Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Revert of 3/5 James Clapper interview with Chuck Todd

@My very best wishes: Why did you not discuss this here first? You claim in Revision as of 04:12, 11 March 2017 that "no one said there was any evidence in the inquiry (according to the text) - why disprove it?)". 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. Humanengr (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean this section, but only one specific reference in the paragraph just above my edit - that one. It only tells about the inquiry, but does not tell anything about specific evidence. Yes, sure, there is a lot of indirect evidence (generally speaking), but it was not included in the original report by Clapper if I understand correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong, and it was actually included in this report, contrary to the words by Clapper. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Starting over: My edit that you removed:

On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that, regarding the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment discussed above, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report. … Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know."

On what basis did you revert that? Humanengr (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This should be viewed in context. You inserted your text just after the following phrase: The Senate Intelligence Committee began work on its bipartisan inquiry on January 24, 2017. OK, this is simply a statement of fact. What should actually follow after this phrase are results of the inquiry. If you want to include them, that's fine. But there was no official results if I understand correctly? If Clapper was telling there is no evidence at all, that could be included in another section, but telling there was no evidence in original report is of no significance, and therefore I think should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see re placement -- I should have put it in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment section, where it is further information re that completed report. Thx Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with replacement, but the claim by Clapper seems to contradict everything already in in this section, what do you think? My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is an RS statement, on topic, and as such should be included. Other contrary info re that report, if available, from RS should also be included in that section. Humanengr (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Given that this was your revert, would you care to do the honors and complete with the relocation? tia 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Yes, I agree with replacement, but the claim by Clapper seems to contradict everything already in in this section, what do you think? Not necessarily. All of the information is about the fact that Trump people had talked to Kremlin people. The fact that they talked does not mean they colluded. What Clappers statement does refute however, is the conspiracy theorizing and dog-whistling that has enveloped this issue of "contacts". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Given that it required a bit of adjustment, I'll do the move. Again, if there are other RS statements relevant to that section, it would seem appropriate to also include them. thx Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure, please go ahead. In addition, there are other people around to look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I put a brief summary of this in the intro. For those inclined to revert, see preceding discusssion. Humanengr (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think this is important or essential to the topic of this article. Maybe a different article about Trump's Russian entanglements? SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[RECORDING REVERT] Latest revision as of 02:41, 15 March 2017 by User:Casprings with rationale "(WP:UNDUE Putting a statement about what he new several months ago attempts to guide the reader to a conclusion and it isn't a key aspect of the story or report.)" made in disregard of request to discuss. Humanengr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Leave it out until you get demonstrated consensus here to reinsert it. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You need consensus to add that to the lede. He said that he did not include evidence at the time. There is no reason that this one statement belongs on the lede of the story.Casprings (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd para of the intro provides part of what Clapper has said about the report, but is incomplete and should be revised accordingly:

"In early January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified before a Senate committee that Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media." In March 2017, he indicated that the report "did not include any evidence … that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. … Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know."

@Casprings: Note that I agree with including the last sentence. The above faithfully reports the best available information regarding the report with NPOV. Does that satisfy? Humanengr (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: No, I would be opposed to any mention of the statement in the lede per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE.Casprings (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: All this addition does is provide complete rather than partial info from the single RS previously deemed appropriate and sufficient for inclusion. How does this qualify as a WP:WEIGHT issue? Humanengr (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Because one is sworn testimony to the Senate that is used to highlight key aspects of the story that are supported throughout the article. The other was a statement to CNN in which he said he did not have evidence at the time to present in the report. While, I certainly agree that belongs in the article, it doesn't belong in the lede. The lede is meant to summarize the essential elements of the article. Pulling this one quote up to the lede makes it appear that this is a essential element of the article, which it is not. Moreover, it guides the reader to a conclusion (ie there is no evidence of Russian Conclusion with Trump) that the article itself does not support. Therefore, I do not support any statement regarding his comments on CNN, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE.Casprings (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Thx. Re: your "aspects of the story that are supported throughout the article", what is your take on the appropriateness of "The United States Intelligence Community has officially concluded" in the lede given that, as noted throughout the article, the investigation is still ongoing? To me presenting that claim as a 'conclusion' is directly opposed to the notion of an ongoing investigation, and presents it as an "essential element of the article, which it is not". Humanengr (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Also, how does this violate WP:WEIGHT? The statement comes from the primary source. Humanengr (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

<sarc>@Humanengr: It's simple, really: Good Clapper ("Russia helped Trump bigly") goes in lead, Bad Clapper ("Trump didn't collude with Russia") gets argued to death on the talk page until everybody gives up.</sarc> — JFG ^talk 22:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG sounds a wee bit cynical :-) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, glad you appreciate my "haha only serious" moment… — JFG ^talk 04:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying "the investigation is still ongoing" (by Humanengr) in this context, could be considered vague terminology in this article (imho), because varieties of investigations are occurring or have occurred. The lede says "concluded" because that particular "investigation" by the US intelligence community resulted in having "concluded" that Russia hacked the US elections in 2016 with the intention of influencing the election. In contrast, Clapper specifically refers to the report produced for public perusal. This is a different subject from stating US Intel Agencies "concluded". Also, although that report is still relevant to the tale we tell here in this article, his off-hand comments (during a CNN interview) may be outdated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it makes sense to separate the IC assessments of October-December (which were "concluded" with the January 6 report) from other investigations into the story (notably the Senate Intelligence Committee which started on January 24 and is ongoing), and from various claims, counter-claims, allegations, denials, comments, outside opinions and kitchen sinks which essentially pollute the article. Our prior discussion on article scope is still relevant and should be settled.

To your last point: Clapper's utterance on CNN that the agencies he supervised found "no evidence of collusion" was certainly not an off-hand comment; Chuck Todd questioned him markedly to make sure he means what he says. This was a bit under-reported compared to his other answer, namely that he was not aware of any wiretapping of Trump people, but it is no less significant, and dare I say not outdated, as it clarifies one aspect of the IC reports which was prone to speculation. — JFG ^talk 04:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: re "concluded": where in the citation did it state that US Intel Agencies "concluded"? I see "The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident …"; thx Humanengr (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG I wasn't referring to "no evidence of collusion" as an off-hand remark. I agree this is worth mentioning in this article. I was referring to something else someone wrote that seems to be an off-hand remark. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr and JFG: The agencies concluded that Russia interfered with the election to benefit trump when they released the report. An investigation continues and that investigation seems to include possible conclusion between Russian linked persons and Trump. Do you see it differently? Casprings (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Where are you getting the word 'concluded' from? AFAICS, the cite for the intro first sentence of the Intro does not use that word. Humanengr (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: The ONDI statement says judgments and assess. I don't care what word is used, as long as it tells the reader that this is the judgment of the intelligence community and not simply an accusation made. Conclusion does that. Other words do that also. Accusation doesn't.Casprings (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: I've created a new section below to continue this.

• How much longer will palpable reality be considered WP:UNDUE? First Clapper, now Morell says: "smoke, but no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it." Almost certainly more to follow. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Michael Flynn was a straightforward lobbyist for Erdogan. He never did anything like that for the Kremlin. Due to the incestuous nature of gloabl capitalism, people will continue to find Russian money everywhere, but they won't find any collusion. Mark my words (actually I've been saying it for months here). Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• When WP:RS decide.. I would guess that will happen when there is an independent investigation that concludes there was no conclusion.Casprings (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean "conclude that there was no collusion conclusion"? Otherwise you're be in Rumsfeld territory where "absence of evidence in not evidence of absence." Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"He never did anything like that for the Kremlin"? No, he received from Russia a lot - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Flynn's firm lobbied Washington for the Erdogan government, and received $530,000 for 3 months of work ending in Novemember, 2016. Flynn called Erdogan's political nemesis Fetullah Gülen a "shady Islamic mullah," scurrilously accusing him of being a terror mastermind (per AKP's propaganda line that everyone who is against them is an "Islamist terrorist", the same line pushed by Gaddafi and Assad). Washington's long-standing close relationship with Turkey means that pro-Turkey lobbying has a very good chance of substantially affecting US foreign policy. It is simply absurd to compare this to Flynn's Russia cash. "he received from Russia a lot". How much is "a lot" and what's "Russia"? As always with the Trump-Russia saga, the actual facts are infinitely less damning than the vague accusations. He was paid $45,000 to dine at RT and $10,000 to give a speech at Kaspersky. In comparison, the Clinton amassed a private fortune in speeches, including when when she was Secretary of State: "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." This is not to even speak of the absurd amounts going to the Clinton foundation from repressive US-allied regimes all around the world, a few of which officially bankroll groups like Al Nusra, who are nowhere near as bad as Assad, but are nonetheless considered terrorists by Washington (and unofficially, rogue elements inside those regimes are suspected of substantially bankrolling ISIS). But nonetheless, Flynn's whopping $55,000 for two speeches and his conversation with Kislyak are the real threat to the integrity and independence of US foreign policy. Way to miss the forest for the weeds! Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any personal judgement about it, however, the source described it as something highly significant: "The newly disclosed documents were released by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He included the additional payments to Flynn in a letter to Trump, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and FBI Director James B. Comey. ... I cannot recall any time in our nation’s history when the President selected as his National Security Advisor someone who violated the Constitution by accepting tens of thousands of dollars from an agent of a global adversary that attacked our democracy,” Cummings wrote.". My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but those payments came in 2015, before Russia attacked "our democracy," and Senator Cumming is not a WP:RS. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is article in Washington Post. I have no opinion, but the source tells that the payments are highly relevant here. Saying they are not is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be. My point was that your quote didn't prove that. My earlier point was that he didn't get a "a lot" of money from the Kremlin and his Russian ties not comparable to his Turkish ties. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: @El C: Gucci, please don't bring your personal anti-Clinton soapbox into what's obviously already been a difficult discussion for you. It's irrelevant and it's inflammatory. Please. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Good one. What do you mean by "difficult"? Please clarify. Thanks! Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was I pinged? El_C 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub, I agree with SPECIFICO. Besides off-topic innuendos, the statements generally pertaining to the Clintons are off-topic here. Also, comparing revenue streams between parties is not considered reliable sourcing and is not contained within the content policies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Innuendos? A comment like (summarizing) "Flynn got a lot of money from Russia and his connections to Russia are very important by RS" -- that's innuendo. Providing facts about Flynn's connections and revenue streams and putting them in context is not innuendo. It's an effort to explain and clarify the topic on the talp page, which is what the talk page is for.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Needs a better image

The image at the lede of this article looks like a pig's rump. The article isn't about the report, it's about the interference. Somebody PLEASE find a better picture. Maybe this one [1]. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the intro itself gives the same impression and is confusing to new readers -- e.g., the lead sentence says "The United States Intelligence Community has officially concluded …" whereas in the 3rd para: "CIA Director John Brennan … agreed on … Russia's alleged interference …". That gives the strong impression the page is pushing a PoV. Also temporal designation is missing from several sentences in the intro; what does appear is confusingly out-of-order. Hence the section above. (In contrast to this critique, the overall organization of the article is relatively coherent at first glance.) Humanengr (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right. That word "alleged" must be left over from an earlier time before the language was corrected to "concluded" I think you can safely remove the "alleged" in paragraph 3. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Except see below. 'Concludes' was not a correction. Humanengr (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What, pray tell, is the connection between Saint Basil's Cathedral and Russian psy-ops? Did the Moscow Patriarch put a curse on Hillary Clinton? — JFG ^talk 22:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The article's not about psy-ops, whatever that means. It's about Russian interference. What better symbol of Russia than the goofy spires? Maybe a Russian flag? Your mention of Sec'y Clinton seems off topic as well. Only Putin, Trump and a dwindling number of other self-interested and fringe personalities still claim this event relates to any narrative of Clinton's curse. Those fringe views appear on the talk page, but they've been just about expunged from the article. The unclassified report is a publication, it really is incidental to the subject of this article, which is Russian interference. We don't have a picture of some theater review on the Hamlet page. You can help out by thinking of a better illustration. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why so serious? I was hoping to appeal to your sense of humour, apparently dried up tonight. I sincerely thought you were joking when presenting the Cathedral… About pictures, if you ask me, I would remove all the politicians' portraits from the article, as none of them illustrates the story – they act as mere filler. Regarding the main intervention theme, I'm afraid the report cover is the best we can hope for, unless we recycle one of the myriad "Putin's Puppet" memes, which wouldn't be very encyclopedic! — JFG ^talk 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And, as we're being serious, may I ask how Hillary Clinton is off-topic? I thought that the Russians were hell-bent on making her lose the election, because Putin despised her, Assange hated her, RT published fake news about her, Russian trolls amplified grotesque memes against her, etc etc. — JFG ^talk 04:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the current graphic (of the report) fits the page well/appears professional. Regarding the usage of a satellite image of Moscow, is there any sourcing that states the US intelligence community relied on satellite imagery of Russia during its investigation? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The report cover, aside from not being about the Russian hacking itself, is unreadable -- just a brown mess. There's no implication of satellite imagery having been used in my snappier more relevant graphic any more than the ugly report cover carries any implication that ink, paper and wide-angle satellite imagery was used. Feel free to find a better one, but I don't see any point going back to the worse one. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that the cover of the ODNI report titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" is not about Russian interference in the 2016 US elections??? You lost me right there! — JFG ^talk 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
If you don't understand, I suggest you work on other areas that need improvement. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG: SPECIFICO works in mysterious ways. Yours is not to ask why. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Kinda like the blind woman feeling the elephant's toe. Mystery is in the eye of the beholder. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Ah, so that's why you delete all information about the elephant's tail. thanks! Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Elephants are wise and gentle creatures, but you are not smart to be standing beneath the tail. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) And you're "smart" to be "feeling the toe"? OK. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Morell throwing cold water on the MSNBC-led circus

"Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence... how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case... Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”)... With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months... And most of what the Democratic base has been fed for the last six months by their unhinged stable of media, online, and party leaders has decisively fallen into the latter category, as even their own officials are now desperately trying to warn." Source: [2] -- How can we describe this development? --87.156.232.14 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We can start by finding a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You can start by reading the footnotes present in the article, before editors delete them again. And your bete noire The Intercept is proving to be one of the the most reliable and prescient sources, as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs)

Dramatically stated opinion spiked with loaded adjectives and adverbs. Doesn't even belong on Talk, much less the article. Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We should only use reliable sources, like Louise Mensch in NYT. We have to follow the policies. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Gucci: What is the article content you are proposing be sourced to the Op-Ed by Ms. Mensch? SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's Mrs. Mensch. Thank you! Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the article content you are proposing be sourced to her Op-Ed? Why are you proposing that her writing is RS for it? SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Gucci, I've noted your failure to respond wrt Ms. Mensch's op-ed and it seems like you mention her only to insinuate personal disparagement of her. Please fix this, one way or the other, and please don't disparage notable living persons. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, haha. You can add it to the "Links" section, as replacement for WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE "blah blah" statements by Clapper, Morell, and two former ambassadors (those ambassadors have clear Kremlin ties, and are thus also WP:RUSSIANBIASED). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I must agree that the above snippet is purely an opinion, may be right may be wrong, we can't tell, hence not worth mentioning in the article. Neither is Mrs. Mensch's op-ed worth mentioning. — JFG ^talk 17:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about (1) the Electoral College material and (2) the Evan McMullin material

A dispute has arisen as to the inclusion of text relating to (1) the Electoral College and (2) the comment of Evan McMullin. Shall the following content be included or excluded from the article? Neutrality^talk 00:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Electoral College text:

On December 10, ten electors, headed by Christine Pelosi, wrote an open letter to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper demanding an intelligence briefing on investigations into foreign intervention in the presidential election. Fifty-eight additional electors subsequently added their names to the letter, bringing the total to 68 electors from 17 different states. The Clinton campaign supported the call for a classified briefing for electors, with John Podesta saying: "Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed." On December 16, the briefing request was denied.

References

Evan McMullin text (under "Intelligence Community-former members"):

Independent presidential candidate and former CIA intelligence officer Evan McMullin criticized the Republican leadership for failing to respond adequately to Russia's meddling in the election process, "for fear of hurting Trump's chances". McMullin said Republican politicians were aware that publicly revealed information about Russia's interference was likely the tip of the iceberg relative to the actual threat. He said that he felt distressed by the CIA revelations.

References

Survey

• Include both, but I feel much more strongly about the Electoral College content. SPECIFICO, I can't agree that this is "not of long-term encyclopedic interest" nor is it true that "electors' role is quasi-ceremonial/administrative." First, the electors' role is a constitutional one; it is not "ceremonial" or "administrative." Second, this is well-sourced and received sustained media (and scholarly) attention. Third, the weight (four sentences) is perfectly appropriate. Fourth, no policy based reason has been advanced to omit this from the article, and indeed, if this is omitted, the reader will naturally wonder "What did the electoral college think about all this at the time? How did they react?" This is a big piece of the story, and I'm not sure at all why we would wish to excise it. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include both. That seems to be significant. Why? Both segments tell that political establishment and institutions in the US failed their obligations to the people. This tells about significant corruption of the system, that came to the US, just as to many other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include both But I dislike the narrative style. Start by saying, "68 electors unsuccessfully demanded...." Readers should not have to be left in suspense about the outcome, it should be mentioned first. Also, I notice that the party they belonged to is omitted, yet is crucial. Leaving it out (and mentioning how many states the electors represented) gives a false narrative that it was signficant rather than just political posturing. Also, while some electors are ceremonial, others are able to and did change their votes. Have those been Republicans with the power to change their votes, it could have changed the outcome. TFD (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Omit 1 Omit 2 How long do we want this article to be? Lots of stuff gets coverage around the time it happens. McMullin is not a high-profile figure and was not among the most notable intelligence officials. As to the EC, forgive my clumsy way with words. Administrative? No. Maybe "ministerial" -- and btw. constitutional is not inconsistent with ministerial, pro-forma, ceremonial, administrative, or many other things. And let's not get into its historical role or the Founding Fathers and the rest. I refer to its current role and its significance in contemporary elections. Have either of these 2 bits been mentioned in the mainstream media in the past 4 weeks? I think that an article on so large a subject needs to keep slim. Can anybody explain the noteworthiness of either 1 or 2? What difference does it make if Mr. McM was "distressed?" or if a Democrat told the press that a security briefing had been requested? How did that work out for them? Please explain why that is noteworthy, and if so how come nobody mentioned it after a week? SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include EC, Exclude McMullin – The Electoral College hubbub in this election cycle was very unusual and significant, we even have a whole article about faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016; the demands from certain electors to be briefed about the Russian meddling was legitimate and notable. I agree that partisanship of the request should be noted in the text. Regarding Evan McMullin, the cited article is merely his political opinion (in a nutshell "I'm appalled and Republicans should be outraged"), which brings nothing of substance to the article topic. — JFG ^talk 11:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include both - The electoral college material is unprecedented and historically significant. McMullin's view is noteworthy because of his past role in the CIA, and of course because he was a candidate for president. We don't necessarily need to describe how he feels, but his view about Russian involvement in the election and connections with the Trump administration are relevant and noteworthy as evidenced by ongoing coverage in sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] - MrX 12:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include both per MrX, also agree that there is no need to mention McMullin's feelings. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I removed the last sentence. I haven’t found anything in the Politico article that could be paraphrased as McMullin "[feeling] distressed by the CIA revelations". He used the words "alarming" and "troubled", but in connection with the actions (or non-actions) of Trump and the GOP.

"They ["Congressional Republicans"] understood what was happening and they understood that that was probably only the tip of the iceberg," McMullin said. "As a former intelligence officer, it’s hard to overstate how alarming this is and how alarming it should be." "They knew during the campaign that this was happening and they chose not to say anything because they knew it would harm them politically".

"McMullin was especially troubled by Trump’s decision to nominate for secretary of state ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who has close business ties to Russia …". (Billions at stake: ExxonMobil had to put their arctic sea drilling and shale oil exploration in Russia on hold because of US sanctions after the annexation of Crimea.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include both - Well-sourced and pertinent. The Russian involvement caused an understandable backlash, turning normally routine processes into front page news. The full story should be provided to our readers, so they can grasp the scope. Especially when the Russian connection remains an important and recurring part of the Trump story. --Pete (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude both, strong exclude McMullin this is talking internal politics, WP:Offtopic not about Russian or interference or the election -- the article topics. McMullin I see no reason of special notability on the tropic, and no particular note taken of these words. Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weak exclude EC, strong exclude McMuffin 13% of electors signed the letter, is that more or less than voted for Stein? McMuffin is insignificant. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's far more. Stein received 1% of the national popular vote and zero percent of the electoral vote. Neutrality^talk 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Include Both well sourced and based on reliable sources although McMullin should be edited up to provide context (clarify that he was a 2016 candidate from Utah and a prominent party voice) and maintain WP:NPOV if included -- RYPJack (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include both I don't find it undue and both sections are well-sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include both. Both are well-sourced and NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I'm tagging the following users who have made edits to add/remove this material over the last 10 days or so: Non-dropframe, EvergreenFir, SPECIFICO, 2602:304:788b:df50:8cdd:5461:389a:631b, JFG, MrX. Apologies if I missed anyone; if I've left someone out, please ping him or her. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 6 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, [7] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [8] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [9], which was agreed to by myself [10] 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" [11] 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 [12]). 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. [13] 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)

Bold

@My very best wishes: Bold editing, removing all notable commentary on the issue: former abssadors, CIA director, DNI. They're probably right you know, and dozens upon dozens of RS think their commentary is a big deal. Once they're definitively proven right in the hearings, you'll get a ton of egg on your face. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Gucci: No personal opinions and no snarky remarks on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, anything else? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let the egging commence...Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This deleted content has been restored, as it should be. The edit summary "None of these comments provides any factual information on the subject. Hence remove." is incorrect. In particular, the immediate past Director of National Intelligence is imparting relevant information based on what he actually knows from having been DNI while this investigation was going on. That is not just an opinion. The other two - Morell and the former ambassadors - are not in possession of actual information on the subject, so it is not as important to keep them, but what Clapper said is important. (However, he did say "there WAS no evidence of collusion as of the end of January" rather than "there IS no evidence". I thought we had that clear at one time. I'll fix it. ) --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a problem. They are telling "there is no evidence of collusion" in some statements. However, at the same time, they are telling that investigations are ungoing. Well, how much does it worth "there is no evidence" if they did not complete their investigations? If they had completed their investigations already and came to conclusion "there is no evidence" that would mean something and had to be included on the page. But in the current situation such claims are simply "blah, blah, blah", have zero information value and do not belong to the page. Hence my edit. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this stuff is too much in the nature of breathless play-by-play and the problem is that it is cherrypicked and even worse doesn't even accurately convey the meaning of the source. It seems better to leave this out and be patient as events unfold. I think the deletion was for the best. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be frank, the US officials made a lot mutually inconsistent/contradictory statements. They change what they are telling every day. Does it all belong to WP pages? One must be really selective here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

MVBW, I think that is an inaccurate and unfair characterization of "the US officials". They do not "change what they are telling every day". When they make a firm statement, as in an official report or what one of them says in an official capacity, it should not be dismissed in this manner. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, the point is taken. I obviously do not object to edits like that. But speaking about the statemnt by Clapper, the removed text was the following: James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, denied that there was any evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and Russian operatives. I am looking at the supporting reference used on the page [14], and it is actually titled "Rep. Schiff: ‘Circumstantial Evidence of Collusion’ Between Trump Campaign, Russia". According to the source, "There is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that's where we begin the investigation." The summary of the publication by Guccisamsclub [15] was not an appropriate summary, to tell this politely. If anyone really wants to include such disputable inconclusive statements, they must be placed in appropriate context per WP:NPOV. Otherwise this is POV-pushing using selective quotation out of context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Clapper has been widely misquoted. That's why I went to the primary source for my reference. He did not "deny that there was any evidence". He said that at the time of his report (January 2017) there was no evidence, that he does not know what has been discovered since, and that he definitely thinks it all needs to be investigated. I don't know what other statements you are talking about, but I don't see any justification for saying that US officials keep changing their story. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You've argued several times now that special weight should be attached in the article to statements by current US intelligence officials, and that that US intelligence agencies should essentially be treated as reliable sources. How is that reconcilable with maintaining a neutral point of view? I'm very concerned that this article has become heavily skewed towards the views expressed by US intelligence figures, and that critical views are being consciously edited out of the article. It's gotten so bad that in the lede, we can't even mention the fact that the people who released the DNC and Podesta emails have said that Russia wasn't the source of the leaks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a very clear consensus and standard developing here on inserting Assange's statement in the lede, which you know because you participated in the vote prior to trying to reinstate those edits just now. Reliable sources are the ones placing weight on the statements of intelligence sources. That's not something anyone here is in control of, unfortunately. There is also an entire section accessible by TOC that outlines and links to citations on Assange's view. -- RYPJack (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus there. I see a large number of editors supporting inclusion, and a large number opposing inclusion. I don't, by the way, see a reliable-source-based argument for exclusion of Assange's statements from the lede. His statements received wide coverage in the press, reflecting their notability. This issue - whether to include Assange's statements in the lede - is really a litmus test of whether editors are able to remain neutral on this issue. The number of editors opposing inclusion in the lede makes a very sad statement about systemic bias in Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

*You just used the words "litmus test" with a straight face in a conversation about neutrality. You need to refer to this page and count the vote here. I think it's like 12 or 13 (oppose) to 7 (support). I really am sincerely sorry if it didn't come out the way you wanted it to and I'm sorry if you have feelings about systemic bias in Wikipedia. I agree that the Wikiproject in general has miles to go until it reaches a Utopian stage where consensus and agreement are instant and work to the satisfaction of all at every moment perpetually. I'm with you in longing for that day's arrival. But as we're not there yet, wehave to work with what we've got and what we've got is a vote that opposes inclusion of Assange's statements into the lede. There are a number of excellent forums for addressing those kind of valid concerns about Wiki governance but this page isn't that forum. I'd be happy to help direct you to a variety of meta talk pages where you can directly engage with governance issues or bias. Just because someone's statements were covered, it doesn't mean it was covered as fact. In this, as in all things, context is king. -- RYPJack (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the central figures in this subject (alleged Russian interference by leaking documents to Wikileaks) made a number of statements about the core issue: whether Russia leaked the documents. Those statements received broad media coverage. It's obvious that those statements have to go in the lede. The fact that there was even a question about whether to include Assange's statements shows how strong the editorial bias here is.

"Just because someone's statements were covered, it doesn't mean it was covered as fact." What's your point? I didn't write that Assange's statement was factually correct. That's actually completely irrelevant to its notability. What makes Assange's statement notable is the fact that he said it, that it received wide coverage from reliable sources, and that it hits directly at the heart of the issue: whether Russia leaked emails to Wikileaks.

I'm not asking for a Utopian level of editor neutrality. I'm asking for a minimal level in which editors don't seek to exclude virtually any opinion they politically dislike. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's obvious what should go in the lede or not, please refer again to the vote on the subject. Count it up. As it stands now, the vote is against your preference but the vote is also not one-sided, which undermines the idea that "the system" is hopelessly rigged. You need to do a better job of using your admirable persuasive powers to sway that vote rather than railing in this forum about systemic bias in Wikipedia. That's not what this thread is for. Please ping me if you'd like me to refer you to meta pages on the topic of bias on Wikipedia. It's also noted prominently in the lede that Russia has denied the claims, and this forum is about the controversy around allegations of Russian interference - not Wikileaks. It's not as though Russia's involvement is presented as a foregone conclusion. Assange is also granted his own section which is easily accessible from the very prominent TOC. That would be an unlikely outcome if systemic bias were leading to censorship on the site to the degree that you've described. -- RYPJack (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"You need to do a better job of using your admirable persuasive powers to sway that vote rather than railing in this forum about systemic bias in Wikipedia." You can look through the talk page archives. I've done more than enough to try to persuade other editors to formulate a more neutral article. However, when we have to argue about things that no NPOV editors could reasonably disagree over (like whether to include Assange's statement in the lede), then it's clear that persuasion is hopeless.

"Assange is also granted his own section which is easily accessible from the very prominent TOC. That would be an unlikely outcome if systemic bias were leading to censorship on the site to the degree that you've described." His statement has been removed from the lede, and the majority of the section on his statement is now devoted to downplaying it. That's exactly the outcome I would expect if systemic bias were leading to censorship.

"It's also noted prominently in the lede that Russia has denied the claims." It's actually not noted prominently, which is one of the major problems with the lede. Most of the lede is a detailed account of the accusations made by US officials, including a lengthy quotation from a US intelligence report. There's one short sentence shoved into third paragraph noting Russian denials. Any more prominent placement or expansion of the Russian denial in the lede has been reverted. It's pretty clear that there's a contingent of editors here who want the Russian denials and Assange's inconvenient statement about the origin of the leaks to have as little prominence as possible.

"[T]his forum is about the controversy around allegations of Russian interference - not Wikileaks." Wikileaks is central to the allegations of Russian interference. This article is mostly about the email leaks that Wikileaks released, and American allegations that those leaks came from Russia. You've now made two arguments for excluding Assange's statements from the lede:

1. That reliable sources have not proclaimed Assange's statements about the sources of the leaks to be true, and
2. That the article isn't about Wikileaks.

Both of those arguments are incredibly thin:

1. It doesn't matter whether reliable sources state that Assange's assertions are true. What matters is whether reliable sources have reported Assange's statements, and whether his statements are relevant to the subject of this article.
2. This article deals extensively with Wikileaks' release of emails from Podesta and the DNC, and allegations that Russia fed those emails to Wikileaks. Assange's statement directly addresses the question of whether Russia was the source of the leaks.

This is a common thread going through these talk-page discussions: flimsy, ever-changing rationales for excluding material that is perceived to go against a certain political line. The issue of Assange in the lede is just the clearest, most blatant example of this political bias. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, when officials are trying to make public statements about sensitive classified information, each official may have a personal style for communicating in a truthful but incomplete manner. POV editors then may grasp at snippets and juxtapose statements from officials with differing styles in this regard in order to further a fringe narrative that none of the officials intended. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO says: "the problem is that it is cherrypicked", Wishes says: "One must be really selective here.". Can you folks sort first settle on a rationale before your selectively edit out the stuff you don't like? Also, feel free reword their statements so that they better conform to what you think they should be saying. Thanks. Guccisamsclub (talk)

There's no inconsistency between the two green things. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: "at the same time, they are telling that investigations are ungoing." By your count, how many investigations are discussed in the article? Thx Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Clapper was pretty clear on what he said. I think the other two comments could be removed as not having direct information on the subject, but Clapper should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

These editors formerly insisted that the statements of prominent and privy US officials should define the narrative of the article; if any secondary sources contradicted the official narrative, they were deleted immediately as "undue" and "fringe", without even reading them. Now these same editors are trying to purge the article of all statements by these very same officials. Why? Because these venerable officials are now saying stuff they don't like. This cheeky behavior is not new. The sources they are now trying to delete are extremely notable, do have direct knowledge, and are non-partisan. Obama officials aren't going to stretch the truth to absolve Trump. When Michael Morell says there there is nothing there, he is probably worth listening to. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Gucci, please discuss content and not other editors. If you have anything to say about the specific content of this article, say it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with their removal. These statements are not taking into account the ongoing investigations as fact. These investigations mean that nothing is off the table. So their comments are not related to what is happening and are just opinions. All three come across as apologists who have made conclusions prior to completion of the investigations. For example, saying "but have dismissed as "preposterous" the allegations that Kislyak participated in it, particularly though his meetings with the Trump campaign." OK, well I can say it is preposterous too - and it has the same effect. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• DO quote Morell (Democrat, Former CIA director under Obama) when he says in late 2016, per the Clintonian party line, that:

  foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat and called it the "political equivalent" of the September 11 attacks.^[208]

• DO NOT quote Morell when he later says, contrary to this party line, that:

  he has seen no evidence of collusions between Trump and the Kremlin. "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all,".

• Explanation: The first is a factual, non-partisan and timely statement . The second is at best premature "blah blah", at worst implicit "apologia" for Trump and the venal Putin regime. Anyone who wants to to edit this page better wrap their heads around this logic. I still can't, so this will be my last edit here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: So after Good Clapper / Bad Clapper, we have now Good Morell / Bad Morell? It's very simple: include both or exclude both. What do our fellow editors think? — JFG ^talk 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't quote Morell at all. Or the ambassadors either. He was in the CIA in 2011-2013; he doesn't have any more information now than anyone else who follows the news. They are saying that of course the Russian ambassador talks to lots of people. That doesn't rule out the possibility that he sometimes talks to campaign officials about the campaign. It doesn't rule it in either. They just don't know. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Collusion -- consensus before more back-and-forth ??

Returning here from DR/N and folding in recent reverts and undos to ask:

Is there a chance of consensus on what to include in Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials section and wherever else 'collusion' is addressed implicitly or explicitly?

As I read it, the title (recently modified by removal of 'Alleged') as well as content of the Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials section are designed to give the impression of collusion.

Also (for reference), these paras have been reverted, reinserted, or at issue:

no re 'collusion'

1. Clapper under January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment
2. Morrell under Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials
3. Clapper under Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials
4. Ali Watkins under Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials

yes re 'collusion'

1. Schiff under U.S. House of Representatives
2. Change from "Alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials" to "Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials"

What policies guide what stays in and what doesn't? Specifically, how do those apply to the content of the 'Links' section and distinguish between the particular news items above?

Opening for discussion. TIA Humanengr (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

FBI director confirmed under oath that they are investigating conclusioncollusion. Given this is a statement and under oath, seems to be the key point thus far in this investigation.Casprings (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, when you said "conclusion", did you mean "collusion"? --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

yes. What is wrong with my mind when I look at that word? Casprings (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, Humanengr. I would just comment on one thing: the wording "alleged" in front of "links between" should not be part of this discussion. "Links" are not "collusion". The links between individual members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials are not just "alleged", they are well established. Whether those links amounted to "collusion" is not established. But it is not affirming "collusion" to remove the word "alleged" from that section heading, and I suggest you strike it from your "yes re collusion" list. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, MelanieN Why would there be a 'Links' section in an article titled Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Humanengr (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Because those links are a big part of the investigation. Investigators need to look into the links and contacts between a Trump person and a Russian official to find out if the contact was innocent, or if it involved tit-for-tat cooperation with the Russian interference (i.e., collusion). Just today the FBI director confirmed that they are investigating to see if there was any collusion between Trump associates and Russia. The "links" are where those investigations would start. And (separate reason) because Reliable Sources have been reporting on these links in connection with the "interference" story. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thx for stating purpose: "to see if there was any collusion". That would suggest "Alleged collusion …" as a more fitting section title. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Absolutely not. The fact that (say) Jeff Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador several times may be relevant to an investigation. But to state that he did so is absolutely not the same as alleging that he was colluding when he did so. That would be like saying that "so and so was in the bank at the time of the robbery" is equivalent to alleging that "so and so was involved in robbing the bank". The FBI is going to question everyone who was in the bank; that does not make them suspects. Similarly, authorities are going to look into all links between Trump people and Russian officials; that absolutely does not mean that anyone is actually alleging collusion. These are links, that have been taken note of by multiple Reliable Sources in connection with this investigation. But NO reliable source has taken the leap from "Sessions spoke to the ambassador" to "Sessions was colluding with the ambassador." --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "may be relevant to an investigation". 1) An 'investigation' to determine what? 2) Why would any discussion of 'links' be worthy of an article if not to determine 'collusion'? 3) Why is there no section on Links between the Clinton campaign and Russian officials? Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "that absolutely does not mean that anyone is actually alleging collusion." From the article Intro: "On March 20th, FBI director testified to the House Intelligence Committee, that the FBI has an open investigation on Russian interference and the investigation includes possible collusion between associates of Trump and Russia". Also "On March 19, 2017, Schiff told Meet the Press that, despite denials from intelligence officials, there was 'circumstantial evidence of collusion' …". Hence this discussion. Humanengr (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I was going to provide links, but I see you have answered your own questions. 1) and 2) An "investigation into the possibility of" is not the same thing as an "allegation of" or an "accusation of". An investigation is to seek information - to see if there is any basis for an allegation and/or accusation. An investigation does not equate to an allegation. An investigation is a preliminary, to determine whether an allegation might be appropriate in certain cases. 3) Why there is no investigation of links involving the Clinton campaign, or any other presidential campaign in history: because there is no basis for such an investigation. No probable cause, nothing to suggest it might merit investigation. This situation has never come up before. It has never happened before that a foreign power intervened in a U.S. presidential election in an attempt to affect the outcome. (Whether they succeeded or not is unknown, and irrelevant.) That did happen in 2016. And when it also turns out (coincidentally or not) that the intended beneficiary of that intervention has many people on his team with ties to that particular foreign power, it provides probable cause to look into whether there was collusion between the campaign and the foreign power. If allegations or accusations result, the article will then say so. Right now it just lists some of the things that investigators are likely looking into. No allegation of collusion on the part of any individual is stated or implied. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. After edit conflict: Schiff is a partisan. His opinion can be included in the article but it does not amount to an official allegation, and not one that Wikipedia is making either. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

re: "It has never happened before that a foreign power intervened". Has it, in fact, been concluded that a foreign power intervened? [Not snark, asking to bring out a point.] Humanengr (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our article certainly says so, and provides numerous Reliable Sources to back it up. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx for responding. The primary source says "We assess with high confidence". The lead sentence in the intro says "concluded". Do you see "concluded" as exactly the same as "assess with high confidence"? Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." Yes, I think that can safely be summarized as "we conclude." --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is certain "that a foreign power intervened". That is a fact, iiuc? Humanengr (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't try to trap me in semantics - or put words in my mouth. It is a fact that the U.S. government's intelligence agencies have concluded that a foreign power intervened. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly: any allegation of Russian intervention must be clearly attributed to the intelligence agencies who made such statements, not expressed as fact in wikivoice; this has been earlier a subject of friction among editors, but it should be clear by now. — JFG ^talk 23:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, did not intend offense. Re 'semantics: You said: "'We have high confidence in these judgments.' Yes, I think that can safely be summarized as 'we conclude.'" I think that is the nub of the disagreement. If there is no difference, is there a reason to not include the 3 words "with high confidence"? Humanengr (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

[splitting points to focus on each] re: "Schiff['s] … opinion can be included in the article". On what basis would you distinguish between inclusion of Schiff vs inclusion of others in the OP? Humanengr (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Schiff is a member of congress, and of the relevant committee, so his opinion is worth noting. He is also a partisan, and I generally feel that partisan commentary is less worthy of inclusion than non-partisan commentary, so we could leave it out if people prefer. Incidentally I notice that people are twisting his comment to seem to imply that he said there is definite evidence, as in court-of-law evidence, but I think he was talking more about probable cause: "I would characterize it this way at the outset of the investigation: There is circumstantial evidence of collusion." --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For comparison: 1) Clapper is author of report; 2) Ali Watkins report is re members of Senate committee. 3) Morell is Acting CIA Director. Any distinction on basis of position? Humanengr (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Morell is not acting CIA director. He WAS acting director of the CIA, in 2011 and in 2012-2013. That doesn't give him any factual information about the current situation. "He has seen no evidence" doesn't mean a lot; he is not in the evidence chain any more. He is more knowledgeable that some random blog commentator, but he doesn't know what the FBI is discovering. I don't know what or where the Ali Watkins report is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For Ali Watkins -- discussion 'Dispute Overview' near start of here. Humanengr (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: re your "Links" are not "collusion", above. Casprings section below is most informative. To quote "… the FBI has an open investigation Collusion. Should we expand and make more prominent the sections on Trump's ties with Russia?" Casprings seems to directly connect 'Links' to 'collusion'. Humanengr (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I equate a confirmed open federal investigation that investigates collusion with a foreign government between a Presidential administration and Russia as historically important. You don't?Casprings (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I take it you meant "between a presidential campaign and …". I agree that a "federal investigation that investigates collusion …" is historically important. In that spirit, perhaps the § title should be "Investigation into collusion between …". Right? Humanengr (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think this needs a little time since there are breaking developments nearly every day (like today!) and the article is in some areas turning into a point-by-point recitation of "pro vs. con" assertions. I would say that summary should rule, as should the predominance of reliable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCE + WP:SYNTH. Are you all finding a wave of discord around contested reliability of sources in your wikitravels lately? Respond on my talk if you have thoughts in depth on that side question. I agree a general set of policies should guide - I just think more secondary and primaries are needed(WP:NOTNEWS. And thank you Humanengr for organizing for consensus. -- RYPJack (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@RYPJack: Thx re thx. 'summary' is interesting issue to explore; am thinking maybe do so after some of the rest gets a bit sorted. Humanengr (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha, yeah this whole scene needs to cool out and then summarize summarize summarize. -- RYPJack (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Prompted by discussion of Section labeling here, I started a separate section below to address the article title. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

1/6/2017 ODNI report 'conclusions'

The ODNI report "Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution)" states on pp. 1-2:

When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment.

…

Analysts consider a series of questions to assess how the information compares with existing knowledge and adjust their confidence in their judgments as appropriate to account for any alternative hypotheses and ambiguities.

…

Intelligence Community judgments often include two important elements: judgments of how likely it is that something has happened or will happen (using terms such as “likely” or “unlikely”) and confidence levels in those judgments (low, moderate, and high) that refer to the evidentiary basis, logic and reasoning, and precedents that underpin the judgments.

No 'conclusions' in the report were expressed with certainty. The expressions "high confidence" and 'moderate confidence' were used.

The citation for the lead sentence in the intro includes this quote: “The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations …”. [emphasis added]

To say that the "The United States Intelligence Community has officially concluded …" is not supported by the above. Humanengr (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct; however the word "concluded" has been used extensively by secondary sources in the media, this is why some editors are adamant that we should stick to it exclusively, although there are dissenters. In my "shortened lead" exercise above, I have used the word "affirmed" instead; would you accept that? — JFG ^talk 20:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

By which WP policy are secondary sources better than primary sources? Humanengr (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be WP:PSTS. But we don't have to parrot the exact words of sources; we owe it to readers to write something coherent and digestible, while being respectful of what meaning the sources actually convey. — JFG ^talk 23:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that 1) cite #1 says 'accuse' but not 'conclude'; 2) the 2ary sources that say 'conclude' are not listed; 3) the first sentence says 'officially concludes' but the para ends with "We have high confidence in these judgments" from cite #2. (Thx again to Steve Quinn for the list of sources below. Humanengr (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: affirm -- To declare positively; assert to be true. (AHD) Is that what you intend to convey? Per the report and the quote above -- U.S. Intelligence Agencies 'concluded' with 'high confidence' xx and 'moderate confidence' yy Humanengr (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. "Affirm" sounds like a good shorthand of "concluded with high confidence" for a lead section. We could also use "assess" to be a bit less affirmative. The whole article is way too convoluted at present. — JFG ^talk 23:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We have thousands of RS that state "concluded" or "determined" or "stated" -- please show us sources with commensurate frequency using "affirmed" -- then you're home free. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, we don't have to parrot exact words of sources, as long as we accurately convey their meaning. Humanengr makes the point that there is already a wording distortion between what the ODNI report states (primary) and how secondary sources represent it. If we follow the report, it says "assessed with varying degrees of confidence"; if we follow some secondary sources, they say "concluded", others "determined", yet others "accused". When trying to write a balanced summary, I found that "affirmed" conveyed the meaning of the report accurately. But whichever wording is chosen, there will be somebody who is not satisfied. And that's just one word! Lord knows we can argue on every other word until getting consensus… — JFG ^talk 23:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your "suggestion" misconveys the weight of RS reporting. End of the story. Self evident. We use what the bulk of mainstream RS say, unless there's demonstrated and acknowledged consensus in the unusual and unlikely case that some other word better conveys what RS say than the words used by nearly all of them. Let's move on, cause this is the 12th rehash of this issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some refs that specifically use the word "concluded" [16], (scroll down for this:) [17], and [18], [19], [20]. The first several pages of the ODNI discusses "conclusions" in the report and the report itself is clear about Russian activities under the auspices of Putin. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: thx. I see the LA Times piece doesn't use 'conclude' in the sense of 'conclusion', so that probably doesn't belong in the list. Humanengr (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, JFG, and Steve Quinn: Why the focus on using 'one word'? "… concluded with high confidence" (as SPECIFICO noted a month ago was what the report said) adds 3 words, which removes any misrepresentation of report by "concluded", "affirmed", or whatever else. Most will read and remember only the first sentence. Best to be NPOV particularly here. Which other WP policy demands removing those 3 words? Humanengr (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: There is no policy enforcing concision or florid language, it's just a matter of style left at the discretion of contributing editors. My writing preference goes to terse and short statements with accurate vocabulary, which is why I'm disappointed with the convoluted and repetitive prose prevalent throughout this article. — JFG ^talk 17:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that "affirmed" was the chosen verb in the lead sentence in the article's early days, e.g. this version of 14 December 2016: The U.S. Intelligence Community first publicly affirmed in an October 2016 letter, its confidence Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections. Apart from the misplaced comma, this looks like good and neutral prose to me. Not much has changed in the facts since then, as each successive intelligence report kept insisting on the same indications attributing the DNC hacks to Russian state actors, and then delving on their motives. — JFG ^talk 17:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ben Rhodes’ job title

@JFG:@Guccisamsclub: A rose is a rose … Bombastic or not, that was his job title. According to several RS in Ben Rhodes, he wasn’t "just a speechwriter" (making his opinion insignificant?), but one of Obama’s advisers on foreign policy (Cuba, Egypt). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Adviser yes, Deputy National Security Advisor no. I approve your edit. — JFG ^talk 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You're mistaken as to his title, and if you read the press accounts of his activities in the Obama Administration, it's clear that he was not only a writer there. SPECIFICO talk

• Here are two citations referring first to Rhodes as Dep Nat Sec Advisor: by the Washington Times, none too friendly to Obama admin. And [21], where the Sebastian Gorka claim that Rhodes was "just a speechwriter" was popularized. That article itself refers to Rhodes as Dep Nat Sec Advisor. "Not long after Obama took office, Rhodes, now 39, was named "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting." (drops mic) -- RYPJack (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly that was his title, and we just have one unsubstantiated denial by a WP editor. I think the fact can safely be restored now. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would advise opposing editors to read the article called Deputy National Security Advisor; Rhodes is not one of them, and his bombastic title, while authentic, is deceptive. — JFG ^talk 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's OR... Reliable sources give his job title including the part you are trying to deny. Please move on to constructive improvement of this article. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pretending you don't understand the difference between an official high-level position as Deputy National Security Advisor — with a legacy of dozens of people one step removed from the nation's highly strategic National Security Advisor position — and a surely influential but nevertheless unduly bombastic "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting", a title created by the Obama administration specifically to accommodate Mr. Rhodes' role. How does this even fit on a business card? About the article text, I think Space4Time3Continuum2x resolved the issue by calling him an "Obama foreign policy advisor and speechwriter", so let's move on. — JFG ^talk 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Children of the U.S. diplomats

he also invited all the children of the U.S. diplomats accredited in ... --out of curiosity, did they accept the invitation? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish we could find out… Anybody got a journalistic source in Moscow reporting on the Kremlin Christmas festivities? Or a comment by an American diplomat there? We've got some comments by former US Ambassador McFaul but he has been out of Russia for a couple years now; comments from current US diplomats on the whole affair would be a most welcome addition to the article. — JFG ^talk 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT of ongoing investigation

Just wanted to start a discussion on how much WP:WEIGHT the article should give to the fact that the FBI has an open investigation Collusion. An open federal investigation concerning the current administration is historically significant. Should this be given more weight in the article? Should we expand and make more prominent the sections on Trump's ties with Russia?Casprings (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Casprings: "FBI has an open investigation Collusion" are you now just pasting the word "collusion" into random blank spaces at random? :) I agree there is room for a discussion on WP:WEIGHT but you kinda have one going in the thread right above this one. You also posted the same info on Comey's confirmation twice in the lead paragraph, once without citing. Per WP:NOTNEWS and specifically it's section on "Not a diary," I think this could use a little time and maybe a cooling off period. The basic info is in the article and the article continues to be efficiently updated reflecting breaking news and ongoing events. Comey's confirmation was certainly notable and it's amply document in the article. It's my opinion it would give the article (and the wikipedia project at large) more legitimacy in general if we allowed the developments to develop first before contextualizing them with authority. Other contributors above on this page have voiced other opinions about a long-term perspective. -- RYPJack (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:lead, no citation is needed if covered in the article. The second was in the first paragraph, which provides a summation of all the important facts in the article.Casprings (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:5P5, WP:LEAD is a guideline but consensus and precedent on this article thus far has cleeeearly been to cite in lead, as you can see by the number of citations appended to the first paragraph alone. Against spirit to imply otherwise to achieve desired edits. You'll have seen this in your recent reading of WP:LEAD: "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It's been covered and now we need to see what happens before a summary is attempted, per WP:NOTNEWS. I agree its notable, it's just not clear what the context is here. Yet. It's going to work better for everyone and be more productive to get the basic info into the article and summarize when the sourcing is there rather than to do hot-takes on breaking news. Also, the sentence preceding your last edit summarizes the same point without giving WP:UNDUE weight to breaking news of which we do not yet understand the importance or context: "Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links between the Kremlin and Trump's associates." On another note, insisting on the repeated use of the word collusion is going to continually create friction on WP:NPOV when "links" or "ties" are going to adequately make the same point without creating controversy before there are in fact hard findings of fact, re: "COLLUSION." -- RYPJack (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

* WEIGHT should be determined by RS coverage and NOTNEWS. (I say that because there will probably be an avalanche of coverage the next day or two, but then information is likely to dry up.) At this point it deserves a mention in the lede, and a paragraph in the text, and that's all because we know very little at the moment. The investigation is not yet to the point of a separate section IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No new section until there are more facts. Comey and Rogers revealed very little. I think it was irresponsible to add a breaking news source – one that says This story is being updated to include breaking news. – to the lead without waiting for a while that things settle down. By my count the source was updated at least half a dozen times. Another point, Comey specifically said that the FBI is investigating possible coordination, not collusion, so we need to be careful with language if we are citing Comey. Politrukki (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh what? They revealed plenty. Like the fact that there is an ongoing investigation into not just Russian interference, but the actual possibility of collusion. This is pretty huge. Just a couple days ago people were saying "oh nothing's going on" and citing Glenn Let Me Move the Goalposts Again Greenwald.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a stunning development, definitely not a passing story. We don't have enough information for more than a paragraph at this point, but the fact that there is an ongoing FBI investigation of the president's associates, and potentially the president himself (we can't say that, because Comey didn't confirm or deny), is important enough to be in the lede and the text. If desired we can replace the "breaking" news source with a more stable source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already replaced the source and we can always re-replace the source if something better emerges. Politrukki (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you you didn't notice, Comey's statement (that there's an ongoing investigation) is already in the article, so what exactly do you suggest adding? Adding that Comey confirmed that there's a possibility that some of the newspaper sources could actually be Russian surrogates who pretend to be something else? That, according to Comey, there's a lot false information "out there" and Comey can't point a finger at falsehoods unless "out there" is discussing unclassified information? Everything that Comey and Rogers refused to comment? Unless there are concrete proposals, it is fruitless to have an abstract discussion about the investigation at this point. The fact is that we still don't know which individuals are being investigated and Comey refused to confirm or deny whether there is any evidence of collusion or something criminal. Those are the key questions many people expected to be answered. Politrukki (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Powerful Russian Partner Boasts Of Ongoing Access To Trump Family

New reporting from Forbes needs to be added

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/03/20/russian-billionaire-family-trump-ties-ongoing/#9ed742969b3a

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2017/03/20/inside-trumps-russia-connections-the-felon-and-the-pop-star/#2cb63b4a3a47P

There's nothing of substance in there. Agalarov paid Trump to organize Miss Universe in Moscow back in 2013, and then he wanted to build a Trump Tower, but Trump put the project on hold when he ran for president. Agalarov also says he'd still love to do business with Trump, well sure but he'll have to wait until somebody else is president. Then the journalist repeats the rest of the innuendo concerning Trump's entourage; really nothing to add except Forbes' attempt to grab more eyeballs. Oh yeah, Trump sent a thank you note after Agalarov congratulated him on his victory, surely that amounts to high treason! — JFG ^talk 07:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's another relationship with Russia that the article should document.Casprings (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not "another relationship", it's "another factoid confirming a widely-known prior business relationship". — JFG ^talk 15:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Forbes in its current-day incarnation is RS for anything. (Including its richest net worth and other lists, but those don't come up on this page). SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede Sentence - Conclusion versus accused

See also RfC below: #Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused. — JFG ^talk 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to start a discussion based on my revision of the first sentence based on my edit and user:JFG's revision. The two versions are below. I should note that I have taken the liberty of adding some different sources to the second sentence. Basically I added sources that use the word concluded.

(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
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

I am of the belief that the second version is superior. This version clearly states what happened. It wasn't that the POTUS gave a speech and accused Russia. It was that the Intelligence community made a public conclusion that this occurred. This is what is historically significant and should be the lede sentence.Casprings (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Per my edit summary.- MrX 13:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX for the same reasons stated. Neutrality^talk 07:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the same edit back in January, and the old version was reinstated without consensus by Thucydidies. It's hard to understand any reasonable objection to this edit. This is not an assertion of fact as to the hacking. It's an assertion of fact as to the US Government's conclusion, which is undeniably the mainstream view. So even those who, for reasons of their own, deny the underlying facts, this wording is an uncontroversial improvement. This should not be removed again. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I've just seen that JFG is also edit-warring this text. This is a violation of ARBAP2 and must not recur. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, one revert does not an edit war make… — JFG ^talk 14:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have detailed, yours is not the first attempt to suppress this edit. So "one" is not applicable. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's my only revert today, and I'm not going to check thousands of edits of history before reverting in a totally normal BRD process. Hey, look we're Discussing! Feel free to go check my history if you doubt me. I wish you stopped harassing me with repeated spurious accusations on a daily basis. Let's focus on contents please. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Both assertions are true: US intelligence agencies have determined that Russian intervention occurred, and the US government has publicly accused Russia of trying to influence the presidential election. What should be the deciding factor for the lead sentence? In other words, what is the core subject of the article? Is it the intervention reports by intelligence agencies? Use phrase B. Is it the US firm position towards Russia as a consequence of those reports? Use phrase A. Is it the Russian intervention broadly construed, in which case maybe we should craft a more inclusive sentence? Is it Russia–US tensions over the election cycle? Then it must be yet another sentence. What do editors see as the central subject in today's version of the article? What should be the central subject? Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it as the intelligence agencies concluded that it was true. This is the central thing that is historically significant. The rest can be covered in the article, but this is the key fact. Casprings (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, i would be fine re-focusing the article on the analyses, reports and conclusions of the intelligence agencies, and removing all the political consequences and commentaries, but somehow I think it wouldn't do justice to the full breadth of this affair. Also, I remember once suggesting a title that would focus on the intelligence reports, and that was rejected precisely because a consensus of editors thought there was more to cover. Which is why today I would favor version A, unless the article scope is drastically narrowed. I would also be happy to craft a wider-scope lead sentence that reflects the full story. Looking forward to reading the views of other regulars at this page. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

During the Iraq War, The Lancet medical journal published a first survey of Iraqi casualties, estimating that in the first year of conflict, 98,000 Iraqis has died as a result of the war. A few days later Prime Minister Tony Blair stated,

"we do not accept the figures released by The Lancet… at all,"

and UK FCO secretary Jack Straw said,

"our people are still looking into it [the Lancet study], the epidemiologists and statisticians".

However as the Chilcot report would show 15 years later, the UK government had already evaluated the Lancet study, secretly, and advised UK officials it was credible. The UK Ministry of Defense (MOD) Chief Scientific Advisor Professor Sir Roy Anderson had written to MOD officials and the UK Secretary for Defense Geoff Hoons,

"CSA has concluded that the design of the study is robust … He therefore believes that the paper is a sensible one … and that the results are probably as robust as one could have achieved in the very difficult circumstances."

Anderson cautioned against criticizing the report, but noted that sample size, and cause of death reporting could have been sources of weaknesses. Anderson also stated some dead may have been militants.

Two weeks following the FCO's chief economist advised regarding the Lancet report,

"The statistical methodology appears sound... In commenting on the study we should certainly continue to emphasise the considerable uncertainty around the central estimate [of 98,000 excess deaths] (reflecting the small sample size), as well as the lack of corroborating evidence – particularly evidence of injured in the numbers one might expect. We could also highlight some of the factors which might bias the study towards an over‑estimate of deaths. However, there are as many reasons why the study might be biased in the other direction (so probably safer not to go down this road)." (emphasis in the original)

When the second Lancet study on Iraqi casualties, published in 2006, found 600,000+ casualties in the first four years of war, MOD again internally reviewed the study:

"the study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq … The methods are an improvement on those used in the 2004 Lancet article by the same author …"

This evaluation was not released to the public. When asked in public about the Government's position on the study however, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram responded in Parliament,

"The Lancet report is one of a number of recent studies … none of which can be regarded as definitive. The figures in the Lancet report are significantly higher than other casualty estimates."

In other words, senior UK advisors repeatedly concluded the Lancet studies were robust, but publicly stated they were not.

We are not obliged to and should not claim that political actors - including the espionage or intelligence services of any country - have "concluded" something, unless we are writing about incidents that occurred decades in the past, and internal communications, top secret documents, and so forth have been declassified. All political agencies, including the Russian, US, UK and German governments, the CIA, SVR, MI6 or BND, have agendas and may come to conclusions which are never stated. Neither you nor any of us know what various government agencies (who may disagree) have concluded, you know what they have stated.

Governments, intelligence services, etc. are reliable sources for their own statements, but not their "conclusions," and it is a stretch to write that they have "concluded" xyz. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• First off, the bulk of this discourse on The Lancet and the Brits is not useful to us here. We're not talking about that. Second, arguments by analogy of any sort are weak and rarely dispositive. There are too many degrees of freedom and unidentified assumptions overwhelm the mind. Third, Intelligence Assessment concluded with high confidence and said so. So the Primary Source says that's its conclusion. And secondary sources repeat that as having been the intelligence assessment, conclusion. So what's this about years in the future? This is not a complicated issue. Your essay about otherstuff has nothing to do with this. It's very simple. They stated their "conclusion" secondary RS affirm that it is the intelligence guys' "conclusion" and so WP, citing those RS, must also say it is their conclusion. This with any luck will conclude this conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on Wikipedia we follow the preponderance of RS, not argument by analogy. Wikipedia editors are not the arbitrators of truth (see here: [22], [23], [24]) , even though what the "intelligence community concluded" seems to be the truth (to me). Also Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting the great wrongs that we find in the world. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Where SPECIFICALLY does "the Primary Source says that's its conclusion"? Humanengr (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for your detailed post. I think it illustrates very well why we should be cautious about presuming to know what spy agencies internally assess. Several editors actually made this argument in a somewhat different manner: they said that we shouldn't include criticism of declassified American intelligence dossiers, because we don't know what evidence the spy agencies internally possess, or might have included in the classified versions of the dossiers. Obviously, I think that if there's notable criticism of declassified dossiers, we shouldn't censor it from the article. But we also shouldn't authoritatively state that the intelligence agencies internally assess X, when we don't know whether they actually internally assess Y. There's a long history of governments, spy agencies, and every other type of political actor having very different internal and public positions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not bring your POV about "long history" here. The issue is what RS report. If the majority of RS state that any "long history" is related to the current National Intelligence Assessment, then you may propose text to reflect that. Otherwise it clutters the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Darouet's comment was relevant to this general subject, and I think that editors who have pushed to present the public position of American intelligence agencies as the one and only truth should keep it in mind. I would remind you as well, SPECIFICO, that Wikipedia articles do not solely present the majority view, but also significant minority views. To some extent, the article did used to reflect some of these significant minority views, but you and a few other editors have largely removed them from the article over the past week ([25] [26] [27] [28]). I noticed that the only editor who did oppose any of these removals, JFG, was quickly the target of another AE case. I think my view is clear - that the article tilts heavily towards the view of American intelligence agencies, and leaves out significant dissenting views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think Thucydides411 is clear. How about sticking to discussing content instead of trying to imply or say A led to B, when there is nothing to back that up. However, if smoke and then fire is seen, then I recommend taking it to an appropriate venue - and don't delay. Regarding significant minority views, I haven't seen any in this article. If these "significant" views refer to content referenced by primary sources without any independent secondary reliable sources, then these are not significant minority views. I refer editors to WP:NPOV if content policy is needed, and WP:V. - WP:BURDEN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are many respectable people who question the official version of events, be it among cybersecurity experts, among intelligence specialists, among propaganda investigators or among politicians. Should the dissenting views be excluded from Wikipedia because they are mere opinions and innuendo? Isn't the official story composed of a lot of opinions and innuendo as well? Genuinely curious. — JFG ^talk 23:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there were many experts and cyberintelligence specialists who doubted the US Intelligence Assessment, you would have been able to find mainstream RS citations to support that. You didn't. You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief. Your view is WP:FRINGE and must be treated as such. God bless you and others who hold your fringe view that the US Gov't is lying to the world, but we can't give it any more weight than a flea on the ass of an elephant or a fly on the elephant of an ass. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article used to cite a number of experts in cybersecurity and intelligence, as well as notable commentators in these fields, who doubted the official position of US intelligence agencies: Jeffrey Carr, an anonymous Bundesnachrichtendienst agent, William Binney, Ray McGovern, Pierre Sprey, Julian Assange, Sean Gallagher, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. Much of this material has been removed, though JFG added some of it back in. In particular, the views of former intelligence analysts critical of US government claims - Binney, McGovern and Sprey - are no longer in the article.

"You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief." The way you're defining "fringe" and "marginal" encompasses literally every single person outside of the US government. That's a clever trick: define "fringe" and "marginal" so that only the official view of the US government can be included. This is exactly why Darouet's post above is so important for you to read and take to heart. You can't tell us that politically motivated organizations like intelligence agencies are reliable sources, and that any opinion that conflicts with what they publicly state is "fringe" or "marginal." There are significant dissenting views, and you've been trying to systematically exclude them from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the names you mention are not "experts". True, they are "commentators" but so what? And we've been over this already. Also, I have no idea what the Lancet study has to do with any of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure "concluded" was the original consensus wording until it got edit-warred out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 wrote: The way you're defining "fringe" and "marginal" encompasses literally every single person outside of the US government No. Fringe and marginal have specific meanings on Wikipedia, this has nothing to do with trying define literally every single person outside the US government. Fringe and marginal are based on the lack of independent reliable secondary sourcing. RS are needed to back up the comments only sourced by opinions of the authors themselves, who wrote the opinion pieces that source the comments. If you are getting dizzy that is because this is really circular.

No one is using a clever trick. This is editing according to Wikipedia content policies. If you want to change how Wikipedia operates, then start some RFCs (or something) at policy and guideline talk pages. All this has come together by consensus by the way. Also, this is not the official view of the US government. That seems to be an inaccurate assessment. What is in this article and what is not is based on what reliable sources say. Some of the marginal and fringe remains, but that probably should be dealt with.

The dissenting views are not significant, or else they would be covered by the mainstream media. It is not anyone's fault or agenda as you may be implying. These people matter to you and some others. But, apparently, these people and their views are not picking up alot of traction in the press. This is not Wikipedia's fault, nor the editors who happen to edit in accordance with its consensus established standards. And again, editing is not accomplished according to analogy. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

They were covered in the mainstream media. Harper's Weekly, Ars Technica, Baltimore Sun, Süddeutsche Zeitung and The Intercept are mainstream. But most of the "dissenting" views published in those outlets have been removed from the article over the past week or so.

"this has nothing to do with trying define literally every single person outside the US government." That's exactly what it is. Here's what SPECIFICO wrote above: "You put up a jumble of fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation that mainly boiled down to outsiders or (what's worse) former insiders, now outsiders, who feel that they would like to be privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence and therefore carp and cavil about incomplete public releases of non-classified summaries. No qualified person who has been briefed on the full details has expressed disbelief." Nobody outside the US government is "privvy to the most sensitive National Security intelligence" or "briefed on the full details." The argument here is whether sources that disagree with claims made by US intelligence agencies are non-fringe or non-marginal.

I think it's obvious that journalists and experts who disagree with government statements are not automatically marginal or fringe. But apparently, being published in a major newspaper or journal doesn't make one non-fringe (see, Pierre Sprey and William Binney in Harper's, or Binney and McGovern in the Baltimore Sun). Being an acknowledged expert doesn't make one non-fringe either, apparently (see Sprey, Binney and McGovern, again). The opinion has even been voiced that Assange's views are irrelevant - Assange, the hacker/programmer who founded and runs Wikileaks, the organization that published most of the documents this article deals with. There's a major systemic problem with the types of views that are included in the article, and they swing very heavily towards the positions of US intelligence agencies. That's not because of a lack of sourcing for alternate views, but rather because of systematic removal of well-sourced material that suggests an alternate view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a useful clear statement that we can now use to narrow the discussion here. In particular, your statement that those outlets are "mainstream media" is false. If the views you are claiming to be majority views, or significant minority views, do in fact meet WP's test, then you should be able to find many, many RS citations from sources such as NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, LA Times, et al. Ars Technica and Greenwald's Intercept may be the kind of sources you enjoy reading, but they are not a sample from which WP can infer the majority or any significant minority view, and of course opinion pieces in those outlets is even more problematic. Assange's views? Well first of all, do you have RS saying that he runs an "organization" as opposed to a laptop? And not every hacker's opinions are noteworthy, especially when their motivations and truthfulness about their motivations is suspect per RS. The archives of many talk pages detail the problems with Assange as a source for much of anything except what Assange said and for that only when it's noteworthy and germane. WP does not take the view that there is a "major systematic problem" with the world or with RS, where they fulfil WP editorial standards. Maybe there really is a problem with the world, Thucydidies, but this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by ignoring WP standards. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if you're being serious. Assange runs Wikileaks, the organization that published the DNC and Podesta emails. He's not just one of many hackers. He runs the organization that's central to the topic of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The American public has no relationship to the material that was removed from this article (characterized as "fringe, marginal, and self-published speculation). SPECIFICO specifically refers to former insiders who are now outsiders. They did not refer to the whole American public. He is saying the specific group of former insiders would like to be privvy blah, blah, blah. To connect to the entire American public based on the word "privvy" seems like an over-generalization.

Journalists and experts who disagree with government statements are not automatically marginal or fringe. Those journalists and experts, whose opinions are not covered in fact based, independent secondary sources are considered to be fringe and/or marginal on Wikipedia. There is no automatic or inherent marginal or fringe experts or journalists. These have been shown to be marginal or fringe when content policies are the bar that should be achieved.

The measure is not the publications that carried their opinion. The measure is this group of articles opinions were each carrying their subject's comments based on only self-authored opinion pieces. It has been established that op-ed pieces are not independent fact based pieces. So it becomes a question of WEIGHT and UNDUE, which WP:NPOV specifically covers. Also, it has been noted on this talk page by MVBW that their expertise is no longer relevant and is dated.

This is because the tools and knowledge to which they had access is 15 to 20 years out of date (or more). Unfortunately, the materials that suggest alternate views are not well sourced at all, with each of these comments having only a self-authored opinion piece as a reference. I have looked for reliable sources that cover some of these opinions. I haven't had any luck. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "self-authored opinion pieces"? Most commentary is "self-authored" (which is very different from "self-published"). What's the alternative to "self-authored": "published under someone's name but authored by someone else"? But if commentary is published in a major newspaper or journal, that gives the commentary more weight. But beyond that, Binney and Sprey were cited by Alexander Cockburn in Harper's, so I don't see what possible definition would make their opinions, published by someone else in a prestigious magazine, "self-authored." The same also goes for the opinions cited in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Ars Technica articles, which were news articles.

As I wrote earlier, in a long talk-page section ([29]), I don't see any consistent logic in what views are deemed "marginal," "fringe" or "undue," other than that the sources that have been removed from this article are largely ones that express some form of skepticism about the claims of US spy agencies. I don't see a consistent difference in the quality of the publications or the expertise of the commentators. What I see is a rather clear trend, where one view (the one expressed by US intelligence) is included, but skeptical views are excluded. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clear from your recent statements that you are not arguing from a policy-based position here. It's not Quinn's job to explain site policy and guidelines to anybody, so I respectuflly ask you to disengage here. WP policy and talk page consensus are clearly against you, and you can review the various help pages as well as the archives of this talk page to sort things out. Let's move on. There are recent developments wrt the investigations, bipartisan concerns, and various denials and attacks on "leakers" and the press. We can add those to the article with good valid sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm arguing from a policy perspective. I also don't see any consensus here for "concluded" versus "stated" or "accused." "WP policy and talk page consensus are clearly against you." Stating something over and over again doesn't make it true, especially when you put in zero effort into supporting your claims. I've been asking you to justify why you've deemed certain commentators and sources "marginal," "fringe" and "undue," and as I've said, you haven't been able to articulate any consistent reasoning for your determinations. The only consistency I see is that you remove any commentary that suggests skepticism about the claims of US spy agencies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How about "determined" ? BTW, Carr is never called an "expert" by any individual other than himself, afaik. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are 5 sources that describe him as an expert explicitly or imply it (e.g. "The vast majority of expert commentary seems to agree the Russian government hacked the DNC. But Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global, remains skeptical"): [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] James J. Lambden (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There may be 5 sources there but not 5 *reliable* sources. Out of those really only politifact and fortune qualify and those don't actually call him an expert. I guess if you take account of the headline maybe fortune does but headlines aren't actually written by the writers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: 'determined' is better than 'concluded' b/c it doesn't sound so'final'. AFAICS, 'concluded' was not used in the citation given. In any case, a date should be clearly indicated in the body of the sentence. Humanengr (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate what kind of justification there is for the cherrypicking sources that are in proposal (B)? Casprings said "Basically I added sources that use the word concluded." Source #5 is an opinion piece – how are you going to attribute it in the proposal. I'm asking as someone who hasn't made up their mind, but is troubled that these same sources are used in the actual RFC in Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. If sources are cited in the lead, we should use the best sources we can get. Politrukki (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Can someone point to where in ref #1 the word 'conclude' is used? 2) Why is the date of this information not prominently indicated in the sentence? Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

voter registration databases

The fact that Russian government tried to hack US voter registration databases should also be included in the article [35][36] (and older [37]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure, but there is another issue missing from the page: an alleged connection/frequent communication [38] between servers of "Trump organization" and Russian Alfa Bank. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should avoid treating allegations as facts unless reliable sources do. Your first source for example uses careful wording: "Comey added that the FBI saw efforts to penetrate voter registration database...." Do you know if that includes the 120,000 mostly Latino voters purged from the Brooklyn electoral rolls? TFD (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources link Russia to that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you really not get TFD's point? Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I get that whatever he's saying, it's off topic and irrelevant to this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Useless portraits and seals

Portraits of politicians and seals of intelligence agencies are purely decorative and should be removed because they bring nothing to the story. I removed them all and was reverted, so let's discuss. Should the portraits and seals be included? — JFG ^talk 05:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good practice to provide images of people who are participants of the story described on the page. This is like providing images of proteins on a page about proteins. This is nothing special and was done on many pages. This makes pages more interesting and visible. Hence my revert. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If this is "good practice" as you say, it isn't much practiced at all… It rather looks to me as an exception among similar stories. Look at other articles documenting well-known political scandals of yore:

• Iran–Contra affair has some pictures of Reagan and advisers in context of discussing the affair, a mugshot of Oliver North after he was arrested about this affair, but we have no smiling portrait of the two dozen people involved and cited in the article. Rightly so, because they would be out of context and bring nothing of substance to the article.
• Watergate scandal: a picture of the infamous Watergate building, some pictures of evidence, one picture of Nixon giving a televised address about the tapes, two others of him when he resigned, and no portrait of Bob Woodward, Deep Throat or the two dozen individuals mentioned in the article as being involved or commenting on the affair.
• Lewinsky scandal: a government ID picture of Monica that was widely circulated at the time, a video of Bill Clinton denying the allegations, and a satirical stamp from Abkhazia with a caricature of the unlikely couple. No picture of prosecutor Kenneth Starr, no picture of Hillary, no picture of Paula Jones, no picture of witnesses, no pictures of the two dozen political or media commentators mentioned in the article. Not even a blue dress!

The documented good practice is to illustrate articles with pictures that actually refer to the article subject, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. We have a few pictures that fit the criteria: the ODNI report, the Senate's decision to start an enquiry, the Obama executive order sanctioning Russia, and Trump's video excerpt where he discusses the affair. The rest are decorative distractions and should be flushed. — JFG ^talk 17:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The images are relevant to the subject because they show people who have been involved in events described on the page. Moreover, the existing footnotes of the images explain how exactly they have been involved. For example, John McCain who "planned a bipartisan investigation" [of the interference]. I do not see any difference with Lewinsky scandal. Yes, it shows Monica and Bill because they have been involved in the story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As shown by the examples above, it is perfectly fine to write an article about a political controversy involving dozens of people without adding out-of-context portraits of all those people. Wikipedia is not a children's book. If we take the captions into account, that's even worse, because pictures and their captions can be construed as editorializing the story. A reader who just skims the section titles and the picture captions may get an overly simplistic version of the events. Not neutral, not encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that seals should be removed, but not people. It is precisely the point that their images are provided not "out-of-context", but in appropriate context. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, we must agree to disagree. Fellow editors, any other opinions on portraits? — JFG ^talk 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial inclination is the same as My very best wishes': drop the seals (which seem like clutter to me), but keep at least some of the photos of key players. Neutrality^talk 21:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop seals. More pics of key players and locations and documents. If you don't like current pics, find ones with better context to story and add. Don't make issues of image quality issues of whether page should have pics or not. Pics make it more readable and make it date less quickly and are ways to allow people to navigate to related articles, thus expanding their understanding of the story and history at large. More pics. Better pics. Onwards. Upwards. -- RYPJack (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop portraits and seals, per JFG Geogene (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Article title and NPOV ?

The article title is: "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". WP:WikiVoice: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. …" Is the article title a 'fact'? Humanengr (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been debated repeatedly ever since the article was created (check the archives), with many people considering it a WP:POVTITLE and many others considering it an established fact (because the intel agencies said so), and there was no consensus to add "Allegations of" or "Intelligence reports of" to the title. On the other hand, Bigfoot or Nessie are also unproven but still don't have "Alleged monster" in their titles. I guess that works because their lead sentences clearly explain they are "folklore". However the lead section in this article is heavily weighted towards the intel agencies' statements, so that the casual reader definitely gets the impression that Russian intervention at the direct behest of Putin is an established fact.

Another issue with the title is the "U.S. elections" part; nothing in the article or sources indicates any intervention attempt in other elections than the presidential race. See #Which elections? which needs more comments. — JFG ^talk 07:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx much JFG. Will peruse. Humanengr (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not a "problem" at all. The title doesn't say "every US election" -- that's like denying the statement "people die in falls from ladders" because not everybody dies and not every ladder has killed any people. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but I still haven't seen any source claiming intervention in any other election than the presidential race. Have you? So it's one election, not several elections, and of course not every election, nobody claimed that — JFG ^talk 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

50 State elections for presidential electors and there ya go. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a novel interpretation of what the United States presidential election is. I appreciate your sense of humour. — JFG ^talk 12:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I gather from your misspelling of "humor" that you are not an American. In fact, these are separate state elections and if you will read the recent press discussions of the Electoral College, you'll see that is a key point. The Russian misinformation campaign was not likely to have much impact among what the Americans call the "blue states" where voters are on average better educated and more worldly than the "red states". The upshot is that the Democrats won their sizable majority with their decisive wins in the coastal areas of the USA whilst losing most of the interior area where the so-called fake news and Russian interference could be expected to be more effective. So to anyone who has studied American politics, this is no "novel interpretation" it's just the way they've set things up for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So you know exactly which voters are "better educated" and who was most influenced by RT? Splendid piece of WP:OR, my friend! Indeed I am not American, which doesn't prevent me from knowing a thing or two about the electoral process in various countries. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just not the USA, apparently. Read the hundreds of sources I suggested above. Salaam. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Excelente! This OR is deliciously Daily Beast-ly (I was initially going to say "Voxy", but Vox is more wonky and less "suck it, rubes!"-y). "it's just the way they've set things up for themselves." You don't mean the Dems do you? Hope not. "the hundreds of sources I suggested above" I have thousands of sources and they'll beat up your any day of the week, so there! Peace. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that Russia interfered in the election. As always, there are a few Wikipedians who dispute this fact, or perhaps would prefer some alternative facts, but that's not particularly meaningful. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oooh...fifth-column. Yes, it is sooo obvious from my userpage and from my contribs that I'm 100% on the TrumpTrain, and that I'm paid by Putin to undermine Wikipedia. This talkpage is something. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gucci, I'm going to IAR somewhat and make a personal remark on article talk. Your participation here has been manifestly disruptive for some time and you've been blocked twice and returned with more personal disparagement animus and sarcasm. You've then been warned by an Admin. Then you promised to stop editing here, but you're BAAA..ck as they say in the US scary cinema. This can't continue. Please back off the inappropriate behaviour. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That was personal remark about myself in defence against an insult. OK, I'm outta here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As SPECIFICO pointed out, this was a Russian campaign to interfere in US elections on the scale of all 50 states, its territories, and Washington DC. Also, the "better educated" mantra or the "more upscale" mantra has been covered in reliable sources as tendencies. Sort of a social science perspective.

And I think there is factual basis for the following: if someone is "better educated" they are less likely to fall for "fake news", "conspiracy theories", Julian Assange, RT propaganda, Breitbart, and other unrealistic propaganda. At least that is the intention. I think this is because critical thinking faculties are usually more developed after years of higher education.

Also, did you know?? that editing according to Wikipedia content policies can hone cirtical thinking skills. I think that sufficiently covers the "whys" and "wherefores". --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This thread is just a perfect example of how you guys are incapable of editing neutrally. You guys are extremely certain of something that, based on reliable sources, is not known for certain, and you're unwilling to allow any material in the article that casts any doubt on your preconceived notions and preferred political slant. I've never seen such a concerted effort on Wikipedia to push a strong POV, involving many editors, including several admins. This election, and the very upsetting conclusion it had for many people, has really driven people crazy. I really wish I could convince you to return to some semblance of neutrality, but I think I'd just be wasting my words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Assange picture, and should he have his own subsection

I removed it because I couldn't find the claimed consensus for it on the talk page, and also because I think that repeating Assange's denials is both repetitive and non-neutral. I'm noticing a kind of WP:PBUH going on where some seem to feel a need to insert a mention of Wikileaks whenever possible, and then reflexively re-state Assange's denial. Wikileaks isn't huge player in this, they were just a web server this time. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Many other players are depicted in photos. Particularly if they have a section. I agree there is an unproductive back and forth about Assange claims but I think good faith efforts at WP:NPOV have caused editors to over correct and scrub the page of any documentation of Assange denial or even involvement, to the point where it's become difficult to even verify the org's position. That seems overzealous and not useful. That's to be debated elsewhere. As to this particular picture insertion into article, let's see what consensus dictates. The consensus I was following was the one asking for more pics in general. WP:PBUH is a manual of style section about Islamic honorifics sooooo unless there's an inside reference I'm not catching... This article is becoming too contested to be consistently accurate and useful to the public, no? --RYPJack (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

His denials are already documented. He represents a minority viewpoint, so they shouldn't get much attention, per NPOV. I'm not sure why he has his own subsection. I'm not going to explain how PBUH relates to reflexively including Assange's denial every time he is mentioned in an article, that is too tedious and should not be necessary. Geogene (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Geogene What does "that should not be necessary" mean? I'm honestly curious now about how you're referencing that standard in this context. Not sure what snark does for you here, tbh. Educate me. Whether he should have his own section should certainly be up for debate, I agree. This just doesn't happen to be the forum to discuss that. I put a picture up, you pulled it down as a knee-jerk reaction, and now people can weigh in on it if it's something that there's a demand for. If not, there just won't be a pic. Kinda seems like this is how it's supposed to work. -- RYPJack (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the proper forum to discuss that, this is the article's Talk page. I have also fixed your improperly threaded replies. Further efforts at educating you are probably a waste of time. Geogene (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: Please strike your WP:PA against RYPJack, essentially calling him too dumb to understand your point: Further efforts at educating you are probably a waste of time. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: No. Geogene (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Assange merits a subsection, and I don't think Assange merits a photo in this article. Both are UNDUE. Specifically, we don't give undue weight to every minority or fringe opinion that is out there. Nor does Wikipedia heap out of context notoriety on someone by featuring a section on that person and presenting a photo. Save it for the Julian Assange article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

:@Geogene:, WP:5P5. Ima format threads however I want so long as they're productive and useful, which this one clearly is since we now have a healthy discussion with multiple viewpoints represented and working towards a consensus, whereas before you were trying to filibuster by citing standards out of context and snarking out on me. Don't use your clearly superior grasp of Wikipedia's protocol to wack newer users over the head. WP:BITE It makes the encyclopedia less diverse, which is an existential threat to the legitimacy of the project as a whole.-- RYPJack (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks is a big part of the story. Clinton lost the election because of emails that were published by Wikileaks. TFD (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I halff agree with this, yes Wikileaks is a big part of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, because any random website could have hosted the files. Debatable whether (1) Assange even knows the source, (2) whether Assange is a genuine expert in hacking (I believe his background is journalism not CS) and (3) even whether Assange would be telling the truth. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"(2) whether Assange is a genuine expert in hacking (I believe his background is journalism not CS)" It would help if you would do some research before commenting. Assange has a very strong CS background. Long before Wikileaks existed, he came into the public spotlight for hacking into a slew of US and Australian government computer networks, as well as large corporate networks. You don't even have to look too far to learn this: just read his Wikipedia article: Julian Assange.

"(3) even whether Assange would be telling the truth." That's questionable for many people cited extensively in this article. Why would one automatically assume any intelligence or political figure is telling the truth? There's a very good likelihood that there is deception coming from many angles in this story. But we should briefly summarize what the major players are saying, and then briefly summarize the range of expert opinion in reliable sources. As it is, the article cites extensively from one highly politically motivated side, the Obama administration and US intelligence agencies, while barely mentioning what the other major players are saying. And the article specifically excludes nearly all expert opinion that in any way casts any doubt on statements by the Obama admin and US intelligence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

On Assange's background, noted. Granted that what Assange and the US government (outside of Trump and his immediate cohort) are saying is contradictory. Which gets more weight from the bulk of reliable sources? Do any of them take Assange seriously? Do any of them take the President's denials seriously, for that matter? What proportion, if any? Geogene (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are all really valid points about the truth value of Assange's claims. But none of that's at issue in this particular thread. This particular thread of discussion is just trying to establish whether he's notable enough to receive a section and in turn whether that section merits a pic. What's certain is that most WP:RS cited Assange and reported his comment, which happened to be a denial. Growing consensus around that in this section it appears thus far. It's not a zero-sum game in regards to "Assange is lying, therefore his denial should not be reported and he should be minimized in the article." It would be like not documenting OJ's "not guilty" plea and his efforts to advance that plea in an article on the OJ Simpson trial just because you think OJ was lying. -- RYPJack (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That is wildly inaccurate: it takes a substantial presence and infrastructure to be notable enough to 1) receive these kinds of leaks and 2) have your every word quoted in newspapers around the world. I agree that Assange is a major part of this story and would include their photo in the article. -Darouet (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

None of those points address whether Assange knows his sources, whether he would tell the truth if he did, or whether he's qualified to comment on the IC's conclusions. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt Assange can be certain of his sources and have no belief he would necessarily be truthful if he did. But as to whether he's qualified to comment on the U.S. intelligence community's statements - his release of hundreds of thousands of their documents, and his stature in reliable sources, answered that question years ago. -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here you've chosen to focus on what I think is the weakest argument of those. I don't see how posting stolen documents on a website makes you an expert on anything. Nor could it, since the IC hasn't even said much about the basis of their analyses, and unless Assange has files we don't know about, there is no way that he could be an expert on that. I don't see any evidence of sources treating him as an expert on the IC's assessment, either. What I see is that Assange is being "accused" in a fairly vague way of being a patsy for Russia, so sources give him the customary soundbite denial, essentially from tradition. That he's widely considered an "expert" is a stretch. Geogene (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that Assange can have fairly little certainty in the ultimate source of what he publishes, and that he's a political actor (as are US intelligence agencies), and so might easily be untruthful about his sources. But I don't think it's helpful to quibble about whether we consider him an "expert." Instead, I'm arguing that this whole story exists because of him - he leaked the documents that undermined confidence in the Democratic Party and their candidate during the election - and he's therefore central to this story. He was able to leak that material because he runs the largest source of leaks on earth, and as a consequence he's been frequently cited in reference to this story. Darouet (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that arguing this story exists because of WikiLeaks is untenable. This story exists because Russian intelligence broke into a bunch of different email inboxes and selectively leaked what they took from the Democrats, possibly with help from bots and trolls. WikiLeaks was a tool that they used to publish what they felt useful to publish while maintaining plausible deniability, and nothing more than that. If WL had not existed, this story still would, they would have just used some other website as a file dump. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"WikiLeaks was a tool that they used to publish what they felt useful to publish while maintaining plausible deniability, and nothing more than that. If WL had not existed, this story still would, they would have just used some other website as a file dump." That's what WP:SYNTH sounds like. That claim is totally unsubstantiated. You just synthed your way to an alternative history novel. -- RYPJack (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Assange was also a noted IT security expert aka "hacker", well before starting WikiLeaks. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Still not clear how he has access to enough technical data to speak as an expert on this specific breach. Geogene (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If that were clear to you, a couple of three-letter agencies would probably be very interested in hiring you. We don't know how much Wikileaks knows about the source of the emails. They may know exactly who leaked/hacked the emails and how, or they may not know at all. It's easy to imagine both scenarios (for example, if the leaks came from a DNC insider, Assange might know exactly who it is). But we don't have any special information about the internal workings of Wikileaks. By the way, we also don't have any special information about the internal workings of US spy agencies, and we don't know whether they know what they claim to know, nor the extent to which they're being truthful.

But it would be inappropriate to try to exclude any mention of allegations made by US intelligence agencies against Russia, simply because we don't know whether those accusations are correct/honest. The fact that they have made those accusations is notable. Similarly, the fact that Assange, a central figure in the leaks, has claimed unequivocally that Russia is not the source is notable. He may be telling the truth, or he may not be, but the fact that he made a statement on the issue is notable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• current thread status Just to summarize thread up to now: straw count stands at: editors voicing "include pic/section")/(2 editors voicing "exclude pic section as WP:UNDUE). 3 "pro"/2 "con" with no solid consensus as of this moment. I encourage continued participation of all editors, old and new, in the service of broad participation. Also, I'm still curious and eager to learn the history and context of WP:PBUH as a cultural reference in this context. I think citing the manual of style like that as shorthand is kinda neat and nifty and slick. -- RYPJack (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated in a previous thread, I suggested to remove all portraits, but other editors preferred to keep them (although they agreed to remove logos and I received no objection to reducing portrait sizes). If we have consensus to keep portraits, then I believe Assange deserves to be there as one of the key actors of the controversy. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it was based upon that earlier consensus (that pics were beaucoup bueno) that I added this pic to the Assange section, among others. I myself have been, attempting to mediate the conflict, on both sides of the "add/subtract" Assange edit war, which would tend to contradict the idea that what we have here is a WP:PBUH recitation of Assange's claims and credentials. This is an issue of consensus about pics on the page and the weight of Assange as a player, not of the larger ideological affray that is turning the article into a contested recitation of primary quotes rather than a tertiary encylopedic text. -- RYPJack (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• current thread status 4/2 pro/con -- RYPJack (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• current thread status Straw count: 5/2 pro/con -- RYPJack (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jack, we don't count votes around here - even straw votes. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It was just an attempt to summarize direction of a messy discussion but i understand why it might not be a good idea to quantify thusly at an early stage in discussion. Thanks for correcting me in an upfront way. I'll loop back and summarize at a later juncture. -- RYPJack (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV language

SPECIFICO reverted partly some of my recent edits, citing "Restore NPOV language". Unfortunately, many changes in language were lumped up into this one rationale, therefore I would like to evaluate each change one by one to obtain consensus about which version is actually NPOV. Here we go:

#	Location	Prior text	JFG edit	SPECIFICO edit	Source excerpts
	Comments by editors
1	Lead section, describing Trump's reaction to intel report	[Trump] attacked the intelligence agencies	[Trump] criticized the intelligence agencies	[Trump] attacked the intelligence agencies	Team Trump Mocks Suggestion of Russian Meddling in Election President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team dismissed claims of foreign interference in this year’s elections.
	No trace of "attack" vocabulary in source (except about cyber attacks); "criticized" is more NPOV, we should perhaps go further and say "dismissed claims of foreign interference" like the source does; yet I'm fine with "criticized". — JFG talk 13:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2	Subsection title in "Background"	Media reports on internet trolls	Internet trolls	Social media and internet trolls	“I created this list of Russian trolls,” writer Adrian Chen told the Longform podcast in December 2015. “And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff.” Russia influence operations in social media represents a far more effective and efficient return to their “Active Measures” campaign of the Cold War. To date, there’s been no public U.S. response to alleged Russian hacking or social media information operations.
	Looks like "Social media" alone would be more neutral; "trolling" being part of behaviour patterns there. — JFG talk 13:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
3	Caption for Putin's portrait	American intelligence officials have said Vladimir Putin personally controlled the alleged covert operation.	American intelligence officials said that Vladimir Putin personally controlled a covert operation.	American intelligence officials stated that Vladimir Putin personally controlled the covert operation.	U.S. intelligence officials have "a high level of confidence" Putin was personally involved in the Russian cyber campaign against the United States. The three U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters said the fact that Putin oversaw a hacking operation was not surprising and is standard operating procedure in Russia.
	"Said", "have said", or "stated" doesn't make much difference. Prior text said "alleged", my text doesn't. Specifico says "the covert operation" instead of "a covert operation". What is most neutral? — JFG talk 13:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
4	Caption for Obama's portrait	President Obama ordered the United States Intelligence Community to investigate Russian attempts to influence the election and report back by January 2017.	President Obama ordered the United States Intelligence Community to investigate and report on the issue before his term ran out.	President Obama ordered the United States Intelligence Community to investigate Russian attempts to influence the election and to report on the issue by January, 2017.	The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of “lessons learned” that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in.
	My goal here was to shorten the caption; I think all versions are NPOV. It doesn't seem necessary to repeat in every caption the full article theme of "Russian attempts to influence the election". Also "before his term ran out" gives more context to readers than "by January 2017", and matches the source which insists on Obama's demand to obtain this report before Trump takes office. — JFG talk 13:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
5	Caption for Lavrov's portrait	Sergei Lavrov said Russia did not interfere in the U.S. election.	Sergei Lavrov denied any involvement of Russia in the U.S. presidential election.	Sergei Lavrov denied Russia's interference in the U.S. presidential election.	Kremlin Denies Putin’s Involvement in Election Hacking "I was astonished when I saw it. I think, this is nothing but nonsense, there is not a chance that anybody could believe that," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. "Either stop talking about it or finally provide some evidence. Otherwise it looks indecent," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Tokyo. Russia has repeatedly denied the hacking allegations.
	Lavrov, Peskov and other Russian officials have been pretty strong in their denials, even calling the allegations "ridiculous" or "nonsense". I think "denied any involvement" is the clearest summary of their position. — JFG talk 13:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A more fruitful approach would be to avoid insinuating POV language throughout the article so that we don't have long lists of POV language to scrutinize. That will conserve editor time and attention for other issues. The table above shows that my edit was justified in every case. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is indeed infested with POV language. The problem is that half of the editors think it's a pro-Trump POV while the other half think it's an anti-Russia POV. Both approaches are wrong, which is why we still need to patiently discuss every word. About your specific edits, I agree with some and disagree with others, which is why I took the trouble of drawing up a table with source excerpts. In the first example, clearly "attacked" is less neutral than "criticized" so your edit did not go into a neutral direction. — JFG ^talk 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require "neutral language". To the contrary, it requires presenting different (sometimes opposite) POVs as reflected in WP:RS on the subject. The POVs in cited RS can be pro/anti-something - that does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I agree with you here, and the article should present both sets of POVs as reflected by RS, and properly attributed. What I disagree with is that the goalposts are often moved when statements do not fit the narrative by US intel agencies, yielding double standards on validity of sources or credibility of commentators. Fortunately this is not an issue in the small text changes discussed in this table, and I would welcome your comments on each case. — JFG ^talk 17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So Mr. JFG, you are telling me that you agree with me quickly undoing various of your POV insertions? Why not just forego the re-write and propose any such changes in a talk table so that all editors can give you feedback on your ideas. That would be my suggestion. The table seems orderly but less helpful than it would have been ex ante. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I explained exactly why I opened this section: you grouped several changes under one label "Restore NPOV language" but several of your wording changes were neither restoring nor neutral, hence the table with details, so we can all discuss. I don't see why you criticize my effort to reach consensus, which is textbook WP:BRD. The community may well agree with some of my changes, with some of yours, and perhaps even suggest better wording than yours and mine. That's the beauty of collaborative editing… — JFG ^talk 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: thanks for this list. As far as I can tell, in every case you've listed above the wording you used was more neutral, and conformed to the source text. "Internet trolls" as opposed to "Social Media," "Attacked" when the word doesn't appear in the source - there is no reason to use such blatantly partisan language in a neutral encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dareo, JFG did not say even he agrees with the wording he used. He said he likes some of my wordings better than what he just put in the article. You're saying you !vote the straight ticket? There's nothing "partisan" about using the word "attack" to summarize mockery, threats, personal denigration, etc. If I responded to your message by calling you a bunch of names and making fun of your French accent, etc. that would be an attack - not a criticism. A criticism is based in fact and logic and explication. Attacks tend to be ad hominem, abusive, unduly persistent, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless the source called it an attack the interpretation you've presented is unfortunately original research and not permitted. 107.77.218.200 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you prefer "Trump mocked, disparaged, dismissed, and denigrated..." you may insert that language in lieu of "attacked". However the accurate [39] word is "attacked." SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not an exaggeration to use "attack" here. In colloquial English, the word doesn't have to mean that anybody was physically harmed. Informally, you can "attack" somebody by criticizing them. Geogene (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that "attack" is a word in the English language that describes this scenario, and I agree it would be accurate. However, "dismiss" is also accurate, and is far less inflammatory, or leading, for readers. It's also used in the source. -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In English, one might "dismiss" a person, an allegation, or an insect with no animus and on rational grounds. The RS describe Mr. Trump's statements as having been hostile, as having gone beyond the facts or circumstances of the matter, and as having the character of disparagement or attack. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward case of neutral versus POV writing, and have made a post at WP:NPOVN. -Darouet (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Make no mistake, you're correct about the POV language. It's just that you have the polarity reversed. You know, [40] SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO appears to have made the right call on this one:

• I agree that Trump "attacked" the intelligence agencies. The word "criticized" is understatement and is POV. Or replace with "mocked, disparaged, dismissed, belittled, and denigrated". Or replace with "mocked, disparaged, dismissed, belittled, criticized, and denigrated". It is a matter of RS coverage that Trump came out very strong against the Intelligence community. This was not merely criticism. Also, here are a couple of sources that used the word "attacked" [41], [42], [43]. This USA Today article says [44]:

  "In fact, Trump made numerous disparaging remarks about the U.S. intelligence community...But the fact is that Trump belittled the intelligence community’s work and questioned its motives in a series of statements and tweets before and after the election."

• I have to agree that SPECIFICO's title change is the more accurate based on the sources presented in this box - "Social media and internet trolls"
• Based on what I have read and seen the most accurate caption is: "American intelligence officials stated that Vladimir Putin personally controlled the covert operation."
• "...reporting back before Obama's term ran out," comes across as awkward and not likely. People in high office (in the U.S) seem to constantly run on schedules. It is common in the upper echelons of the federal government to set goals, set milestones, and have deadlines. So "report back by January 2017," or " report on the issue by January, 2017" is correct. Also, I am noticing the POV edit, which is, leaving out "...to investigate Russian attempts to influence the election." In case anyone is wondering, the RS says, in so many words per report, Russian attempts to influence the election(s), meaning the 2016 election. And that is why the title of this article is what it is. If someone wishes, I am glad to provide plenty of RS right here in this section. Just say the word.
• No opinion on "Sergei Lavrov" - (but maybe his pants are on fire). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Size is report cover

Based on this edit [45] by user:JFG. The cover of the report should be bigger. You can't read the text on it or really see it.Casprings (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So what? People who want to read the report will click on it. By this logic, we can't really read the text of the other reports illustrated later in the article. — JFG ^talk 02:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Page presentation. If that is going to be displayed at the top(which it should be) it looks better if the reader can at least make out the text. Casprings (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The caption is good enough for this purpose. — JFG ^talk 02:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a slightly larger picture would be an improvement. Caption may be "good enough", but that's not the question. The question is, does a larger picture improve the page's display to the reader.Casprings (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if other editors care to comment… — JFG ^talk 03:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• The large pic looks a bit silly, unnecessary. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Upgrade

This is helpful. [46]. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I had just noticed the talk page was missing an AE notice which should accompany the article pagenotice. See Consensus provision: inconsistency with pagenotice. El_C 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is being discussed on a related thread at El_C talk page here [47] SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 25 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, [48] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [49] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [50], which was agreed to by myself [51] 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" [52] 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 [53]). 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. [54] 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)

@El C: are there any differences regarding rules on editing conduct between the "Ds/editnotice|1=1RR" and "2016 US Election AE" (that is, will the change make any difference here)? -Darouet (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Rubio's statement

Senator Rubio has recently stated that his presdential campaign team was unsuccesfully targeted for hacking by someone with an IP address from Russia. He didn't paint Russian government as the culprit however. I cannot figure out where to put this statement however. Any suggestions? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

CrowdStrike's fake quotes and fake information about claimed Russia hack

I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to other sources, CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. Did CrowdStrike fabricated evidence, fake quotes, fake information about the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections? CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.

Related articles and sources

• http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html
  • The Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) is the largest U.S. international broadcaster. — Francewhoa (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article140461978.html
  • Founded in 1903, The Miami Herald is the second largest newspaper in South Florida. — Francewhoa (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/
  • Preceding unsigned comment added by Francewhoa (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/03/28/crowdstike-revises-and-retracts-parts-of-explosive-russian-hacking-report/
  • Francewhoa (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/03/22/credibility-of-cyber-firm-that-claimed-russia-hacked-the-dnc-comes-under-serious-question/
  • Francewhoa (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• http://www.globalresearch.ca/fool-me-once-dnc-ally-crowdstrike-claimed-two-cases-of-russian-hacking-one-at-least-was-fake/5581368
• Related videos
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9cLw7ZfWaM&feature=youtu.be&t=4m14s
    • By Corbett Report — Francewhoa (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be
    • By H. A. Goodman

Francewhoa (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I'm familiar with this, having already updated a related article where it's relevant. CrowdStrike claims, controversially, that Fancy Bear distributed smartphone malware to Ukrainian military forces in the guise of an artillery firing solutions generator, and then used it to track a specific type of artillery piece on the battlefield. Previously CrowdStrike used third-party sources to assert that that particular piece had 80% losses, now using different third-party sources they assert it's more like 15-20%. The Ukrainian military has disputed both the claimed casualty numbers and the entire hacking claim all along. What this has to do with the DNC I have no idea, but Globalresearch.ca is a conspiracy theory website that frequently disseminates what appears to be pro-Russian misinformation and I cannot take seriously any suggestion it be used as a reliable source here. CrowdStrike lied to you is not supported by any evidence and should be struck. Geogene (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Geogene: :) Good point about CrowdStrike lied to you. I reworded that as a suggested question for discussion on this talk page: Did CrowdStrike fabricated evidences, fake quotes, fake information about the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections? Francewhoa (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Globalresearch is a junk source. It's a wacky conspiracy site. Counterpunch is not reliable as discussed previously. And seriously, HA Goodman? No, just no. VOA is probably reliable, especially if you can corroborate this story with other RSs in which case the text should be updated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: → Crowdstrike is the cybersecurity company hired by the DNC to determine who hacked their accounts: it took them a single day to determine the identity of the culprits – it was, they said, two groups of hackers which they named “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” affiliated respectively with the GRU, which is Russian military intelligence, and the FSB, the Russian security service. How did they know this? These alleged “hacker groups” are not associated with any known individuals in any way connected to Russian intelligence: instead, they are identified by the tools they use, the times they do their dirty work, the nature of the targets, and other characteristics based on the history of past intrusions. Yet as Jeffrey Carr and other cyberwarfare experts have pointed out, this methodology is fatally flawed. “It’s important to know that the process of attributing an attack by a cybersecurity company has nothing to do with the scientific method”... → Source: [55], please, read on. --87.156.228.243 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And as long as RS report this so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francewhoa: et al. → Here the PBS clip of Dmitri Alperovitch's PBS interview where he talked about his company's now debunked report on GRU-malware infecting a Ukrainian artillery-app that never actually happened, and couldn't have done what he claimed even if it did happen - with Crowdstrike’s Ukraine-GRU report “DNA Match”! LOL And Thomas Rid reader the Department of War Studies, King's College London dismissing criticism of Crowdstrike's debunked Ukraine-GRU report as either uninformed or politically motivated. LOL Rid and Alperovitch le duo comique du cyberwar:

• http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/security-company-releases-new-evidence-russian-role-dnc-hack (with Transcription) or via Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usx8bjKGV8

And here Jeffrey Carr’s conclusion (source: [56]):

"Part of the evidence supporting Russian government involvement in the DNC and related hacks (including the German Bundestag and France’s TV5 Monde) stemmed from the assumption that X-Agent malware was exclusively developed and used by Fancy Bear. We now know that’s false, and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia. The GRU, according to Crowdstrike, developed a variant of X-Agent to infect an Android mobile app in order to geolocate and destroy Ukraine’s D-30 howitzers. To do this, they chose an artillery app which had no way to send or receive data, and wrote malware for it that didn’t ask for GPS position information? Bitch, please." --87.159.119.106 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @87.159.119.106: for your contribution :) Related to that, thanks to WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 "Marble" published today March 31, 2017, we now know that the CIA has the capability of doing false flag hacks. Read more at https://wikileaks.org/vault7/?marble9#Marble%20Framework

CIA tactics are said to have involve a forensic "double game" where the CIA fools investigators into suspecting the wrong nations of hacking them. Do do their false flag hack, the CIA has created a framework "[d]esigned to allow for flexible and easy-to-use obfuscation" as "string obfuscation algorithms (especially those that are unique) are often used to link malware to a specific developer or development shop." In other words, according to WikiLeaks the CIA is capable of fooling hack private and corporate investigators such as CrowdStrike.

Francewhoa (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francewhoa: You're welcome. The poor people from the Crowdstrike, so embarrassing! Here one more for your list:

A Cyber-Gulf of Tonkin - There was no “Russian hacking” of the 2016 election → "So why would the nefarious albeit highly skilled Russians leave this glaring clue – in Cyrillic, no less! — for all to see? Or was this “clue” deliberate misdirection on the part of the real hackers? The latter seems highly likely – not that the geniuses over at CrowdStrike would want to understand this. After all, they were paid by the Democratic National Committee, which used the incident to drum up a narrative that the evil Russians were trying to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. Follow the money, folks – and Alperovitch’s position with the Atlantic Council, an organization that is assiduously trying to launch another cold war with Moscow.

Remember, the FBI never looked at the DNC servers: they depended on CrowdStrike — which has a $150,000 a year no bid contract to perform “security” services for the agency — to analyze the forensic evidence. Shawn Henry, CrowdStrike’s CSO and head of CrowdStrike Services, is a former assistant executive director of the FBI. ... So the truth is already out there. The question is, when will it be acknowledged?" --87.159.117.231 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Investigations

Seems like we need to start an article into the Congressional investigations or other investigations into the Russian and Trump circle matters. Checking to see whether that's been started yet? SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: so, iiuc, one article about Intelligence Community investigations and one about Congressional investigations? Humanengr (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No I meant Congressional and law enforcement, i.e. FBI/Federal prosecutors. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

So the new one would be titled "Congressional investigations into …" ? Humanengr (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know? Maybe "Official investigations..." SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

So "law enforcement" is not 'official'?? Humanengr (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean to say, "Law enforcement is not congressional?" Since the article apparently doesn't exist, we needn't name it yet. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Take 2 (from the top): When you said "Congressional investigations or other investigations", does that mean all investigations go into another article? Or do some investigations stay in this article? Humanengr (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I meant to say that a second article or series of articles may have more detailed treatment of various aspects of the Russian interference and its aftermath. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

In that vein, when you said "law enforcement, i.e. FBI/Federal prosecutors", did you mean that 'law enforcement' for these matters consists of 'FBI/Federal prosecutors' or did you mean something else? Humanengr (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you prefer tagliatelle or linguini for suco alle vongole? SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: (I'm trying to understand what you are saying.) In your view, does "law enforcement" include courts or some other adjudicating body? Humanengr (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Take 3 -- from your " the Russian interference": Has that been proven? By whom? Humanengr (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Assange denial

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 Julian Assange's assertion that the source of DNC leaks was not Russian be included in the lead section, just after the ODNI's assertion that it was? — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A section of the lead says:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.

We suggest to add:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of the documents.

Both assertions are sourced to several RS and are covered in the body text of the article. Discussion on the talk page has not resulted in consensus, therefore an RfC is appropriate. — JFG ^talk 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Answered below. — JFG talk 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Alright, I'll take your word for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Trust but Verify" -- [57] SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: WP:YOUTUBE WP:HUMOR WP:ISNOT a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, nor is it WP:DUE. Please WP:READ WP:WEIGHT, WP:LINKFARM, WP:V, WP:BALASP and WP:PROMOTIONAL . Also WP:REFRAIN from casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making WP:DISRUPTIVE comments. WP:FOCUS on WP:CONTENT. Consider this fair WP:WARNING. WP:THANK YOU Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please state your support or oppose stance with a brief rationale here.

• Oppose. I came here from the RfC notice. It seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to put that in the lead, because it in effect gives equal weight to Assange's claim and to the conclusions of the multiple agencies. It's entirely appropriate for the main text, with more context, but not worth an un-contextualized sentence in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not the conclusion of 17 agencies, it's a conclusion of a figurehead at the top of those 17 agencies. We have no idea what the rank and file in those 17 agencies belive, or even whether they even conducted their own independent investigations. Most likely not, since it would be way beyond the scope of the National Geospatial Intelligence agency or the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency.Jwray (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Assange is an interested party and it's not appropriate to suggest an equivalence between the National Intelligence Assessment and Assange's denial (regardless of the facts, one can expect the accused to deny the act). Also, it's not clear he would even know who did the hack. All he knows is who gave him the data. He doesn't claim that he did it all himself from the Ecuadoran Embassy. This cannot go in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Of course it should. I don't know why we're even debating this. Assange is central to this story (he heads Wikileaks, which released the emails), and his statement that Russia wasn't the source received wide coverage. We shouldn't be worrying about whether Assange's statement will detract from the statements of US intelligence agencies. That's a purely political consideration (do I want US intelligence agencies to look good or bad?), and it has no place in determining what goes into the article. What determines what goes into the article is notability, balance and sourcing. There's really no debate on those questions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish and my previous comment above. This is clearly undue for lede. Can be mentioned in the body of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is a long-standing principle in Wikipedia articles that when subjects are accused of crimes or other misleads that we report if they have denied them. That does not mean that we are giving parity to their claims. "People accused of crime" says, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." The least we can do is to mention they denied it. The fact that there is a political dimension should not matter. TFD (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"court of law"...(unless his name is Clapper) SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support look, it's just about due WP:WEIGHT -- and since the coverage saying Russia is about as prominent and common as the coverage of Assange says no, so it's put both in or put neither in. By simplistic Google count 'dnc leaks russia' is 800K hits and 'dnc leaks assange' is 560K hits -- so it seems only WP:DUE to put the denial alongside the charge and give both their attribution. Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: This is not about whether to include it in the article, just whether to put it in the lede. And while we have credible sources that tell us the hacks originated in Russia, the opinion of Assange as to their origin is sheer speculation. How would Assange know where they came from? Do you think the original hackers had any reason to trust him with the secret? These things are acquired via intermediaries. Assange knows no more than any other layman, and he's in the habit, per RS, of making self-serving statements of nonsense as if they were fact. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - WP:WEIGHT is fairly clear on if the coverage is equal then the article coverage should be equal. (Include all parts "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ) Seems if dnc wikileaks Russian is big enough to be in the lead then the roughly equally common mention of Assange denial should be roughly equal in the article. Just follow the cites. We should try to give article prominence as they do -- as best we can, anyway. Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There's more to it than counting googlies -- otherwise we could just write software that would cull WP from the internet. "Trump combover" gets 800,000 googles, but we don't put that in. SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict) The coverage about Assange's statement is not as prominent and not as common as the coverage about "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections". Rather coverage in WP:RS about Russian interference in US elections overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is at best inaccurate and most likely misleading; because it has no basis in fact. There is also plenty of RS to show that he had a political agenda when making this statement - another indication that the veracity of this statement is suspect. I don't mind covering this is in the article, but it would seriously mislead readers about the WEIGHT of this statement if it was placed in the lede (per Tryptofish above). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.Should certainly not be in the lead as proposed because it fundamentally lacks context and appears to give equal standing to a bare, unsupported denial. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Washington Post Fact Checker did an in-depth analysis of "Assange's claim that there was no Russian involvement in WikiLeaks emails" and found, noting that Assange provided no evidence for his claim: "The facts we know contradict Assange’s assurance, and the situation is much too complex for him to make such a sweeping statement...We award Assange Three Pinocchios for his distortion of the facts." Or take Pulitzer Prize-winning author Barton Gellman's point: "Wikileaks is engineered for mutual anonymity. Even if source IDs himself, how could WL know he isn’t laundering RU docs"? We cannot present Assange's statement in the lead without bringing this context to bear. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support:The relentless drive to purge the article of material that hasn't been approved by the CIA continues apace. This has been going on for months. Wikileaks, Russia, US authorities: 3 major actors involved. WP:DUE to mention claims of each in the lead. Assange claims that he did not get the leaks from the Russians, which may be true even if the latter were the hackers. Guccisamsclub (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Neutrality above. In the text, of course. But not in the lede - it's just one sentence out of one big article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The argument that Assange has provided no proof in his denial is ironic in an article premised upon a claim for which no proof has been provided. Those who opposed "alleged" in the article title I hope will practice consistency and demand we repeat his counter-claim as fact. But the truth of the thing is irrelevant – if we paint someone as a stooge or conspirator in a plot they deny we must include their denial, prominently. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Actually, there is plenty of proof that Russian hacking was intended to influence 2016 U.S.elections, as demonstrated by plethora of reliable sources in the main-space of this article, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a plethora of sources repeating ad libitum what the US intelligence agencies have stated, without providing solid proof other than "trust us, it's classified". Quantity of coverage for this aspect of the story doesn't make educated counterpoints less notable, particularly coming from a pivotal actor in the story. — JFG ^talk 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't agree it is ad libitum. It seems the sources approach the subject from many different angles, as evinced by the many sections in this article with a surprisingly large amount of WP:RS support. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Nobody knows whether Assange is telling the truth but Wikipedia policy requires WP:Verifiability, not truth. Assange's comments on the origin of the leaks are eminently DUE and notable because he has been questioned repeatedly by the press and gradually became more precise in his denial of Russian connections, making a dent in WikiLeaks' usual practice of neither confirming nor denying any reports on the identity of their sources. Besides, there is a BLP aspect to the accusations levied against Assange and WikiLeaks by the US Intelligence community and some politicians: his denial must be included next to the accusations, regardless of whether some Wikipedia editors believe him to be credible or not. — JFG ^talk 08:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality and others. I'm amused that some editors are pulling the WP:BLP card. Wikileaks is not a living person, in case that is not obvious.- MrX 11:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Assange is the accused, thus yes we should have his version of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - He is notable and credible in relation to the subject. Covered by many RS and given he is a central figure in the whole incident his statements are very DUE. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In two last "support" statements people argue that opinion by Assange should be included in the page. Yes, sure, and it is already included. It only should not be included in lede - per Neutrality and others above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As he should be, but I am saying its DUE that he be in the lead. Sorry for the confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You tell: Assange is "a central figure in the whole incident". What incident are you talking about? This page describes a large number of different events, and Assange is relevant to only one small subsection of this page, Wikileaks. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states: "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks". Yeah, that part. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it already tells about Wikileaks! Nothing else should be said about Wikileaks in Intro because it appears in only one small sub-section on the page, and we simply summarize content proportionately to its appearance in the body of the page. Actually, I am not entirely opposed to mentioning Wikileaks second time in the end of the paragraph: The Russian government and Wikileaks repeatedly denied they had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Lets see what it actually "tells": The Russian government repeatedly denied it had any involvement in the DNC hacks or leaks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I am telling it might be OK, in my opinion, to modify this phrase by adding "and Wikileaks". My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You're saying this why? The only difference between the RfC proposal and yours is that the latter is factually incorrect and unsourced. Let's get real. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The opinion of Mr. Assange is not equivalent to that of 17 agencies. Support this in the article only, not the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Moved thread into #17 agencies section below.) — JFG ^talk 06:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Is WP:UNDUE based on the amount of coverage given his denial from WP:RS. Moreover, there is good reason for this lack of coverage. 1. It is likely that the Russian's would have been given the emails by a third party. I am sure the way he got them wasn't someone directly connected to the Russian government. However, it isn't a creditable denial and he was never asked if he thought Russia was originally behind the hacking. 2. He clearly has an agenda. All that said, we should be driven by the WP:RS and how much coverage they provided. It is therefore WP:UNDUE. ---Casprings (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2017 --- ((I fixed the signature for Casprings, for this Ivote, per edit history - see diff here ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC).))

Besides all the OR listed, there is quite a lot of WP:RS coverage of his statement and the impact of it. It is also a creditable denial that Wikileaks did not receive the documents from the Russian government. Questions he was not asked are irrelevant. So since it received substantial coverage from RS and he is a key figure in the scandal there is no doubt his assertion is WP:DUE for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the lead, per WP:DUE. Further, the fact that these files were posted on Wikileaks and not some other random website, document dump, or newspaper is not of central importance to the subject matter. The only thing that matters is that the content was published. If Assange must have a right of reply, then we can exclude any mention of Wikileaks in the lead. If this is a distraction, let's get rid of it. Geogene (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Geogene per their above comment and their edit history comment "...we can remove Wikileaks from the Lead entirely. It doesn't really matter whose website the leaked documents were leaked to. The point is that they got out." Geogne makes a really good point here by presenting a middle ground. (In other words), leaving Wikileaks out seems to be a good idea, because this not "of central importance." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of unsupported opinion in the lead. There’s a whole slew of interviews like this one cited in the NY Times where Assange was saying that "no one knows who our source is". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Is WP:UNDUE based on the amount of coverage given to his denial in WP:RS. Also point out that Assange is not in any meaningful sense 'the accused', since HE is certainly not the source, and may well have no idea who original source was. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The vast bulk of this article is about material that was leaked by Wikileaks, and supposedly given to Wikileaks by "Russia." Assange, Wikileaks' founder, states that Russia wasn't the source of the material. Assange's statement has been abundantly documented in high quality sources, and efforts to remove his statement are part of a longstanding campaign to remove all but U.S. intelligence agency statements from the lead. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal isn't neutral because it places Assange on par with a large number of much more reliable sources. Although it could be reworded to make this disparity clear, e.g., "Although Assange has claimed,..." the lead is already quite long and doesn't have room for that level of detail. Save for the body of the article. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Assange's denial has been reported very widely by an extraordinary number of reliable sources. A 6 word sentence acknowledging this is not WP:UNDUE. People are just using WP:UNDUE as an excuse for POV-pushing by suppressing well sourced information that conflicts with Clapper's assessment.Jwray (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Definitely notable for the body of article but presenting in lede assigns undue weight to what is at this point an assertion supported in a minority of reliable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCE -- RYPJack(talk) 04:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly WP:UNDUE. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yes, certainly. This article is about documents leaked through Wikileaks, who are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, so Wikileaks is clearly relevant - this isn't an irrelevant third party. The first three paragraphs of the article contain 259 words explaining the Intelligence Community's position; it is nowhere near undue prominence to add 15 words mentioning that one of the major actors involved has disputed this position. TSP (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assange is one person who claims to have secret, stolen info, and appears to have multiple axes on a grinding wheel. I can see a qualified mention in the text. I don’t see this at the top. The lead is too long as it is. This should be the first text to go. WP:UNDUE Objective3000 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Assange denial discussion

Please move any longer arguments on the merits of inclusion or exclusion here.

@JFG: Who is "we" ? SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Question for OP -- Wherever he got the material he claims is hacked DNC emails, how would Assange necessarily know who actually did the hacking and whether the stuff was authentic/unadulterated? SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's really no point in us speculating on what Assange may or may not know. He's a central figure in the publication of the emails, and he made statements about the source of the leaks that received wide coverage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It goes in the article, just not the lede. Do you know who is "we" ?? JFG seems to be on respite. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's important enough to go in the lede. Our speculation about what Assange actually knows, or about how putting his statements next to those of US intelligence officials might cause readers to perceive US intelligence agencies really has nothing to do with whether this should be in the lede or not. I don't even see why we're debating this. It just seems so obvious that Assange's statement about the source of the hacking is one of the most notable elements of this subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"it's obvious" is not an effective form of discussion. That's obvious. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting this lede would be UNDUE. Although his statement garnered RS, there is also RS to support he had a political agenda for making this statement. This indicates that he is being less than truthful. Also, he is not a cybersecurity expert and not an espionage expert on par with reputable cybersecurity firms. Anyway, the RS pertaining to this topic (generally or specifically) overwhelmingly indicates that his statement is not accurate and probably misleading, and that it is just a POV statement. It is little more than a guy on the corner telling me the same. He is hardly remarkable, other than Wikileaks is his progeny. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

What does it matter if Assange had a political agenda, or if his statement was false (and I don't agree that that's obvious)? It's a widely covered statement by a figure at the center of this issue. You guys keep making arguments about why you don't believe Assange, or why you think that putting Assange's statement in the lede will make US intelligence seem less credible, or about how you think Assange is politically motivated. Those would all be fair points to make on a political discussion board, but not when considering what to include in a Wikipedia article. The question here is whether Assange's statement is notable enough to go in the lede, and it clearly is notable enough. The endless political arguments here get really tiring, because they have nothing to do with article quality, and everything to do with pushing a certain point of view in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that the test? If so and it can be shown that those alleging Russian involvement may also have political agendas should we exclude claims of Russian involvement from the lede as well? Nonsense. I agree with Thucydides411: these conversations are off-topic and irrelevant. Repeated, they become disruptive. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think someone or some editors are being disruptive then I suggest taking this complaint to the appropriate venue. This is not about talk page suppression, and I don't recognize your authority to suppress talk page comments. Also, I think accusations of disruption are in themselves disruptive. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Umm, Steve, are you addressing me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Steve Quinn: please refrain from calling others disruptive after you recently launched three unproductive AE cases in short succession against editors who happened to disagree with you about the contents of this article. — JFG talk 09:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Who's "we"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Per Thucydides411 - who at least has something salient to offer to the conversation, in contrast to a lecture by J.J.L. Assange is not at the center of this issue. The RS supporting Russian interference of the 2016 election and its ancillary tributaries (figure of speech), exceedingly surpasses Assange's several worded statement asserting Russia did not do the deed. He is a lone voice in the wilderness that happened to receive modest coverage.

It is a case of UNDUE and WEIGHT. Assange is expressing a marginal and fringe view, which is overwhelmingly countered by mainstream RS. Nuetrality (above) has pretty much demolished the argument that Assange has any sort of parity with mainstream coverage that counters his (Assange's) view. Per UNDUE:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views...Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute

Therefore, Assange should not be in the lede. As Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it is important to point out whether or not Assange is credible or not, according to mainstream sources. Not an editor's opinion. So perhaps my comments were taken out of context. I was referring to how main stream sources attribute Assange's comments. And this matters, because Wikipedia strives for accuracy per WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, since his is a minority opinion or view, it does not deserve parity or a place in the lede.

As an aside, Assange is not credible, and he was motivated by a political agenda. His opinion doesn't count for much. OH no, I did it again, is J.J.L going to take me to ANI or AE? Assange might be dissembling too, maybe - oops! --- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what WP editors think about Assange's credibility, but as it happens, Assange and WikiLeaks have a pretty long track record of publishing leaked documents that were proven to be authentic and truthful, irrespective of the political consequences involved: Cablegate, Iraq War Logs, Stratfor emails, TPP draft, etc. Uncomfortable? Certainly. Partisan? Probably. Credible? Definitely. — JFG ^talk 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• JFG I hope you can find this comment :>). Sincerely, I am not trying to express a personal opinion about Assange. That last comment, after I wrote "As an aside..." was probably not a good idea because I was being a little flippant. Let us just stay with my comments pertaining to what I think reliable sources say. And you make a good point - that Assange did at one time provide a service to the world without presenting a political agenda - by publishing leaked documents. Wikileaks is still providing that service - and it is baffling why Assange picked sides during our 2016 president election. In any case, picking sides or not, I try to speak through what I see reliable sources saying, nothing more - and it is the same for any Wikipedia pages I edit. Hopefully this makes sense. And this doesn't mean other opinions should not exist. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• (Redacted) --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about disruptive editing – Politrukki (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, who in the heck is "we"? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Let me echo that (again) - who's we JFG? The Delian League or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "We" in my RfC statement refers to the editor(s) who originally placed Assange's denial in the lead (no idea who this might be) and those who argued for its reinsertion (I'm part of them, so that's "we" not "I"). I don't understand why you all are so hung up on this question – WP:There is no cabal. — JFG talk 09:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG:Sorry, but that response makes no sense, and I don't see how it could be considered credible by anyone who examines it. You wrote "We suggest". Now, that doesn't just say that you expect others will agree with you. That is plain English for a joint statement. So please give a more complete explanation. Who do you speak for when you say "we suggest"? How do you know what others suggest? Which others? WP editors don't talk like that when posting RfC's, so it's real weird. It's reasonable to get to the bottom of it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) There's nothing more to it than what I wrote here. Some people will agree with the suggestion, some will disagree, that much is already apparent in the first batch of responses to the RfC, an exact 7-7 split so far. — JFG talk 14:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) C'mon Champ. That's the old turkey trot. Who did you know would agree with it? Who is "we"? Deflection is a tough bit on WP because everyone's focused on words and facts. Could you show us a couple other RfC's where the proposer is speaking for a group of We's? Cause what you "wrote here" looks pretty, um, problematic. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Please stop casting aspersions. — JFG talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Aspersions" would be unfounded. Here what "we" have is you slipping and wording the RfC in a way which strongly suggests you're coordinating with others off wiki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Enough hounding of JFG, already. Can we stay on subject? If not, someone might mention the Eastern European Mailing List, and then Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes will get upset. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC) So you guys aren't coordinating off wiki? Reason I ask, is because I have some advice for you: don't do it. Nice attempt at deflection though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Thucydides411: Dang, golly whiz. This gets curiouser and curiouser. This time it's Thucydides. How many "we's" are making that personal attack? 2? 3? 4? 5-1/2? Ask Mr. Ernie whether that's a smart move. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC) As a matter of principle, I do not communicate off-wiki with anyone. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? — JFG talk 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - BLP is a Wikipedia policy., not a US Intelligence policy or a Congressional policy. Also, it is not Wikipedia editor's saying he is not credible. What is being said is reliable sources are reporting the reliability Assange's statement to determine whether it lacks credibility. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement does not need to not be credible. Its entirely possible that Wikileaks source for the info was not in fact Russia, which as far as I can see is all Assange has asserted. This is not contradictory to Russia arranging for the info to be hacked and passed on to Wikileaks by a third party. Assange going 'We didnt get this from Russia' can be 100% true in that situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead states that Russia leaked the data to Wikileaks, according to US intel. This implicates Assange in a relationship with Russian spies. So Assange says Wikileaks did not get the material from Russia. Either you present both claims in the lede, or you present none. This is stupid simple. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that Assange has a relationship with Russian spies. Or that Assange even knows the ultimate origin of the content in question. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Legal persons and groups" says, "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." Furthermore, Assange is an expert on the leaking of documents. TFD (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

17 agencies

(Discussion moved here in reply to SusanLesch's comment in the survey)

• Oppose. The opinion of Mr. Assange is not equivalent to that of 17 agencies. Support this in the article only, not the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the report and you'll see that only 3 agencies actually authored to it: NSA, CIA, FBI (nope, not Coast Guard Intelligence etc.) As Time put it: "not all participated". Contrast this with the de-classified—and utterly mistaken—2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, where 10 agencies directly and explicitly participated in the actual preparation of the report. The stuff about this being the "conclusion of 17 agencies" has a definite source: a tweet from Hillary Clinton that was inexplicably endorsed as "100% true" by Politifact on the basis of the fact that "James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group (of 17 agencies)." (just like your manager at work speaks "on behalf" you and and everyone else under his thumb, regardless of their actual opinions or knowledge) Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub presents a strawman here. SusanLesch didn't mention the unclassified report, only Guccisamsclub did. She is referring to what reliable sources have covered about 17 (or 18 agencies) determining that Russia, under Putin's direction did hack and with the intent to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. He also presents another strawman here by introducing the 2002 Intelligence report. User:SusanLesch did not mention that either.

Then another confounding statement - referring to Twitter, which is not part of the reliable sourcing in the main stream press that covered the conclusion by 17 U.S. agencies. And that bit about James Clapper "rules" over all these agencies and speaks for all of them is not based on facts. To wit: "US spy CHIEFS insisted Thursday they have strong evidence that Russia mounted an unprecedented bid to disrupt the American election" [58]; "U.S. intelligence CHIEFS (say): Russia meddled in 2016 election through hacking, propaganda" [59]Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when reading the sources carefully and paying attention to the chronology, a lot of the "unanimous agreement" can be traced to John O. Brennan's letter to his staff at the CIA, which was then leaked to the press by CIA officials. The FBI and the NSA participated in the JAR and ODNI reports but declined to comment on conclusions (see the huge disclaimer on the front page), and the multiple other agencies were totally uninvolved. — JFG ^talk 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually not seeing that discalimer either in the JAR or the ICA. Explicitly, the JAR was prepared by DHS and FBI, while the ICA was prepared by FBI, NSA, CIA. There is indeed no evidence that any other agencies—most of which know nothing about cyber war—had input. Steve is the only one here who still seems to believe in these 17 agencies. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My !vote pertains only to the proposal as outlined above. Guccisamsclub has an argument with someone else. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem was your justification not the !vote itself. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
No, I think the problems' are your justifications for fringe viewpoints. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) And I forgot to mention you seem to like creating ref-bombs ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC) No, the problem is that you've nothing substantive to say about the topic, and are therefore reduced to launching hypocritical and absurd personal attacks.Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, once again, it seems User:Guccisamsclub offers fictional descriptions rather than factual reality. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence

The "include" view is largely based on a false equivalence. The topic of the article is the Russian interference by Russians. Therefore we can state that the Russians denied it, because, hey, they should know, right? If the topic were "leaks by Assange" then he could deny that because he knows whether he leaked. But Assange can't say whether the Russians hacked because, how would he know?? He might know or he might not know. So we can still put it in the article, maybe, even though it's kind of like my nephew who thinks it was really the Aussies or the Pomeranians. So please, no false equivalence between objects of two logically different categories. SPECIFICO talk 05:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the WP:SCOPE of the article. The issue is not just whether Russia or not hacked the DNC, but also how, as well as who else was involved and if so how. And even if the scope was as narrow as you imply, it would still not make the question of who handed the data directly to Wikileaks immaterial. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, at all. He has not asserting the Russians had nothing to do with it. He is saying Wikileaks did not receive the documents from Russia. Also since Wikileaks alleged involvement with the Russians was originally stated as a vehicle for the Russian interference. It is notable and widely covered. PackMecEng (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The accusation is that Assange received the emails from Russians, which he denies. TFD (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Directly from the Russians? Why is that important? This article is about the Russians' hacking, not how they got the goods into Assange's hands, right? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is extensively covered above. PackMecEng (talk) 01:40, 6 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.

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, [60] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [61] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [62], which was agreed to by myself [63] 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" [64] 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 [65]). 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. [66] 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)

Removal of Trump administration section

This SECOND(!) removal is rather surprising. It involves FOUR types of violations. Besides being (1) edit warring and a blatant (2) disregard for WP:BRD, it's also a clear (3) violation of the discretionary sanctions posted at the top of this page, and lastly (4) violates Preserve (fix rather than delete content and sources).

JFG, please self-revert and start a section here to discuss the matter. I agree that it's a bit confusing, so don't give up. An option is to convince other editors to move it here and work on it, and THEN restore it, but get that agreement first.

A few questions to ponder: Would that section, or its contents, be more appropriate somewhere else in the article? Can it be covered in some other section? Is it already covered elsewhere in the article? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I'll revert. Wasn't technically a DS violation though. But certainly per BRD it's better to discuss. I'm just too tired to discuss it. I don't understand what it means at all, and reading the sources hasn't helped me. If VM or another editor can make sense of it, I'll be grateful for an explanation. I'm not the right person to do the rewrite, given I'm clueless on what message this prose is supposed to convey. — JFG ^talk 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, whatever it means, it belongs in the Donald Trump section below, or perhaps a subsection of that. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Get some rest. There's no rush. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, this paragraph is important and belongs to the page - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Do you understand what this paragraph means? If you do, kindly explain it to me, because I still can't make any sense of it. — JFG ^talk 01:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That one? OK, it tells that "Trump administration ... was unsuccessful in getting help from the FBI" to disprove news reports about connections of Trump (or his top managers) with Russian officials during the election campaign. If it was not sufficiently clear, that should be written better - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, if that's the message, it sounds pretty minor and undue commentary. I still think it can be removed without damaging the article. Besides, in that section, it's completely out of context; if we keep it, that should go in the whole section on inquiries about potential Trump team collusion with Russia. I have no time today, but please go ahead if you feel in writing mood… — JFG ^talk 06:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The attempts to suppress the press by Trump administration (as relates to the case of "Russian interference") is not anything minor. To the contrary, this must be expanded and explained better. I do not think anyone would be opposed to rewriting and possibly extending this, but removing as you just did [67] is not the way. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't even really figure out what that section is supposed to be about. It says it's about the Trump administration, but then it discusses Nunes. It's just poorly written, and it's unclear what, if anything, it adds to the article. I'm all for balance, so including how the Trump administration has reacted to the scandal would be important. However, this section just needs replacement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)