. Russia has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Trump dismissed the allegations of Russian meddling as partisan fodder. Upon taking office he vowed to work with Russia constructively while maintaining a strong defense of American interests. Accusations of collusion between Trump campaign members and Russian officials are under investigation by the Senate and House intelligence committees. Cybersecurity experts are divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. Some intelligence officials are wary that President Trump may not trust their reports at face value. The controversy has sparked intense media interest and scrutiny of all parties involved. How's that? — JFG talk 00:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Cybersecurity experts are divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. I am not sure what that means, but if it means experts it's a 50/50 chance Russia did it, that's wrong. The consensus is not as monolithic as the present article make out, but it's not 50/50. Basically every independent expert agrees that the culprit was probably Russia, but they disagree about the uncertainty involved in this judgement. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Agree this sentence should be fine-tuned, or even yanked; the essence was to say that attribution of the hacks is not a slam-dunk, although it's very likely. — JFG talk 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG and Guccisamsclub: If you read down, you'll see my 'all or none' (similarly posted in the Noticeboard discussion (viz. "On what basis does anyone still care to voice an objection to reverting the revert or, alternatively, delete most if not all of this article (in line with Masem’s suggestion)?"). So as to keep this thread on the topic I initially raised, it would help if you split this out to a separate topic. Thx Humanengr (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @Humanengr: Sure, I'll be moving this sub-thread to a new section. In fairness, I didn't understand why this section was called "Ali Watkins" before reading your note about the prior discussion at RS/N. — JFG talk 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: [cont'g re next point]: NOT#NEWS covers 'Original reporting', 'News reports', 'Who's who', 'A diary'. Which of those apply? Humanengr (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

News reports; this article is regurgitating too much of the day-to-day coverage of the situation without considered the broader scope. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're not referring to "routine news reporting", but rather to "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This article is entirely 'recent developments'. (Note I did offer 'all' or 'none' options in the noticeboard discussion. But the world of WP in reality does not want 'none'.) Humanengr (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: [cont'g:] Which specific para in NPOV applies? Humanengr (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: [and finally:] "just getting what facts and key events (as known) there are across to the reader". That would seem an argument for inclusion of the Ali Watkins material. Humanengr (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: In sum and re NPOV, if you look at my edit and comments here, I believe you'll see what I suggest fits with NPOV and particularly with 'Balance'. Humanengr (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing no response or participation here by other invited parties -- see here, including last post there -- this no longer appears to be a dispute. Humanengr (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your view has been rejected. Please work on other suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 11:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

On what specific grounds? Please,work at providing that. Humanengr (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC

{{re|SPECIFICO]] I have filed this dispute here regsrding specifically "whether there is still a dispute or whether all issues have been resolved". Humanengr (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The stuff you want to add is UNDUE -- this was the consensus at RSN, which is why we're back here. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why we're back here is because no pointer to a specific aspect of UNDUE was provided. In response to my request, Masem attempted to do so, AFAICS, Masem and I agree it is an all or none situation. On the other issues, I responded with queries asking for SPECIFIC pointers. However, neither Masem nor anyone else has responded further. Hence, my listing a dispute re whether there is a dispute. Humanengr (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to slow down. Editors have not found your approach convincing and you are becoming more instead of less insistent about it. And do not disregard all the editors who told you it's UNDUE at RSN. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

re 'slow down': Did you think of that when you reverted saying "This is poorly sourced - website with unnamed "sources"? Humanengr (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you be SPECIFIC? Did anyone point to a specific aspect of UNDUE other than Masem above? Humanengr (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's BS. Re-read the long RSN thread where your views were thoroughly and unambiguously rejected for this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your Revision of 02:23, 11 March 2017: "since no such assertion has yet been made, expression of doubt is UNDUE here".

From the intro: "Several members of the Trump campaign have had contacts with Russian officials, which are currently being investigated." The entirety of the Alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials section is dedicated to this.

You offered no other rationale for UNDUE. Neither did anyone else except Masem who summarized the status at that point: "There's basically no reason to remove it due only to the source, being Buzzfeed, per your arguments. It's all on the UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects, and that's a very separate matter.” 15:41, 13 March 2017

Discussion of UNDUE led to Masem pointing to WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DEADLINE; however there was no response to my follow-up queries for specifics points re those, except re appropriateness of "intermediate comments made by authoritative figures in the midst of an unresolve [sic] debate”.

By that standard, the entire article is "intermediate comments”. However, individual completed events have occurred, and they are appropriate to record.

That’s all there was. Humanengr (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Which elections?

The title of the article mentions the "2016 United States elections", however the article contents are exclusively talking about the US presidential election. Do we have any RS indicating a Russian intervention in the House and Senate races? There were some early allegations of hacking the voting machines but those have been retracted. Consequently, should the article title be clearly re-focused on the presidential race? — JFG ^talk 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The question still stands. Any comments? — JFG ^talk 10:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The article title is fine the way it is. After all, it doesn't say "All 2016 United States elections". Also this and this, and other sources and talk page discussions which I trust you can find on your own.- MrX 12:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I think the title was changed from "election" to "elections" after this comment by Sagecandor. ^Falling_Gravity 23:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Thanks. Reading the sources quoted by Sagecandor at the time, there does not seem to be anything showing that Russia targeted the House races; they merely say that the leaked opposition research by Democrats was used by Republican candidates against them. Well, this would happen no matter what the source of information was; it's a tradition in US elections that campaigns collect every nasty bit about each other and throw mud until something sticks. I have yet to see a source explaining how Russia attempted to influence any election other than the presidential race. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Specificity, dates, clarity of tense, item ordering in intro

We can walk through this sentence-by-sentence. But if anyone would like to start on this by posting suggestions here, that would be helpful. Humanengr (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I should start this with re: "Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone." I added a [citation needed] because there is none. Also, "have also been investigating" is unclear as to time. Anyone care to fix? Humanengr (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx to @Space4Time3Continuum2x: for including some citations. I'm thinking though that this Times link cited in the vox.com cite would be better. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Next: For readability, date info for each claim should made more included explicit. As it stands, it is difficult to get any handle on the sequence of events and gives the impression of a disordered mess. As a simple example, the 1st sentence the 2nd para hides the date in the cite. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: You may like to comment on my exercise in writing a fresh lead above, in #Long-term perspective. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Long-term perspective

In the previous thread on #Ali Watkins, editors have started to discuss what should be the long-term outlook of this article. Moving this general discussion here, as requested. — JFG ^talk 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To continue my advice from the RS page: think about how this article will look 5-10 years from now, considering all the potential outcomes. Does all the current intermediate opinions, theories, etc. really apply to what will be in that article down the road? It's great that we can write day-to-day as this story develops but that's not an encyclopedic approach; this does have to be covered as an encyclopedic topic, but per NPOV, we shouldn't be trying to navigation the complex maze of opinions and theories at this point and instead focus on just getting what facts and key events (as known) there are across to the reader without trying to include every major politicians' and analysts' spin on the matter. Trying to include them all is what makes this fail NOT#NEWS, and we can wait to include them if they turn out to be relevant per DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How will how this article will look in 5-10 years? "Russiagate was a conspiracy theory promoted by Clinton supporters in order to deflect blame for losing an easily winnable election." TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One point at a time: re "Does all the current intermediate opinions, theories, etc. really apply to what will be in that article down the road?". Some of the many examples from the article where that standard was not been applied: [I'm not asking that these in particular be removed, only presenting re 'intermediate opinions', 'theories'] "CNN reported that an unnamed senior administration official told them that the White House was confident Russia interfered in the election."; "McCain said: 'The facts are there' …"; "According to McCain, Russia's meddling in the election was an 'act of war.'"; "White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was critical of Trump's rejection of the idea that Russia used cyberattacks to influence the election.", etc., etc. Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, there is very little meat to this article if we remove all the "he said, she said" chit-chat. Let me try penning a neutral, factual, short summary (just as an exercise in clarity, not advocating for this to replace the article, although it would probably be a good lead section if we could actually write from an encyclopedic perspective about current controversial events…):

Following the publication of DNC internal communications by WikiLeaks in June and October 2016, several US intelligence agencies affirmed that Russia had attempted to intervene in the presidential election, indicating a preference for candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In retaliation, President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and expanded sanctions to individuals linked with the Russian secret service. Russia has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Trump dismissed the allegations of Russian meddling as partisan fodder. Upon taking office he vowed to work with Russia constructively while maintaining a strong defense of American interests. Accusations of collusion between Trump campaign members and Russian officials are under investigation by the Senate and House intelligence committees. Cybersecurity experts are divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. Some intelligence officials are wary that President Trump may not trust their reports at face value. The controversy has sparked intense media interest and scrutiny of all parties involved.

How's that? — JFG ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Cybersecurity experts are divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. I am not sure what that means, but if it means experts it's a 50/50 chance Russia did it, that's wrong. The consensus is not as monolithic as the present article make out, but it's not 50/50. Basically every independent expert agrees that the culprit was probably Russia, but they disagree about the uncertainty involved in this judgement. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree this sentence should be fine-tuned, or even yanked; the essence was to say that attribution of the hacks is not a slam-dunk, although it's very likely. — JFG ^talk 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• We can not tell anything about the future per WP:CRYSTAL. However, since the question was asked, it will be most certainly established that Russia did interfere in these elections as a matter of fact. Hence the page will need to be rewritten accordingly. But this is just a normal process. We can only tell something that WP:RS claim right now, and this subject is highly controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very good short summary of the article. However, reputable cybersecurity experts are not divided about the relevance of technical elements linking the DNC intrusions to Russian hacker groups. Outlier experts, former NSA employees, a former ranking CIA official (20 or more years ago), and some minority-view journalists don't agree. To try to say there is parity is UNDUE if placed in this article. This means "50/50" is not accurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely: I don't mean it's 50/50, far from it. All I want to say is that it's not 100/0 either. Do you have a suggestion to tweak this particular sentence? — JFG ^talk 04:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, I can only suggest that all the sources be compiled together and say one or two sentences about whatever the main point is. For example: "A small number of former intelligence officials and cyber interested journalists disagree with the mainstream view" - as one idea. Someone probably has a better idea. I request leaving out theorizing that information was leaked to Wikileaks (or somewhere else) by some unknown actor via email. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And I agree with MVBW that WP:CRYSTAL applies to the text of this article. The text can only go where the RS leads. What is in the article has been determined by RS. Whatever, seems trivial six months or a year from now can be removed. What seems trivial five years from now can be removed. I think it is nearly impossible to predict what will be worth keeping in five years. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)