Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

"Actions by Russia that affected the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election"

Somebody created a search-autocomplete entry for this article which declares in Wikipedia's voice that Russia's actions "affected the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election".

This unsourced and arguably false claim is nowhere in the article and thus should be removed from related search-engine fluff.

The JSON file is contained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&generator=prefixsearch&prop=pageprops%7Cpageimages%7Cpageterms&redirects=&ppprop=displaytitle&piprop=thumbnail&pithumbsize=80&pilimit=6&wbptterms=description&gpssearch=russian%20in&gpsnamespace=0&gpslimit=6&callback=callbackStack.queue%5B18%5D

I don't know how to edit it, if I even have such access. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That search phrase doesn't autocomplete for me. How do you know that someone created it?- MrX 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it is contained in the pageterms/autocomplete entry table, which you can confirm either by following the link to it above, or by typing "Russian i" into the Wikipedia search box (i.e. the word "Russian" followed by the first letter of the word "interference"). Factchecker_atyourservice 18:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you type "Russian i" into the search box, "Actions by Russia that affected the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election" would not logically appear in the list, and it doesn't. I have no idea what the perceived issue is. Readers don't read the results of JSON queries when reading articles.- MrX 18:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that if you start typing the title of this article into Wikipedia's search box, Wikipedia responds by displaying the text I quoted. I'm not sure why you're speculating that it wouldn't happen, because I've just told you it does and explained how you can confirm that for yourself.

I'm not sure what your confusion is. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happens with WP search, which is not easy to use in any event, there must be some more appropriate and effective place to raise whatever concerns you may have. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's a better place to discuss it than the article talk page I'm all ears—otherwise further offtopic comments won't be helpful. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"if you start typing the title of this article into Wikipedia's search box, Wikipedia responds by displaying the text I quoted." It doesn't do that for me, nor would I expect it to. Try the Village Pump/technical and/or clear your browser cache. It has nothing to do with content of this article.- MrX 19:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just user error on your part. It's right there in the second entry in the list. It appears there because the JSON file is called by the search script, which extracts the inappropriate text from the JSON file and displays it in the results. It has zero to do with my "browser cache". Factchecker_atyourservice 19:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The confusion is that it does not occur in the search on this page. It occurs on the main page. But, this is not the place to repair it. Objective3000 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Using my browser and skin, it does not appear on the main page either. If I type "Russian i" in the search box, the second thing to appear is the actual title of this article. I have never seen the wording described by FactChecker, anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. And I just checked using the mobile app on my phone. Still not there. Has it been fixed, or was this never a thing? --MelanieN (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It occurs here in a subheading to the second entry. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, THAT main page! And a subheading. Well, I agree it is inappropriate, but I wonder how big of a problem it really is. --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it.- MrX 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Change title to "Allegations of Russian interference..."

Title as it stands is highly POV and does not reflect that most reliable sources refer to the narrative of Russian interference as alleged. US intelligence agencies are not themselves a reliable source, obviously. Why has this not been changed after so much dispute? It seems in any event we should lean toward the more careful title, but in this case the actual documentary evidence from sources is overwhelming. Including "Alleged" or "Allegations of" in the title should seem to be rather unobjectionable. This should happen as soon as possible. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just spent some time reading through Talk, oh my this has been going on for a while. We need another RfC on the article's title as soon as possible. The original title is biased, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, not carrying water for a particular political faction. Adlerschloß (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What we do not need is to have an RFC on this on a monthly basis. The same arguments will be had, and the same votes made and the same result will occur.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Adler, why would you expect the outcome to be any different this month? Have you considered that? Maybe come back in a year when more is known about the Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If there is presently no proof of interference, shouldn't the article title reflect that? Wouldn't it be better to have the most careful and accurate title possible? If or when interference allegations are proved, wouldn't that be the point at which the current title would be NPOV? I am not sure how anyone familiar with this case and the demonstrable lack of proof of interference (which has been repeatedly acknowledged even by supporters of the interference narrative) could argue against including "allegations" in the title. I for one would like to argue the case at RfC, as I had not been aware an article title so egregious was on our encyclopedia. Adlerschloß (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"IF". That's where you go wrong. Several competing cybersecurity companies found good evidence. Read the article! The rest of your reasoning, having started on a false basis, can be ignored. There is evidence. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are these companies reliable sources per our standards? Some of them, such as Crowdstrike, are not even reliable sources in contexts of computer security discourse.

[1] "No smoking gun ... but evidence suggests"

"Were the hackers who broke into the DNC's email really Russian?" [2]

But among private-sector computer security companies, not everybody thinks the case is proven.

“I have no problem blaming Russia for what they do, which is a lot,” said Jeffrey Carr of the international cybersecurity company Taia Global Inc. “I just don’t want to blame them for things we don’t know that they did. It may turn out that they’re guilty, but we are very short on evidence here.”

As Carr notes, the FBI never examined the servers that were hacked at the Democratic National Committee. Instead, the DNC used the private computer security company CrowdStrike to detect and repair the penetrations.

“All the forensic work on those servers was done by CrowdStrike, and everyone else is relying on information they provided,” said Carr. “And CrowdStrike was the one to declare this the work of the Russians.”

The CrowdStrike argument relies heavily on the fact that remnants of a piece of malware known as AGENT-X were found in the DNC computers. AGENT-X collects and transmits hacked files to rogue computers.

“AGENT-X has been around for ages and ages, and its use has always been attributed to the Russian government, a theory that’s known in the industry as ‘exclusive use,’” Carr said. “The problem with exclusive use is that it’s completely false. Unlike a bomb or an artillery shell, malware doesn’t detonate on impact and destroy itself. ...

Carr said he is aware of at least two working copies of AGENT-X outside Russian hands. One is in the possession of a group of Ukrainian hackers he has spoken with, and the other is with an American cybersecurity company. “And if an American security company has it, you can be certain other people do, too,” he said.

There’s growing doubt in the computer security industry about CrowdStrike’s theories about AGENT-X and Russian hackers, Carr said, including some critical responses to a CrowdStrike report on Russian use of the malware to disable Ukrainian artillery.

There is absolutely not consensus among private computer security security companies that Russia is to blame. At most one can say there is circumstantial evidence that appears to point to Russia, but that of course is not "proof" -- and even that rests on the credibility of a single company, CrowdStrike, which was recently discredited following their false attribution of another hack (in Ukraine) to Russia. Other computer security professionals are agnostic or skeptical about the narrative. Adlerschloß (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Adlerschloß I'm afraid you have captured the spirit of this page, Groundhog Day… It goes like this: new people show up calling the article biased, defenders of the status quo call them fringe POV disruptors, some regulars point out the article has been flawed from day one, defenders call the arguments a dead horse, and everybody leaves exhausted. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And then there are statements like this:

::I'm guessing there's an article in SD Zeitstuff that says 2/17 = "nearly half?" SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

which prompted me to create the Dis-counting section immediately above in order to get a better sense of the numbers. If things run true to form, my posting of this msg or the thread will prompt a threat.Humanengr (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you Google alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎, obviously you will find sources that have used alleged because that’s what you have asked Google to cherry pick. However, if you perform the same search without alleged, you will find copious RS that do not use the word. You will still find the word allege here and there, but, mostly as to the purpose of the interference, not to whether there was interference. Objective3000 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The first page of Google results without the word alleged are generally referring to the title of a US intelligence report (which, again, is itself clearly not a reliable source), or are quoting figures like John MCain and Dick Cheney. What reliable sources actually state that interference occurred? Certainly no proof has been publicised and this itself has been repeatedly acknowledged -- see:

U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It Up [3]

[4] ("No smoking gun, but evidence suggests a Russian source for the cyber attacks on Democrats.")

[5] ("No smoking gun for Russian DNC hacks")

[6] ("It certainly remains plausible that Russians hacked the DNC, and remains possible that Russia itself ordered it. But the refrain of Russian attribution has been repeated so regularly and so emphatically that it’s become easy to forget that no one has ever truly proven the claim.")

Noam Chomsky says claims of Russian interference have made the US the laughingstock of the world. Matt Taibbi has characterised the narrative as a yet to be proven conspiracy theory. Stephen Cohen at The Nation has challenged and deconstructed the narrative. Clearly whether there is even any actual proof at all of these allegations is a matter that itself is being heavily discussed and debated by leading American commentators and academics -- that alone signifies that these are allegations, so of course the best article title would reflect that. The entire narrative of Russian "interference" is arguably false, and obviously has not been proved. There seems to be no valid argument whatsoever to not include the word allegations in the title. Adlerschloß (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

However, if you look at the article intro, you will find that it focuses on U.S. government actions (investigations, warnings, …). Those RS's that 1) don't speak in terms of 'alleged' or 'accused', or 2) cite the Oct 2016 or Jan 2017 report without repeating verbatim the words from the reports, have a biased agenda, and hence are not 'reliable' despite (or because of) their editorial review. Humanengr (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The NYT and WaPo are secondary sources and do not have a biased agenda. Objective3000 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The NYT and WaPo are secondary sources and do not have a biased agenda that is shown every time they fail on my points 1 and 2 above. Humanengr (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course newspapers have a bias, as do national intelligence agencies. Plus different outlets, and sometimes the same outlet, will frame their language in different terms, often not with any substantive purpose sentence by sentence (ie sometimes they will talk about "allegations"; other times they will not). And the allegations of interference are of course exactly that – allegations – just as the "conclusions" of US intelligence agencies are exactly that, conclusions of those agencies, nothing more. They are not courts of law or arbiters of fact. It is reasonable for this page to state this is what the agencies, with some equivocation, have stated. However, it should also frame the overall issue as one of alleged interference, both as to its existence and as to its scope. Sadly, political discourse in the US over this issue has become, for want of better words, somewhat deranged and paranoid. Perhaps this page could rise above that and be a bit more objective, and accept that *no one knows* what happened, if anything, yet? N-HH talk/edits 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: I agree basically 100% with your above statement. The major problem with this article, in my opinion, is that it fails to divide between what is known as fact, and what is allegation. We've had a discussion above about the use of "alleged" in sources, and I think it's clear that most reliable sources are treating "Russian interference in the 2016 US elections" as an allegation, rather than describing it as a fact. This article tends to state the allegation much more forcefully than most reliable sources do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that WaPo and NYT are not RS, you are on the wrong page and further discussion here will be fruitless. Take it to WP:RSN (and don’t tell them I sent you). Meanwhile, I'll ignore the characterizations of the work of other editors in your concluding sentences. Objective3000 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are reliable by WP standards in a general sense. It doesn't follow that WP includes everything they say and does so in the exact same terms every writer on them – on occasion – might happen to say it. N-HH talk/edits 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

++ I was about to write something similar. Not everything from those sources deemed 'reliable' in a general sense are 'reliable' all the time or any part of the time on a given issue. Humanengr (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP uses reliable sources. Not reliable sources when you agree with them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT Objective3000 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. It's not whether I "agree with them"; it's whether they fail on my points 1 or 2 above. They can't change the language without evidencing bias. Humanengr (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has gone on entirely too long. I have no idea what your points 1 & 2 are. Has it not occurred to you that you are exhibiting bias? Objective3000 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Point #2: Those RS's that cite the Oct 2016 or Jan 2017 report without repeating verbatim the words from the reports. They change the language. That's bias. Humanengr (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We use secondary sources when possible; not primary sources. This is NOT an example of bias. Objective3000 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

1) You are switching the discussion to what "we use" without addressing my point that any 'RS' that cites without repeating verbatim is biased. 2) On your point: There are plenty of 2ary sources that are not biased -- i.e., those that repeat verbatim the words from the reports. Humanengr (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What Wikipedia guideline says that? Your definition of bias does not appear to match the WP guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RS#News organizations states

"'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The 'error' here is the bias. Any characterization of what the PS's stated or 'concluded' except verbatim quotes introduces bias. Humanengr (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000:Thx for continuing to work through this. Humanengr (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: You're agreeing with me but not with various others here. Re: "the allegations of interference are of course exactly that – allegations" -- that is at the core of the debate here. Those who are, in effect, in control of the page here choose not to phrase the first sentence (or the title) in terms of 'alleged' (or 'accused'. Humanengr (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'error' is your insistence that your opinion is correct, and other people are wrong; which, I believe, you were told elsewhere. One of the points of a talk page is to be convincing. You are not. You are disrupting by continually repeating the same thing. Sorry, but frankly, it's boring. It's a waste of the time of other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000:Rather than address the issue of bias in 2ary sources, you first switch the topic to what 'we use'; then again instead of addressing the issue of bias in 2ary sources -- and in response to my civil gesture -- you resort to vapid accusations. You have not addressed my point that changing words changes meaning. It's a simple point. Humanengr (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are WP guidelines. But, they do not apply to newspapers. They regularly apply their own research. This is why the NYT has won over 100 Pulitzers. Newspapers don’t simply echo the words of others. This is not bias. It is investigative journalism. Objective3000 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, newspapers "regularly apply their own research", "don’t simply echo the words of others", and do "investigative journalism" -- but when they cite a source and state -- without qualification -- 'source x concluded that y' when source x "concluded with high confidence that y", that is bias. Humanengr (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, with high confidence adds emphasis. Concluded does not mean proved. There is always some level of confidence associated with a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Jan 2017 report used the words "with high confidence" in the report's Key Highlights: "We assess <x, y, and z>. We have high confidence in these judgments." So nothing was added. Removing "with high confidence" removes THE SOURCE's qualification. What harm is there in including those 3 words? Humanengr (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it in the secondary source? Why add it? Respected sources often remove hyperbole in non-quotes. You are claiming bias when the "qualification" suggests the opposite of the bias you claim. Seriously, if you actually believe that the NYT is biased, take it to RSN. This is a pointless discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

hyperbole: "Deliberate or unintentional overstatement, particularly extreme overstatement." Per the source, DNI:

What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language

We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate—and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely—to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge. …

Confidence in Assessments. Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that varies in scope, quality and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments, as follows:

High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong. …

Where do you see 'hyperbole' in that? Humanengr (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely everything has a risk of being wrong. You have shown no bias by NYT or WaPo. This discussion is fruitless. If you have a problem with these sources, take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, what is the harm in adding the 3 words? Or saying 'accused' or saying 'alleged'? Humanengr (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Allow me to phrase that another way: Do you think the average reader will conclude from the opening phrase "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered" that Russia interfered? Humanengr (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. I don't find this discussion useful. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- as I've stated earlier, the article is really about Investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Is WP:RM perhaps in order? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No it isn't - MrX 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add that the usage of the term "Alleged" is absolutely in order, for a number of reasons. The specific %/net usage of the term by news sources is not particularly relevant, but it does matter. PBS and NPR have virtually the same editorial stance, and they usually use "alleged," but they have also said simply "Russian meddling" without clearly specifying a verdict on the matter, and sometimes, if this is even the specific event they are referring to (though it makes sense, in those cases, to assume that it is). Adlerschloß is absolutely correct to advocate that Wikipedia adopt this more careful language, since a number of prominent, reliable sources continue to use the term. What makes the usage of the term unique/relevant is that it persists in reliable journalism; only if the term were absent, would it be safe to say that journalists believe the charge to be proven, and that consumers should be told that this meddling is now a known fact. Because it is not known, journalists sometimes more cautiously call the meddling "alleged," and sometimes not. Those reliable journalists who do not use the term are not, for the most part, endorsing the notion that they have facts the other journalists don't have. Just because there is a consensus/bias that Wikipedia should tacitly endorse a POV which obfuscates the reality of the evidence and investigations, doesn't mean that it should. Wikipedia should not be "more confident" in US intelligence agency statements than leading US news sources which almost always use the US gov't as their most trusted source. 71.2.162.64 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and the omission of newer information

This article makes little or no mention of the intelligence community's revised conclusions, instead treating the conclusions they came to in 2016 as final. National intelligence agencies have since revised their conclusions and admitted to uncertainty about Russian involvement in the elections. The very first sentence of this article implies that US intelligence agencies are still certain of Russian involvement, and will be interpreted by the majority of readers as if it were still the case. Please update this article to reflect the newer information. 204.77.37.230 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources please?- MrX 21:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Currently trying to find them again - but either way, calling it "interference" is implying that it prevented the election system from working the way it is intended to. Can releasing the truth really be called "interference", regardless of who released it or why? If they released lies and the democrats denied them, and there was no proof, then it would be interference. ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, true fake news is ok, just not fake fake news. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps you're confusing "influence" with "interference"? If you read past the lead of the article and examine some of the cited sources, you should see why "interference" is a good word to describe what happened. I look forward to seeing your sources supporting that "the intelligence community's revised [its] conclusions".- MrX 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, why is the opening paragraph cited to a news report from a month before the election? --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The lede summarizes the many RS that discuss interference and are cited throughout the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Then if it's true ant it's "concluded" in October 2016, what exactly is the FBI investigating as the Director said in March? --DHeyward (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As of October, Russia was known to have interfered in the election. As of March, the FBI was investigating whether the Trump campaign was complicit in that interference. [7] Geogene (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

One interesting new development: the campaign of the "interference" was planned by an intelligence "think tank" led by Mikhail Fradkov ([8]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The "think tank" is ru:Российский институт стратегических исследований (no English page), now debated in Russian language press [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thank you very much @My very best wishes:. I was just about to start a stub in English. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian Institute for Strategic Studies stub done. Corrections welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there an Admin in the house?

Do not bring requests for discretionary sanctions here. Editors who do so may be sanctioned themselves. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet another flagrant DS violation, this time in the form of another 1RR breach by @JFG: 06:54, 21 April 2017 22:48, 21 April 2017 The second of which is part of a slo-mo edit war misrepresenting the cited source's term "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" (omitted from edit summary) which he'd purged at least once previously here [10]. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Wrong venue. WP:AE ← is this way. (bis, ter or quater ? You threaten me so often I'm losing track ) — JFG talk 08:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) @JFG: Any uninvolved admin (*raises hand*) may enforce discretionary sanctions. The second diff shows a manual revert (rather than an undo) but still a second revert within 17 hours of the previous revert. Since it happened over ten hours ago and other editors have acted since then, I will have to say that it's stale. That said, JFG, you did violate 1RR and so are in the wrong on this matter. Maybe you went to sleep and forgot or something, I don't know, but perhaps you should be thinking in terms of "1 revert every 36 hours" to avoid that happening again. If you continue to violate 1RR on this article, you can be blocked or topic banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) I agree this is the wrong forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Looking into it further, I see that there's a pattern and that JFG has been told to stop repeatedly. Ok, not handling it the way I would at WP:EW (where "stale" would apply) but as a long term issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Can we take this to AE or his talk page please?Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Done. This is probably ready to close. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Appeal of the 0RR sanction filed. — JFG talk 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Can this be closed and hidden as irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Article structure

Hello. I am contemplating these two changes to the article structure. If there are no objections I can do this tomorrow (after I write a stub for the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies).

1. remove the empty heading 3.1 (Director of National Intelligence, Homeland Security and CIA)
2. combine sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 (Vladimir Putin involvement, and Russian think tanks) under one heading, up a level: Russian involvement (obviously neither one is a member of U.S. intelligence)

-SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea; I did some copyediting on your text, and here are a few remarks on the proposed structure:

• the 3.1 heading groups assessments made by the cited agencies; if you remove it, their statements must still be attributed.
• section 3.1.4 talks about the agencies' analysis and assertions regarding Putin's involvement, so this must stay within the "U.S. intelligence analysis" section
• section 3.1.5 looks like independent reporting, citing several unnamed officials, so it should be indeed moved out, perhaps to a new section under "U.S. intelligence analysis" (Reuters does not say from which agency or agencies their sources came).

So the structure would look like this (structure A):

3 U.S. intelligence analysis

3.1 Director of National Intelligence, Homeland Security and CIA

3.1.1 Brennan briefs Gang of Eight (could be perhaps titled differently – section talks a lot about GCHQ, and few people know who is the Gang of Eight)

3.1.2 October 2016 joint statement

3.1.3 December 2016 CIA report

3.2 Federal Bureau of Investigation

3.3 December 2016 Joint Analysis Report

3.4 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

3.5 Russian think tank

3.6 Vladimir Putin involvement

3.7 Investigation into financial flows

3.8 Preservation of evidence

Or we could use a fully flattened structure B:

3 U.S. intelligence analysis

3.1 GCHQ tips and CIA briefings to Congress

3.2 October 2016 ODNI / DHS joint statement

3.3 December 2016 CIA report

3.4 FBI inquiries

3.5 December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report

3.6 January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

3.7 Russian think tank

3.8 Vladimir Putin involvement

3.9 Investigation into financial flows

3.10 Preservation of evidence

Is this close to what you had in mind? — JFG ^talk 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

More to contemplate. Not exactly, because I was thinking that the Russians need their own section. In other words, make this article speak in an active voice. I disagree that Putin "must" remain inside U.S. intelligence. He was a central actor and is able to stand on his own. I think "tips" belittles GCHQ's contributions but I agree it is more clear to name them in a heading. I'm going to think about this for another day. We can see if anybody else has a thought, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. Russians do have their section already, it's called "Russian government response". The current structure makes a useful distinction between what US intelligence agencies and government have stated about Russia and Putin on the one hand, and what Russian government officials have stated or done in reaction, on the other hand. I believe we should keep those sections distinct, although they can probably be re-titled. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: OK I thought about it, thanks. I agree that my first suggestion might be better reached by renaming to say GCHQ in the heading. Would you care to take care of that? The empty heading above it is pretty much meaningless, so I appreciate your structure B above that eliminates that prominent third level "Director of National Intelligence, Homeland Security and CIA". -SusanLesch (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russians, on the other hand, need to be represented differently. I realize you disagree with me but give me a day or so and I think we can arrange this to make better sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: I flattened the structure and improved the headers according to proposal B. I see that you moved all chapters about Russia into a new section at the top of the article, so I didn't touch that. However I must say it doesn't make much sense to a new reader, for example to see a section called "Russian government response" before we explain to what they are responding. I let you ponder the best arrangement, I have no clear suggestion at this time. — JFG ^talk 20:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you for the new heading and structure. I'm surprised that moving the Russians up front mystifies you. I am delighted with the straight-ahead account. The Russian government was, quite obviously, responding to the preceding accusations from U.S. intelligence. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson says Russia should fess up on election meddling. Does Trump agree?

Interesting. Tillerson, like Trump, admits Russia meddled in the election:

1/11/2017 Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election

4/11/2017 Rex Tillerson says Russia should fess up on election meddling. Does Trump agree?

These two references should be enough to settle the debate over "alleged" or "confirmed". -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think Trump or his cronies were known for their honesty or judgment. We don't take a politician's opinions as fact. We're having a discussion above about reliable sources, like major newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Who are you calling names? Tillerson? He is neither a politician nor a Trump "crony". Mainstream RS worldwide have reported the Tillerson statement. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole idea of sharing these sources which document Trump's and Tillerson's acceptance of the fact of Russian interference is to show that even those who are, after Putin himself, the least likely to admit it are doing so. Putin will of course deny it, and we give as much credence to such a denial as we give to a proven murderer who denies committing the crime. Their word means nothing when it serves their own interest. (Note this last sentence, it will appear again.)

The reason they have very strongly resisted admitting it, and we know that Trump has very forcefully denied it for a long time, is because they are both undeniably close allies with Russia (dare I say treason?...since America is NOT an ally with Russia, especially Putin), with Trump (not necessarily Tillerson...as much) allegedly in collusion with Putin to win the presidency, Trump tied at the hip with Putin and Russian mobsters through confirmed business dealings, money laundering, and massive loans which rescued him from bankruptcy when no American bank would help him, and Trump allegedly being blackmailed.

In spite of all this, the evidence is strong enough to force them to admit that it's true. That means something, and that should be mentioned. In this case, their word means a whole lot when such an admission goes against their own interest. They would not lie to hurt themselves. (Although Trump is an enigma in this regard because he often lies when he doesn't need to and has thus inflicted damage on himself by doing so. That's because he often lies, not by design, but by reflex.)

When a hostile witness admits to something which hurts them, their word means more. They are taken seriously. When they are only self-serving, their word means nothing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to the article, the veracity of the allegations is determined by reliable sources, not by the statements or "admissions" of politicians and intelligence officials. The latter aren't reliable sources (except, perhaps, for their own opinions). You or I can have our personal readings of why Trump or Tillerson might say one or another thing about the allegations (and I suspect our readings wouldn't be the same), but what matters is what the reliable sources report. We can mention Tillerson's views on the allegations if they're notable enough, but that's very different from using his statements to argue that the article should treat the allegations as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ^Falling_Gravity 06:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that one went over my head, or under my nose, or on my toes or something. Anyway we tend to see lots of straw mans because the dissent have no response to the reasoned policy-based arguments of the consensus here. Or do you just mean you think me a princess? SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law and editors cannot weight evidence, but can only report conclusions made in reliable sources, per original research. Furthermore, in law, one cannot "admit" something some else did of which one had no knowledge. A lot of effort is being wasted in arguments over whether material that clearly violates policy should be added to this article. BullRangifer and other Clinton supporters should be aware that smearing political opponents is a two-edged sword. Many Republicans have done the same thing, for example with claims Obama was not born in the U.S., and adopting their logic only gives them credibility. TFD (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Q re lede sentence

Why does the lede sentence cite an article that in turn cites a source (the Oct 2016 'statement') that was superseded (by the Jan 2017 report)? Humanengr (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead was substantially copy edited in early March. Some of the references were not moved to more appropriate locations and some were removed. - MrX 11:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

thx. On what basis is the current lede sentence cite justified given that a more recent report was issued? Humanengr (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to quote the October 2016 WaPo article because that's the first time the IC agencies offered a clear statement accusing Russia of interfering in the election. So that's where the affair began, and it's a good starting point for the Wikipedia treatment. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That gets to the other problem: the lede sentence does not "quote the October 2016 WaPo"; that article does not use the word "concludes". But it does have 'accuses' in its title. Both the cite and its use are problematic. Humanengr (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that this particular source does not use "concluded", although many later sources do. There are so many words we could use: "asserted", "affirmed", "stated", "expressed", "determined", "said", "accused", and I think most editors are tired of this debate, no matter which word they think is best. — JFG ^talk 15:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of source

thread restored to talk page SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SPECIFICO: I'm afraid your revert citing "misrepresentation of source" was misguided, because it's the previous text which misrepresented the cited source. Just read the articles please: they are bashing the JAR report so hard it must be deader than the proverbial horse. — JFG talk 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC) I've made an adjustment to Specifico's edit to better align copy with the source provided: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC) That's cool, but cherry-picking the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" bit still looks very undue compared to the meat of the article. I was surprised by the wide discrepancy between the virulent tone of the cited articles lambasting the JAR report and the mild apologetic tone of the Wikipedia sentences quoting them. — JFG talk 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC) We've been over this soooo many times. The subject of the article is the Russian interference, not the declassified reports. What they chose to declassify, whether they could have chosen a more complete public version, and why they chose the content that's in the JAR.. Who knows? Some RS have speculated that a more complete version would have compromised the several ongoing investigations relating to possible crimes and associations. WP will be able to adjust in due course, but these public reports and the pundits who get mentioned in comments thereon are of relatively minor significance to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC) How about you answer my original point instead of making guesses about what is not in the reports? Fact is the article cited a credible source (Kevin Poulsen) who was extremely critical of the JAR report, calling it "worse than useless", and you cherry-picked one bit of this article that says the bad quality of this report encourages "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists". I correct this as a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and all you did is a knee-jerk revert, followed by deflection. — JFG talk 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) I just undid your edit, cause I thought it removed so much of the text as to alter its meaning and misrepresent the cited source. So I didn't pick anything, just undid what appeared to me to be a worse version than the one you reverted. I do think it's important to remember that these reports are not the subject of the article. The Russian interference is the subject of the article. So it's like if we edit the article about Los Angeles, and somebody states that in their considered opinion, a book calling it the "City of Angles" is a worse than useless publication, we'd most likely conclude that bit was not central to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Great, so you will surely agree with me that whoever "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" may be, they are also not the subject of this article. I maintain that my inclusion of Poulsen's quote "worse than useless" is a good summary of the source material. — JFG talk 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Are you commanding me to agree with you? Chicken-fried nutballs. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Never would I dare command you! I am asking you whether you agree that "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" are not the subject of this article. — JFG talk 03:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @Geogene: I'm questioning your revert which restores a version of the text that seriously misrepresents the source by cherry-picking a phrase. Have you read the source article in full? How much weight does it give to Trump conspiracies vs the report's flaws? Quotes: "U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot", "At every level this report is a failure", "the report is a gumbo of earnest security advice mixed with random information", "Though the written report is confusing, it’s the raw data released along with it that truly exasperates security professionals.", "We had an extraordinary high amount of false positives on this dataset", "It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any.", "the DHS watchlist […] is useless to network administrators already fighting “alert fatigue”", "the government is now confusing everyone". Sorry, you can't honestly summarize this article by cherry-picking the expression "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists": this is not what the article is mainly talking about, by a long shot. — JFG talk 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC) It's not cherry-picking to present the central thesis of the source. To quote it in full: "Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless—so jumbled that it potentially harms cybersecurity, so aimless that it muddies the clear public evidence that Russia hacked the Democratic Party to affect the election, and so wrong it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence." [11] If you want to add to it that also harms cybersecurity, that's OK. Not okay with leaving out the genuine concern that ineptitude of the report encourages pro-Trump conspiracy theories, which is prominent in the first paragraph. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Well, that is not the "central thesis of the source". It's a couple words thrown in the middle of the article to convey an anti-Trump message. The writer is clearly exasperated that the intelligence report cannot make a strong case against Trump, and he spends 90% of his words lambasting the report's lack of professionalism and reliance on innuendo instead of displaying solid evidence. Nowhere in the article do I see any discussion of who are those "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" and what kind of theories they may be peddling. Nowhere! So if we're going to use this source, we cannot summarize it by quoting the only thing it doesn't talk about. — JFG talk 00:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC) No. The author is bothered that the report did not make a convincing case, when it clearly could have. This is why he spent so much time in the article explaining that virtually everyone knows Russia is to blame, and it was pathetic that that report didn't knock it out of the park. Did you read that article? The author talks about conspiracy theories (denialism) in no less than six paragraphs. That's a major gripe, not something he threw out in the opening and then, somehow, forgot about. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) So you agree with me that the author's main point is to criticize the agencies' report. And I agree with you that the author wishes the report had shown more direct and convincing evidence of the Russian interference and Trump collusion. Proponents of this interference story will read this article as healthy criticism of the agencies' work encouraging them to do better, and people who already doubted the intelligence story will feel vindicated by the lack of proof in a document whose purpose was precisely to bring out damning evidence. Those are two equally valid interpretations, although they are just that, interpretations of what cybersecurity experts Poulsen, Lee and Graham wrote. Now let's scan the article fully for phrases that could be construed as "conspiracy theories": Vladimir Putin need do nothing but sit back and chuckle mirthlessly while U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot. (conspiracy theory portraying Putin as a supervillain) it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence (calling Trump supporters "conspiracy theorists" when they question the evidence of Russian interference and/or collusion) They’re handing out bad information to the industry when good information exists. (conspiracy theory that intelligence agencies are either incompetent or complicit with Trump, because they are drowning the available good evidence in a sea of bad evidence, instead of bringing the good evidence to light) It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any. (conspiracy theory that the evidence presented is indeed very poor or irrelevant, implying that either there is no compelling evidence or the agencies deliberately chose to obfuscate it) Russian hackers use Tor, but so do plenty of other people. (fact that we can't tell who attacks a service via the Tor obfuscation network) a Vermont utility company, Burlington Electric Department, followed DHS’s advice and added the addresses to its network monitoring setup. It got an alert within a day. The utility called the feds, and The Washington Post soon broke the distressing news that “Russian hackers penetrated [the] U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont.” The story was wrong. (conspiracy theory that Russians hacked the U.S. power grid) The Grizzly Steppe report also gives succor to those who argue that the identity of the DNC and John Podesta hackers is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. […] By kind-of-but-not-really publishing forensic data on the DNC and Podesta hacks, and mixing it with other material, the administration fed right into that story line and fattened it up. (conspiracy theory that U.S: intelligence agencies are unwittingly helping the case of people who don't believe their every word "on pure faith".) the FBI didn’t even examine the DNC’s harddrives (conspiracy theory that the FBI did a sloppy job) I don't see the word "denialism", "denial" or even "deny" anywhere, and the word "truther" was injected in the headline without being mentioned in the text (and you know the editor writes headlines, not the author). Again, summarizing this article as "enabling Trump conspiracists" is a severely biased reading of what the authors say, because it represents a small part of their argument. Anyway, "conspiracy theory" is a poisoned word, which people throw at each other when they simply disagree about a particular narrative, here the IC narrative vs the Russian narrative. Both sides are convinced that people who believe the "other" narrative are conspiracy theorists or worse, nutcases or evil manipulators. Perhaps we could rephrase our prose to avoid this loaded word while accurately conveying what the source is saying? Here's a suggestion: Former hacker Kevin Poulsen, quoting security researchers Robert M. Lee and Robert Graham, stated that the December 2016 intelligence report was "useless" because it confused the public with irrelevant warnings while obfuscating the actual evidence of Russian hackers' intervention as compiled by cybersecurity firms, thus unwittingly supporting the case of people who deny the intervention. What do you think? — JFG talk 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC) @Geogene, SPECIFICO, and K.e.coffman: Any comments on my proposed text to better represent the source? — JFG talk 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC) That works for me. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election. Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Matt Apuzzo and team (Goldman also won a Pulitzer) wrote this article, with content which might be useful here: Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election. Authors: Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau Extended content References BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC) More relevant to United States presidential election, 2016, Hillary Clinton email controversy and James Comey. I can't see much news about the Russian interference, besides the confirmation that FBI has been investigating, and we already say that rather clearly. There's mention of a damning DNC document obtained by the FBI by spying on Russian networks, that's ironic but does it deserve inclusion? — JFG talk 07:57, 25 April 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, [12] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [13] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [14], which was agreed to by myself [15] 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" [16] 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 [17]). 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. [18] 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)

Polling data

Benwitt has added more polling data, so I thought it might be a good idea to test for consensus on this stuff, and maybe see if we can reach an agreement on what kind of polls (if any) should be included. I continue to be against it because there is a steady stream of this stuff every week and I see it as just WP:DATA that could potentially fill the article with cruft. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, this should be removed as something not really notable/relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polling is very relevant to this article because the goal of Russian propaganda was to influence American opinion, and conversely a significant role of the intelligence agencies is to convince the public of Russia's misdeeds. Democrats want to reassure their supporters that they would have won the election save for the Russians and Comey, whereas Trump want the public to believe that Russia did not have any real influence and he won by his own powers of charisma. So in a story where everybody wants to convince people of something, opinion polling provides some measure of the efficiency of such persuasion tactics. We shouldn't add too many polls however; the current set looks like it's enough. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey on new article order

Today I rearranged this article to come to the point--Russia interfered in the election the U.S. alleges that Russia interfered in the election. (The ODNI report says that its sources are part of the classified report.) (Before and After.) Perhaps it is time for a show of hands. Kindly either Support or Oppose this major change in article order. I am pleased to have this more direct approach, but not without consensus. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• It depends. Has "Russia interfered in the election" been 'determined beyond any doubt'? If so, in which venue? Kindly clarify.your premise. 07:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanengr (talk • contribs)

Hi, Humanengr. The U.S. intelligence community is quoted in the very first paragraph after the lead. The answer to your question is yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for responding, SusanLesch. That quote in the second sentence says "expressed 'high confidence'". Are you interpreting that as 'determined beyond any doubt'? Humanengr (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No. I would have linked "high confidence" to [analytic confidence] if it wasn't inside a quotation (prohibited by WP:LINKSTYLE). I don't think "determined beyond any doubt" is the criterion for arranging this article, when 17 intelligence agencies agreed, do you? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Are you saying that when American intelligence agencies make a claim, Wikipedia should consider it a fact? That's how I read your above statement, and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. If that's what flies on Wikipedia, the project might as well give up any pretension to WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Yes, that is what I was saying but it was an error for a number of reasons. For one, (speaking only as a U.S. citizen) when the U.S. makes a claim, we don't have the option of stating it as a fact (only with high confidence which allows for mistakes). For another, I went overboard in trying to rescue this article (we seemed to be apologizing for making accusations which I don't think we should do). There are probably other good reasons not to consider U.S. claims as facts. Apologies and thank you for catching me. The introduction has been changed above. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, I don't think the article makes a clear separation between what is alleged and what is factual. The article is heavily weighted towards presenting allegations by US intelligence agencies as factual, or without the qualifying language usually found in reliable sources, and spends an inordinate amount of space simply quoting US intelligence. Any uninvolved voices that have expressed doubt about the accusations (such as that of William Binney or Jeffrey Carr) have been culled from the article. I think this puts Wikipedia in the position of aligning itself with a particular political persuasion in the US, rather than maintaining a factual and neutral stance. It's a shame for the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Sorry for offering my opinion. Jeffrey Carr's biggest claim to fame seems to be self-promotion although he has some interesting things to say, but William Binney has bona fides that would be welcome in this article. I'm on the road for a couple days but I would support adding Binney if you want to try again. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was reacting to your "Russia interfered in the election" which you used in your prefacing remark.That presents as a statement of fact. I think we can agree that while it has been established "with high confidence" by U.S. investigating agencies, it has not been (and will likely never be) established as fact by any court (much less than international court as this is a dispute between nations). Would you be comfortable in changing your preface to "U.S. allegations that Russia interfered in the election"? That the U.S. alleges such-and-such -- which is a fact -- should be sufficient for your framing order. Humanengr (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: True! Fair comment and I made a correction above. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This maybe logical to some degree. Before debating any claim (of the interference or whatever), one must explain what the claim was about. However, this should go only after "Background" section, and yes, "Russian government response" should only go later - agree with JFG. My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Background section covers 3 topics: hostility between Putin and Clinton, email leaks, and a Counter-Disinformation Team that was scrapped in 2015. Nothing there challenges or enhances the ODNI report. I'm not opposed to having Background first but why, when rather than stating the accusations is it dancing around? I mean really. If Guccifer is a Russian email hacker why doesn't this article say so? And more generally why does Wikipedia front-load pack-rat information? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If something should be said up front, this should go to the lead, but I think the lead fairly summarizes the content already. Of course it might be logical to start from providing solid facts related to the subject of the page and discuss any controversial matters later, and I am telling about any pages on political controversies in general. But what is the set of indisputable facts related to this case? Can the "interference" be described as a certain "operation" that consisted from several phases, such a "planning", doing (a), doing (b), etc, and what these phases are? I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good questions. Best I know is that the overall operation came in two parts. Both are outlined in the second section about RISS. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This is just a matter of writing and logic on the page. Of course we all know that it was a "special operation": it was planned in advance, it was expensive, and it was enormously successful. Speaking about the success, that was placing the pro-Russian lobbyists in power and successfully undermining the US by bringing less competent and more corrupted administration to Washington [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How the hell is this article allowed to exist?

I understand there's ideological and special interest groups that spin articles one way or the other, but batsh*t articles like these are way too blatant in their attempt.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.198.128 (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Election vs elections?

The current title is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Why the plural "s" on the end? Is there any evidence that the Russians tried to interfere with any other than the 2016 presidential election (singular)?

If not, the title should be changed to Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There was a brief thread about this but it wasn't conclusive: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6#Which elections? — JFG ^talk 07:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[20] discussion - MrX 10:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's the article discussed earlier. I'll just copy my response from the previous thread:

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

Any other pointers to Russian interference in House and Senate races? — JFG ^talk 14:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

JFG, that seems to be a sound argument. I have yet to see any direct evidence that Russians made any serious effort to affect any other elections. The hacked material just happened to be used by whoever felt they could use it. Nothing new there. There is still no reason for the title to be about plural "elections".-- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you even try to do any research yourself?

• "Trump acknowledges Russian involvement in meddling in U.S. elections"
• "Russian hackers were likely surprised by blowback from cyberattacks on U.S. elections, analysts say"
• "Putin says claims that Russia interfered in US elections are 'lies'"
• "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections"
• "Reports by the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security in December found that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections in an attempt to affect the outcome."
• "Burr's committee is currently investigating Russian interference into the U.S. elections and potential collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Putin allies in Russia."
• "U.N. AMBASSADOR NIKKI HALEY SAYS RUSSIA ‘CERTAINLY’ INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS"
• "Vladimir Putin has again denied Russian meddling in the US elections, blaming allegations that Moscow had sought to influence the vote on an internal political battle in the US."

- MrX 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you wanted to materially affect the election for president and somehow avoid affecting other elections on the same day; I don’t think you could find a way.:) In any case, we should use whatever RS use, as Sir X has laid out above. Objective3000 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, MrX and Objective3000, do we mention this in this article? Was it significant or incidental? If this was a significant factor, then we need to cover it in its own section(s). Otherwise we are tacitly treating this like a "presidential election" only issue.

The content and title must be in sync. Right now they aren't. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX from your first source, the only time "elections" is used is in the title. The rest of the article refers specifically to "the election" eg the Presidential Election. Now we can argue that there were of course many "elections" that made up the Presidential Election, after all there were elections in counties all across the country, but I don't think that's what our article should do. I agree with User:BullRangifer's proposal. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But the Russian interference dates back as far as 2015 -- so it's not just the general election for president. It's all of the primary elections in both parties in many states. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You say "the Russian interference dates back as far as 2015". Got sources? — JFG ^talk 03:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's one: The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

If we include the suspicious contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, then multiple foreign intelligence agencies were already discovering and then monitoring such contacts in 2015. It was worrying enough that they warned the American intelligence agencies, but they were slow to react. So what happened later had been in the works for some time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG affirmed the 2015 date above at 12:58, 24 April 2017. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure, that's a source saying EU intelligence agencies intercepted some communications between Russians and Trump people in late 2015. Even if that can be construed as collusion (which remains to be proven) it still only addresses interference in the presidential election, not any others. — JFG ^talk 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The content and title are in sync. The body of the article has sourced passages that refer to elections. For example, a CNN article says "President Barack Obama has ordered a full review into hacking aimed at influencing US elections going back to 2008, the White House said Friday." Yes, sources sometimes discuss the Presidential election, while some discuss the broader elections, and some discuss both. I think the article and title are appropriately comprehensive.- MrX 16:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's good there is a reference which mentions earlier dates. Now we need some evidence that actual interference was attempted and/or occurred, and then sections for such content. We just need some actual content about the matter, rather than vague allusions to the possibility. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this:

• Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking

References

Maybe there's more. We need to at least have a section dealing with this. Right now the article is nearly entirely about the presidential election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2017 French election article

This seems to be hitting pretty hard in France currently.

https://nyti.ms/2pPuREe

Should we start another article on the 2017 Presidental election in France and make both this article and the French article a sub of a general article on Russian interference in elections? Casprings (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be hitting the fan over there, news blackout or not. I would say that Hacking of the Macron campaign is already notable enough for a standalone article, and there's probably one (or more!) such articles already underway. And while I'd eat my hat if it's not Fancy Bear, I'm not sure that reliable sources are definitely pinning it on Russia yet (?) For this article, I'd suggest a See Also for now but not any big changes yet. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that such an article would be notable. Also, Geogene: "Groups linked to Russia, that are also believed to have been involved in the hacking related to the 2016 United States presidential campaign, have previously been accused of trying to breach the Macron organization. Security experts tracking the activity of suspected Russian hackers say they believe those same groups were involved in this latest attack." (NYT). Neutrality^talk 04:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I can admire the ability of NYT to cram so many weasel words into one paragraph. I am in Paris, I am unsure whether or not this qualifies for an article of its own, rather than a section in the French presidential election article. I would be careful regarding attribution of the hacks to Russia, which would be especially inappropriate to do implicitly in an article title, while this is being openly noted as merely "suspected" or "believed". Those in other countries can feel differently but within France commentary on the election in the last 48 hours of the campaign is regulated; the hack happened, it is notable, but it is unclear what impact will occur, or whether the contents of the leak are important enough to influence the election outcome -- and basically yelling "Russia did it!" without any evidence could itself influence the election by increasing sympathy for Macron through invoking paranoia against a foreign Other, and so I would caution the approach should be as rational as possible avoiding sensationalistic implications or putting too much weight on speculations. Adlerschloß (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet another nothingburger. French pundits are also commenting on Obama's overt support for Macron, explicitly calling French people to vote for him just three days before the election. Should we then start an article called American influence on the French presidential election? I don't think so. — JFG ^talk 10:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In no way is a retired foreign leader's endorsement of a candidate in his individual capacity as a private citizen comparable to a covert, coordinated, state-sponsored hacking and theft of a candidate's documents (and creation of fabricated documents). Neutrality^talk 04:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that such an operation exists - which we can't assume, of course. As with "Russian interference in the 2016 United states elections" (sic), we have accusations, but we don't know with any certainty who's behind the hacks/leaks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is paying us to crack the case. Just to report RS accounts when appropriate per WP content policy. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about France or Obama, stay on topic. This adds nothing about this article, and I ask for this to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the most logical place to discuss a potential new article very closely linked to this subject. Nothing to see here. Move along. Geogene (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well this or the article on the Presidential election. I will start a link to it there. Casprings (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As the primary contributor to that article, I doubt there's actually enough substantive content to warrant an article. There's the Trend Micro report, this email dump (which contains nothing of note except for the fact that Laurence Haïm only makes 6k and someone's ordering meth under Alain Tourret's name), and the Macron camp's accusations that Russian state media (RT and Sputnik) spreads fake news about his campaign, but what, that'll get you four paragraphs in total at most? There's nothing to see and unlike in the U.S., the Russian stories has never had a significant impact on the campaign. Mélencron (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Or one about foreghn interventions in elections.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Le Pen is oddly friendly to Putin and negative to both NATO and the EU. The fact that this pattern is repeating seems historically significant and the articles sources are likely to grow. That said, as of now, I think there is enough out there.Casprings (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're getting way off-topic, and what you are saying is complete nonsense. Le Pen's stance on Russia and Putin is not unusual at all in contexts of French politics. 3 of the 4 leading candidates in the election's first round -- Le Pen, Fillon, and Mélenchon -- support diplomatic rapprochement with Russia. Fillon wanted to lift EU sanctions that were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea, Mélenchon has even offered support for Russia's military interventions in both Ukraine and Syria. Add Dupont-Aignan (who finished in 6th place, barely behind the ruling party's candidate, Hamon), and 66% of the total first-round vote went to candidates friendly to Russia. Say what you want about Le Pen but frendliness to Russia looks less odd in context than US coddling of the dictators of Saudi Arabia (a medieval absolute theocracy that beheads people convicted of sorcery, and sponsors terrorist groups), or political leaders of Israel (an Apartheid state openly committing ethnic cleansing as praxis for 19th century-style settler colonialism). And Front National has always been hostile to the EU and its antecedent institutions. And look at the foreign policy positions of Le Pen's father over the years. The "patterns" you are seeing cannot be merely ascribed to a "Putin under the bed" conspiracy theory, and you seem completely unaware of longer trends in French politics, also lacking more general sociological awareness, and what you are saying will seem ridiculous or cartoonish to anyone outside of McCarthy-land. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That comment strikes me as inappropriate and unconstructive for an article talk page. Also rude. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the sources as they develop, I think at this point you clearly have enough WP:RS to develop an article. Given this is another attack using hacking to influence an election and support a pro-russian person (Le Pen), I think this makes a lot of sense to have this article and make a master article that nests the two article. That would allow further article development, such as Russian influence in the Ukraine, etc.Casprings (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Over in articles around french politics, we (seem to) run it super tightly. I've told you this on the 2017 presidental page Casprings, there isn't enough information yet and just claims from the Macron campaign. Calm yourself and stop fretting about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolvesS (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Take it here [21] this is the most logical place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Another article with a highly POV (and factually dubious) title about a quickly developing subject? No thanks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point it's too early for such an article. And in that particular case, unlike here, there is (yet) no evidence or even official claims that it was Russia. Of course the hacking and leaking itself is notable and should be discussed in the relevant article. Otherwise, as of right now, this is a red herring as far as *this* article is concerned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note

User:Aceruss (recent account, with a small number of edits) - The Washington Examiner is NOT a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Has that been established? I see two discussions suggesting the answer depends on "for what?" Here it was used as a source for easily-verified, public testimony. Seems uncontroversial. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative. SPECIFICO talk 10:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OMG. This slow edit warring by Aceruss needs to stop. Once again we need to remove it because we already cover the subject. Aceruss just wants an old and outdated wording included. Our current coverage is up to date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done} -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of source

(Restored from archive SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

@SPECIFICO: I'm afraid your revert citing "misrepresentation of source" was misguided, because it's the previous text which misrepresented the cited source. Just read the articles please: they are bashing the JAR report so hard it must be deader than the proverbial horse. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment to Specifico's edit to better align copy with the source provided: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, but cherry-picking the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" bit still looks very undue compared to the meat of the article. I was surprised by the wide discrepancy between the virulent tone of the cited articles lambasting the JAR report and the mild apologetic tone of the Wikipedia sentences quoting them. — JFG ^talk 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this soooo many times. The subject of the article is the Russian interference, not the declassified reports. What they chose to declassify, whether they could have chosen a more complete public version, and why they chose the content that's in the JAR.. Who knows? Some RS have speculated that a more complete version would have compromised the several ongoing investigations relating to possible crimes and associations. WP will be able to adjust in due course, but these public reports and the pundits who get mentioned in comments thereon are of relatively minor significance to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How about you answer my original point instead of making guesses about what is not in the reports? Fact is the article cited a credible source (Kevin Poulsen) who was extremely critical of the JAR report, calling it "worse than useless", and you cherry-picked one bit of this article that says the bad quality of this report encourages "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists". I correct this as a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and all you did is a knee-jerk revert, followed by deflection. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just undid your edit, cause I thought it removed so much of the text as to alter its meaning and misrepresent the cited source. So I didn't pick anything, just undid what appeared to me to be a worse version than the one you reverted. I do think it's important to remember that these reports are not the subject of the article. The Russian interference is the subject of the article. So it's like if we edit the article about Los Angeles, and somebody states that in their considered opinion, a book calling it the "City of Angles" is a worse than useless publication, we'd most likely conclude that bit was not central to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, so you will surely agree with me that whoever "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" may be, they are also not the subject of this article. I maintain that my inclusion of Poulsen's quote "worse than useless" is a good summary of the source material. — JFG ^talk 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you commanding me to agree with you? Chicken-fried nutballs. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Never would I dare command you! I am asking you whether you agree that "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" are not the subject of this article. — JFG ^talk 03:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I'm questioning your revert which restores a version of the text that seriously misrepresents the source by cherry-picking a phrase. Have you read the source article in full? How much weight does it give to Trump conspiracies vs the report's flaws? Quotes: "U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot", "At every level this report is a failure", "the report is a gumbo of earnest security advice mixed with random information", "Though the written report is confusing, it’s the raw data released along with it that truly exasperates security professionals.", "We had an extraordinary high amount of false positives on this dataset", "It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any.", "the DHS watchlist […] is useless to network administrators already fighting “alert fatigue”", "the government is now confusing everyone". Sorry, you can't honestly summarize this article by cherry-picking the expression "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists": this is not what the article is mainly talking about, by a long shot. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not cherry-picking to present the central thesis of the source. To quote it in full: "Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless—so jumbled that it potentially harms cybersecurity, so aimless that it muddies the clear public evidence that Russia hacked the Democratic Party to affect the election, and so wrong it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence." [22] If you want to add to it that also harms cybersecurity, that's OK. Not okay with leaving out the genuine concern that ineptitude of the report encourages pro-Trump conspiracy theories, which is prominent in the first paragraph. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is not the "central thesis of the source". It's a couple words thrown in the middle of the article to convey an anti-Trump message. The writer is clearly exasperated that the intelligence report cannot make a strong case against Trump, and he spends 90% of his words lambasting the report's lack of professionalism and reliance on innuendo instead of displaying solid evidence. Nowhere in the article do I see any discussion of who are those "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" and what kind of theories they may be peddling. Nowhere! So if we're going to use this source, we cannot summarize it by quoting the only thing it doesn't talk about. — JFG ^talk 00:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No. The author is bothered that the report did not make a convincing case, when it clearly could have. This is why he spent so much time in the article explaining that virtually everyone knows Russia is to blame, and it was pathetic that that report didn't knock it out of the park. Did you read that article? The author talks about conspiracy theories (denialism) in no less than six paragraphs. That's a major gripe, not something he threw out in the opening and then, somehow, forgot about. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So you agree with me that the author's main point is to criticize the agencies' report. And I agree with you that the author wishes the report had shown more direct and convincing evidence of the Russian interference and Trump collusion. Proponents of this interference story will read this article as healthy criticism of the agencies' work encouraging them to do better, and people who already doubted the intelligence story will feel vindicated by the lack of proof in a document whose purpose was precisely to bring out damning evidence. Those are two equally valid interpretations, although they are just that, interpretations of what cybersecurity experts Poulsen, Lee and Graham wrote.

Now let's scan the article fully for phrases that could be construed as "conspiracy theories":

• Vladimir Putin need do nothing but sit back and chuckle mirthlessly while U.S. officials shoot themselves in the foot. (conspiracy theory portraying Putin as a supervillain)
• it enables the Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists trying to explain away that evidence (calling Trump supporters "conspiracy theorists" when they question the evidence of Russian interference and/or collusion)
• They’re handing out bad information to the industry when good information exists. (conspiracy theory that intelligence agencies are either incompetent or complicit with Trump, because they are drowning the available good evidence in a sea of bad evidence, instead of bringing the good evidence to light)
• It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any. (conspiracy theory that the evidence presented is indeed very poor or irrelevant, implying that either there is no compelling evidence or the agencies deliberately chose to obfuscate it)
• Russian hackers use Tor, but so do plenty of other people. (fact that we can't tell who attacks a service via the Tor obfuscation network)
• a Vermont utility company, Burlington Electric Department, followed DHS’s advice and added the addresses to its network monitoring setup. It got an alert within a day. The utility called the feds, and The Washington Post soon broke the distressing news that “Russian hackers penetrated [the] U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont.” The story was wrong. (conspiracy theory that Russians hacked the U.S. power grid)
• The Grizzly Steppe report also gives succor to those who argue that the identity of the DNC and John Podesta hackers is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. […] By kind-of-but-not-really publishing forensic data on the DNC and Podesta hacks, and mixing it with other material, the administration fed right into that story line and fattened it up. (conspiracy theory that U.S: intelligence agencies are unwittingly helping the case of people who don't believe their every word "on pure faith".)
• the FBI didn’t even examine the DNC’s harddrives (conspiracy theory that the FBI did a sloppy job)

I don't see the word "denialism", "denial" or even "deny" anywhere, and the word "truther" was injected in the headline without being mentioned in the text (and you know the editor writes headlines, not the author). Again, summarizing this article as "enabling Trump conspiracists" is a severely biased reading of what the authors say, because it represents a small part of their argument. Anyway, "conspiracy theory" is a poisoned word, which people throw at each other when they simply disagree about a particular narrative, here the IC narrative vs the Russian narrative. Both sides are convinced that people who believe the "other" narrative are conspiracy theorists or worse, nutcases or evil manipulators.

Perhaps we could rephrase our prose to avoid this loaded word while accurately conveying what the source is saying? Here's a suggestion:

Former hacker Kevin Poulsen, quoting security researchers Robert M. Lee and Robert Graham, stated that the December 2016 intelligence report was "useless" because it confused the public with irrelevant warnings while obfuscating the actual evidence of Russian hackers' intervention as compiled by cybersecurity firms, thus unwittingly supporting the case of people who deny the intervention.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene, SPECIFICO, and K.e.coffman: Any comments on my proposed text to better represent the source? — JFG ^talk 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For reasons stated in my edit comment, I removed @JFG:'s reinsertion of the disputed content. The article is about misinterpretation of the report to suggest the conclusion that the intelligence assessment was incorrect. The term "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists", which @K.e.coffman: wrote a better version with those words intact, and @Geogene: clearly explained that the thrust of the article is to affirm the Russian interference while expressing disappointment in the declassified report as a report. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not addressing my assertion that mentioning "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" is not a representative summary of the article. Please read the detailed discussion with Geogene above and tell us why the proposed compromise text is not acceptable to you. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are 25+ active editors on this page, so it will be evident when you have broad support for an edit. In general, folks don't rush to comment when they are more or less OK with the preexisting condition, and @K.e.coffman: offered another alternative. Time will tell. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Active editors are free to express themselves any time. Their WP:SILENCE can not be construed to be either in favor of your preferred version or mine. Again, because you reverted my initial edit, I am urging you to state and justify your position on the merits of the compromise text above. — JFG ^talk 20:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Still waiting for your reasoned opinion about the proposed text above. — JFG ^talk 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've stated it many times. Please review at your convenience. Also, as any WP editor knows, repetitive assertions of rejected opinions are often met with silence from editors who have moved on to more productive efforts. You should not interpret the disengagement of various editors as acceptance of your POV. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you are again not answering the substantive question. Why is the label "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" a better summary of the article than my proposed text? — JFG ^talk 23:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

Grand jury issued subpoenas. I think this along with the firing seem like they are pretty historic. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is blockbuster if confirmed. But I think we need a little confirmation, maybe a second independent source. Grand jury proceedings are usually secret, and this story is sourced only to "people familiar with the matter". --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN: CBS News is now independently confirming it, see here. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I would rather wait till they are issued. I am always distrustful of "This bloke I met down the Whitehouse arms" type "confirmations".Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Firing of Comey

I think the firing of Comey is a pretty big deal when it comes to this investigation. I think it should maybe be in the opening paragraphs and given some WP:WEIGHT in the article. Thoughts?Casprings (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a big deal, but we can't give breaking news top billing in this article to imply that Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating Trump. That is unknown at this point and merely the subject of speculation. I'm sure we will know more in a the next few days.- MrX 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

He fired Comey because of his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. TFD (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't know why he was fired. We only know the reason claimed. Which is why we can't give this too much weight at this point. Objective3000 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We know why WP:RS's say he was, and it wasn't the reasons put forth in the memo. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192 Casprings (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We have three well sourced paragraphs in the article, which is appropriate. Right now we have an entire sourced paragraph in the lede, which is NOT appropriate, violating several WP standards for ledes. If this is mentioned in the lede, it should be a sentence at most. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am good with cutting, but I would argue that you need a little more then a sentence. The FBI director just got fired because of the ongoing investigation over Russian interference. That seems pretty significant and historic.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I advised against. Unless there are sources that have stated as a fact that Comey was fired because of the ongoing investigation over Russian interference, we can't do it either, directly or by WP:Synthesis. Especially not in the lead! - MrX 02:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no Synthesis. This is just a summation of multiple WP:RS's including the Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ, etc. Very well sourced per wikipedia standards.Casprings (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and there is no sources that support that extraordinary claim.. The deputy attorney general assigned to investigate Russian interference is the same person that wrote the memo excoriating Comey for accepting the role of prosecutor over Clinton emails. There is no indication at all that the Deputy AG is anything but a career prosecutor with impeccable credentials and no political motives. His memo was cited by reliable sources as being the driving force behind the firing and his criticism was not about Russia. He is running the investigation into Russian influence. His loss of confidence in Comey wasn't over Russia and he is the about the only person that would know Comeys involvement with Russian investigations. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are sources. All over the place

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comey-had-requested-more-money-for-fbi-s-russia-investigation-before-being-fired-u-s-official-1494433061
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/how-trump-decided-to-fire-james-comey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?tid=pm_pop
• http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-loyalty-238239Casprings (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, additionally, the WP is now reporting that the Deputy AG is threatening to resign if the White House continues the claim that the impetus for this action came from him. Seems clear he was told to put together a case against Comey and told to do so by the President. Multiple RS's reporting the same.Casprings (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have trimmed all but a bare mention from the lede. There was way too much detail that was completely unrelated to the subject of this article - although it is all repeated in the text. I also reorganized the text section, which showed the natural disorganization resulting from many people making edits unrelated to each other. I didn't remove anything from the text, just made it flow better. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I don't have time to follow up on this point, but the White House has been dramatically changing its rationale for the firing (after news organizations pointed out that firing him at this particular moment because of Clinton's emails made no sense; that was months ago, and the matter is still under investigation at DOJ). That's why I described the Clinton connection as "the initial reason given" by the White House. I invite others to add sourced material about the revised rationales they have suggested in the past 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey had to revise his testimony after he made false statements about Abedin's emails. That was the news just prior to the firing. The Deputy AG that authored the memo critical of Comey's handling of the emails wasn't confirmed until about 2 weeks ago. The timeline fits AAG start date, Comey's Abedin testimony. Clinton blasted Comey just last week. The timing is what it is. Comey has already commented and says to move on as he supports the Presidents authority to fire the FBI director at any time for any reason or no reason. All of this is just rash speculation with all the politicians spinning. The only thing new is Trump is so abrupt that he doesn't give the politicians time to flip-flop properly and they've contradicting themselves at record rates. Not a single one though Tomey did a good job, though. We shouldn't be rearranging the heads on pikes just because it serves a POV. --DHeyward (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice spin. Let's follow the sources instead. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story in The Atlantic about how Comey had misstated or misunderstood a key point in the email story. It seems the sources support what User:DHeyward was saying. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If Trump didn't have such a political tin ear, the revision in testimony showed Comey lacked the technical grasp of how Abedin's emails ended up on Weiner's laptop. It was about to set off a democrat implosion as he clearly misunderstood the reasoning for reopening the case in October. These statements were a fundamental lack of knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to be more then a bare mention. I think if it is a sentence, it needs to be "Comey was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017 and multiple sources report that the impetus was the ongoing investigation of collision between Trump's campaign and Russia."Casprings (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with that wording, and I doubt if you can support it with sources. You could probably support "suggested" or "suspected", but not "reported" as if it were a proven fact. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You would have to add the phrasing "one of the impetuses", but it is directly supported. The Washington Post reasons reported are: "Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.". Casprings (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll need better. The wiretap thing, the press leaks thing, and the Russia investigation. Not very strong support for a claim of direct causation. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the much shortened version as of now is better in terms of weight for the lead, but it still ends up reading as hinting at direct causation, especially with the "However, ..". As for sourcing, press speculation is very definitely not good sourcing for this kind of content. As pointed out, there is no clear evidence that Comey was fired for this reason, let alone simply for this reason. It may well have been a factor, among many other things, but we simply don't know. Nor do most of the journalists writing about it or politicians commenting on it. As ever, there seems an ongoing determination here to use this page as a charge sheet, or to "prove" interference and collusion, with RS policy being misused to shovel in and prioritise content based on sources that happen to agree with that viewpoint and to question anything which departs from that narrative. N-HH talk/edits 08:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I ditched the "however" to address your concern. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is coming closer to home. Sources are now linking Comey's firing directly to the Russia investigation. I just added to the article 1) a White House comment saying they hoped this firing would help bring the investigation to an end, and 2) an opinion from multiple FBI agents that they believe he was fired because he wouldn't shut down the investigation and in fact was intensifying it. With this kind of direct connection to the subject of this article, we probably do need more about the firing in the lede. And I say that as the person who just yesterday ago stripped out most of the detail about the firing from the lede. Most of that stuff was not directly related to the subject of this article. This new stuff is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump-Russia timeline of events

I believe it would be helpful to augment this article with a detailed timeline of relevant events. See http://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events for an example of such a timeline. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia

Full interview here:http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-s-extended-exclusive-interview-with-lester-holt-at-the-white-house-941854787582

I am sure news stories are coming.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And there you go: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/333056-trump-made-up-russia-story-part-of-comey-firing Casprings (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Patience will out. WP:NOTNEWS Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000. See the related section below.- MrX 11:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, whilst telling it also may just be Trumps inability to engage brain before opening mouth But I also do not think that "Trump literally just admitted he fired Comey because of Russia" what he (literally) says is that it was a thing he was thinking about, not that it was the reason he fired him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

literally.- MrX 11:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with this interpretation of his comment. Trump did not "literally just admit" he fired Comey because of Russia. Not even close. He was talking about the firing, and he mentioned the investigation in the same breath, but that is a long way from saying the investigation was the cause. He might just as well have been talking about the timing: "I know this looks bad with the investigation going on, but I'm not worried because that is a phony issue." See discussion below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with that viewpoint. However, it is still noteworthy that when Trump explains this, his next sentence is about Russia and this occurs on the same day the White House Spokesman says that the firing would hopefully help bring the investigation to clousure. Moreover, this is support by WP:RS's. Let's use the needed wording, but I still believe that is notable.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No it is OR, sure if an RS makes the link we might be able to say "according to X,Y,Z Donny's decision was seen as questionable" (or some such) we cannot say that this was the reason for the firing, only an accusation. Even then I am not sure this is all that note worthy, it rads just a bit too nudge nudge to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's what multiple RS's are reporting. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-says-fbi-director-comey-told-him-three-times-he-wasnt-under-investigation-once-in-a-phone-call-initiated-by-the-president/2017/05/11/2b384c9a-3669-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpcomey-120pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Reporting on this connection isn't hard to find.Casprings (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say "he fired Comey because of Russia".Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it said that. It says that: "President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.". That is what RS sources say, in general. Casprings (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I assumed you were using it to support your thread title as a text for inclusion. What wording are you asking to be included?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening

Timothyjosephwood, some time ago you proposed something of an overview to begin the "background" section of this article: Archive 4.

Now, the "background" section simply begins with a lengthy block quote from American intelligence agencies, with no introduction, no explanation of what this text even is until after it's appeared, and not a single voice of skepticism or nuance appearing anywhere (nor, for that matter, Russia's own position via Putin himself, other spokespeople for the Russian government, Russian media, etc).

It's probably fair to see this section as an allegory for the article overall: I'm not sure how it's happened but despite heated argument every day here for months, there is little to no balance. Surely we as a community can do far better than this. To ping some longtime editors who've been active here (and disagreed with me) @MelanieN, DHeyward, EvergreenFir, and Softlavender:: do you see this as appropriate? -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Again pinging @Timothyjosephwood, MelanieN, and DHeyward: TMJ you'd drafted the background section I mentioned, and MN and DH you remain active in discussions here. You've also not commented on the BBC / Reuters editorial issue. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead

The last sentence of the lead is poorly worded and not a significant fact worthy of the lead. I think we can do better than highlight that the administration has once again bumbled its stories. I think this should be left out entirely:

The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but later a White House spokesperson expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end and Trump stated “When I decided [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Let's save this space in the lead for content of historical importance.- MrX 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The President stating he fired someone because of an ongoing investigation evolving his campaign seems pretty significant to me.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The President most certainly did not say that he fired Comey because of an ongoing investigation. He said “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” - MrX 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this last part of the sentence should be removed. It is a stretch beyond the sources to claim he said he fired Comey because of the investigation. He didn't. He mentioned the investigation in the same breath as saying he fired Comey, that's all. But I do think there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article. Maybe we could restore the wording of that sentence the way it was before the Trump quote was added:

The initial reason given for the dismissal had to do with Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but a later White House comment expressed the hope that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to an end, and FBI insiders said they thought he had been terminated because of his refusal to end that investigation.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We should let the hullabaloo calm down before summarizing the fundamental, potentially longstanding, information into the lead. Too early to judge. In the same interview, Trump also said he wanted the Russia investigation to be pursued until the FBI gets to the bottom of it, and quickly at that. What do we pick? His rambling "I said to myself…" has no encyclopedic value. People who expect to find a smoking gun naturally want the inquiry expanded, while Trump naturally wants it shortened. This can't go on forever either way. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't think writing about how the administration continuously changes their story and lies to the public has any place in the lead of an article about Russian election interference. I assume that indictments will soon be handed down, followed by trials and long prison sentences. That's the type of material that belongs in the lead.- MrX 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If we don't have anything at all in the lede that shows people making an explicit connection between the firing and this investigation, it can lead to the question "why is the firing of Comey even mentioned in this article?" --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the article because WP:RS's connect it to the Russian story.. over and over again. Casprings (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, how about: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was widely regarded as a controversial conflict of interest and potential obstruction of justice."?- MrX 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. And if you and others don't think it should be in the led, that's also cool. I think it should, but whatever. It just gets really questionable to me if it is pulled out of the article. That doesn't make sense to me, given the numbers of sources that connect the firing to Russia. Casprings (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MrX: No. POV and UNDUE, goes way beyond the main thrust of the reporting. Also not really relevant to this article, which is about the investigation, not about Trump. @Casprings: It is already in the article and will stay there. The discussion here is about whether it should also be in the last sentence of the lede. I think it should, as a fair representation of what is in the article and an indication of the connection between the firing and the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that it does need to be there. I would also say some of the commentary from WP:RS's go to the point MrX said. I would think the language needs to be weakened, but it should provide some mention for why the firing is important to the article.Casprings (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can censor the POTUS because he sounds "rambling". I think this should be included but it needs to be stated in more specific terms with some attribution, e.g. "press accounts and public opinion polling indicated that..." or something. The article needs to provide a clear exposition for a reader starting with no prior knowledge of the subject or the cast of characters. Editors also must avoid attributing motives to notable individuals based on our POV -- long vs. short inquiry, e.g. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to including Trump's ramblings on the body of the article, but such quotes don't belong in the lead, when general summary will better inform readers.- MrX 16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MelanieN: Do you object to the entire sentence, or just the 'obstruction of justice part'? You suggested that "there should be a sentence in the lede showing that people are now making an explicit connection between the firing and the subject of this article." I think we should talk about why people are making the connection between the subject and the firing, rather than detail about inconsistent explanations from the administration. - MrX 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I object to the "obstruction of justice" part. That is about Trump and possible vulnerabilities on his part; it has nothing to do with the Russia investigation which is the subject of this article. Maybe we can come up with a new sentence that does not put words in anybody's mouth or attempt to interpret a typically hard-to-parse comment from Trump, but just gets across the fact that many people are making the connection (who and how being expanded on in the text). How about "While various reasons were given for the firing, many sources including some from the White House itself suggested that it was related to the Russia investigation." That doesn't necessarily mean Trump; some of his surrogates openly hinted at a connection, and some anonymous administration sources said it outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving off the obstruction of justice part. I think your proposed wording would work, allowing for tweaks as more information is reported.- MrX 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that POTUS' statements do not have to be in the lede. The trick -- this comes up a lot with this subject matter -- is to find brief but accurate summaries that do not omit content or context. If he blurted out an alternative narrative for his decision to fire Comey it's no less credible as a blurt, and it's pure ABOUTSELF on the key point, not hubbledyhoo or blog chatter. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep it short and factual in the lead, following MrX's proposal and MelanieN's comments: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was criticized as an attempt to curtail the FBI investigation." (pick one of the gazillion sources making that case) — JFG ^talk 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's really good. Thanks JFG.- MrX 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine except for the weasel "criticised" -- and note it's not even the more informative weasel "widely criticised". And we do not ask readers to go pick their own sources. This isn't a roadside peachpick. If it's widespread, we should say so with a source and widespread among whom? SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I picked an appropriate source from the article body, titled "Donald Trump fired James Comey because 'he refused to end Russia investigation', say multiple FBI insiders". — JFG ^talk 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done.[23] — JFG ^talk 19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The text @JFG: has added to the article does not reflect consensus here and I'm surprised to see it "done" while there's an ongoing discussion as to the clarity of what I feel is a clear example of a weasel participle. Please undo your premature insertion and let's work this through. There are other editors who have not commented on MrX's suggestion yet. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the text. — JFG ^talk 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SPECIFICO: Could we please see your proposed version? I don't quite understand your objection to using the verb 'critisized'. Do you have a better word to describe the backlash?- MrX 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticized by whom, how widely, according to which authority that tells us it is widely criticised. Your version could also in a few words indicate the reporting that this view "criticized" is not based on personal opinion but on Trump's own statement on the tube. Also, we really do need to wait a few hours for others such as @Casprings: who may not spend all day on the computer, to contribute to the consensus. And I don't think adding back a version in the middle of a converging but as yet unresolved discussion, is constructive. I have an evening engagement, but I will give it some thought per your request. Meanwhile it's pointless to rush a significant revision into the article in the middle of a discussion. It's great that you and JFG agreed on this proposal, but let's wait until the other 34 editors here might have a look. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable and succinct phrasing. Support. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the word widely should be addedCasprings (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support that.- MrX 15:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This would better conclude the lede text, while leaving details to the corpus of the article. "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump fired Comey as head of the FBI on May 9, 2017." SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support that as well.- MrX 17:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but we already say that Comey was FBI Director at the beginning of this paragraph. I would suggest to cut "as head of the FBI" and just keep "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017." SPECIFICO? — JFG ^talk 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW that looks good to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been offline for a day or two. What is the version we are currently proposing? --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. The current version in the article is: "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump dismissed Comey as head of the FBI on May 9, 2017." and I just suggested shortening it to: "In a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the investigation, Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017." Before you left, it was: "Trump dismissed Comey on May 9, 2017, a move that was criticized as an attempt to curtail the FBI investigation.", Casprings suggested adding the "widely" qualifier, then Specifico switched the sentence around to conclude with the dismissal. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I could support any of these versions and I think the latest is the best. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

By "latest", do you mean with or without the "as head of the FBI" part? — JFG ^talk 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder

Editors may want to place their final comments on the above thread #BLP/N outcome regarding the wording of the Erik Prince section, so we can get closure on this issue. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 07:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

And this: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html Casprings (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow.- MrX 21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. This will be in all the relevant RS by tomorrow. Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Report confirmed by wsj: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-asked-comey-to-drop-flynn-investigation-according-to-memo-written-by-former-fbi-director-1494974774?mod=e2tw Casprings (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See also, Comey memo.- MrX 00:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Might need to move if other Comey memos appear. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem—we can just add an s.- MrX 00:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Revelation of classified information to Russia

This section should be returned. [24] . I think multiple sources (I don't have time to find sources right now) will discuss Trump's revelation of classified information in the context of Russian supporting Trump in the election. Given he did this the day after he fired Comey, I think the section is highly relevant to the article and should be returned.Casprings (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, if this article was called "Trumps links with Russia" I would agree, at best this warrants a see also and a link to just such an article. This article is about the election, and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this event should be in the article, to the extent that it's supported by the RS that make the connection with the Russian interference in US governance. I'm also very disappointed that this content it would be removed with an edit summary that falsely refers to this as a "diplomatic" incident (like whether Melania failed to wear above-the-elbow gloves with a sleeveless gown to dinner at the Court of St. James.) None of the RS reports on this matter have mischaracterized the national security issues as a "diplomatic" breach. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the elections. It also has its own article now so I'm not sure there's much else we need to do here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it doesn't belong in this article. It's part of Trump's far too cozy relationship with Russia, but not part of the election. Let's stay on topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong here. Unless something new comes up that links this incident to the election it should remain in Presidency of Donald Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here, albeit briefly. A short one para section is sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? It has no connection to the election and is therefore off-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. What does this have to do with "[Alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"? This article isn't supposed to be "Trump, Russia, you connect the dots." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RS treatment of the story will guide us as to whether this is associated with the topic of Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If and when that happens, we can restore the content. Until then, it should stay in its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with BullRangifer and SPECIFICO. This isn't related unless and until RSes say it's related. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if they say that Donnie's choice to do this is related to the Russian hacking during the election, fine. But not if they just say "another example of Donnie's ties to Russia". As this is about the election, not Donnie's ties to Russia. But they must make an explicit link, not implied or hinted at, explicit. They must say the two are linked not just mention both incidents in the same article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. Simply mentioning both subjects in a source article is not sufficient.- MrX 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus to keep this out for now, consistent with my initial edit summary "Removed off-topic section; sources do not connect this diplomatic incident to Russian election interference". Isn't it refreshing that most editors can agree on something? Sorry for SPECIFICO that this affair doesn't rise to a full-blown diplomatic incident yet. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The events described in the removed text are no more of a diplomatic incident than this discussion is. That's not just OR, that's really bad OR. So please don't snipe at SPECIFICO because they happen to agree with you. It's incentivizing them not to do so in the future, and it reflects poorly on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My remark was meant as an olive branch, celebrating a rare moment of consensus on this page, in the spirit of your very useful User:MjolnirPants/clarify. Beer time! — JFG ^talk 21:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The elections are over. Unless we are talking about Obama's decision to share highly classified information with Russia in 2016 during the election, and the subsequent Russian attacks on our Free Syrian allies utilizing Obama's briefing, this meeting with Trump had nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Apparently, on the basis of "consensus"! So, the utterances of the US "intelligence community" (without evidence) are to be taken as fact on Wikipedia? The folk who brought us WMD in Iraq and helped overthrow Democratically elected Governments across the globe? And this propagandist bull is by the collective that decided the English Daily Mail is an "unreliable source"??? Lmfao Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that you disregarded or were not aware of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:WEASEL, and evidently did not read many, or possibly any, sources. Sorry, but your edit was bad.- MrX 20:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

AS long as we say "The US has said" yes we can say that is what they have said.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: WP:ALLEGED (related to WP:WEASEL) says that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined".

@Slatersteven: I agree that we can (and should) relay the accusations made by US intelligence officials and agencies. The issue is when these claims are presented as facts, and when any and all dissenting/critical views are removed from the article. A number of editors have been pushing the view that using "alleged," or any such hedging language, is inherently a violation of WP:WEASEL or WP:ALLEGED, and that we must therefore present accusations as fact. This is clearly a misreading of policy, which would have absurd consequences if followed throughout Wikipedia.

@Sarah777: There definitely is a systemic problem throughout this article, in that it represents the views of US intelligence, and generally excludes critical views. You can review the talk page archives to see how this has played out across many subtopics within the article. Generally, anything that criticizes or casts doubt on US intelligence claims has been removed from the article, while every claim of a Russian connection gets exhaustive treatment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Except we do not say it is a fact the Russians interfered, we say that US intelligence has said it is a fact. That is acceptable, what we should do is also say that people dispute this.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree with you, both in that we should say US intelligence has made the claim and that various people dispute the claims or express doubt. The problem is that:

1. The article presents US intelligence claims in a way that makes them sound like they're coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice (see, for example, how the body of the article begins with a long quote from US intelligence, without any context or introduction - that's highly unusual, and there are editors who have reverted any attempt to introduce the quote with some explanatory text).

2. Critical / doubting views have been systematically removed from the article (see, for example, the removal of Goodin's analysis, or of William Binney's skeptical comments).

Also, note that in the comment directly below, MrX makes the extraordinary claim that Russian interference is a proven fact, something that is not supportable by the bulk of RS reporting. The fact that a number editors believe strongly that "Russian interference" is proven, and have been pushing hard for the article to reflect that belief, is the underlying cause for the two problems I list above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: "Alleged" is not appropriate for this article because wrongdoing has been asserted and determined. Let's please not WP:REHASH.- MrX 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You're just dead wrong about that. I frankly can't believe you're claiming that the wrongdoing is "determined." We've been through the reliable sources above (BBC, Reuters, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Associated Press), most of which treat this as an open question (and in fact, all the RSes I listed in parentheses do so). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That has been contradicted, and we have already had this discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You can say that as many times as you'd like, but every time we've had this conversation, the sources have overwhelmingly shown that reliable sources do not treat "Russian interference" as a fact. But every time we have the same source discussion, the editors who apparently believe otherwise get frustrated and declare we've already settled the issue - despite the overwhelming RS evidence from BBC, Reuters, AP, etc. that reliable sources treat "Russian interference" as an allegation of unknown truth. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In one aspect I agree, wew need to reword that opening paragraph (of the body, we already do this in the lead) to make it clear that this is the US intelligence communities, and not Wikipedias, opinion.

Well, one thing we can take as fact on reading this article is that it isn't the Russian Intelligence Community who control the narrative but it certainly appears to be controlled by an Intelligence Community. Seems that whenever the authoritative voice of Wikipedia is speaking about issues pertaining to US military and geopolitical establishments ("communities") - the voice becomes becomes that of a puppet. Which makes some of decisions Wiki takes in relation to other media outlets looking a bit hypocritical. Sarah777 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And as regards the ludicrous assertion that Russian interference has been "determined" - an impeccably mainstream outlet, RTE, the national broadcaster in Ireland, always use the term "alleged Russian interference". And RTE is no fan of either Trump or Russia - to put it mildly Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus Wikipedias hypocrisy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As to RTE, "always"?[25] "when US intelligence discovered a Russian plot to interfere in the presidential election.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC item (May 18th)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39957358 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

what are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-Comey opinion poll

Today Benwitt added a new poll and Geogene reverted it, saying "(thought we weren't going to expand the opinion polling section?" While I agree that excessive polls are not necessary, I believe that the dismissal of James Comey is a sufficiently significant event to have an impact on public opinion on this affair. Therefore a poll taken after the dismissal is warranted and informative to readers. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I found a Quinnipiac poll from today (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2460) about Comey. I will add it later today if you don't mind. Thanks -Benwitt

Article Name Change?

As this articles continues to become more and more about the investigations that are following the Russian interference, should we think about changing the name of the article. If so, what to?Casprings (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest Investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. That would be more in line with article contents. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support as it brings the article more in tune with the nature of investigative methodology, i.e. LAW; in this case, including Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938.

Would not support that. Way too long and odd.Casprings (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be called, Russian influence rather than interference. Almost all media in Western countries was against Trump and was also influencing the US elections to be against Trump, particularly European and Australian Media, but this is not considered to be "interference" but influencing. 202.142.36.223 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? we have many articles that cover the results and events that came after something and do not call them "the Kennedy assassination investigation", what we do is create a new article if the material is overburdening this one.Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any need for an article name change. The current title is clear, descriptive, and accurate.- MrX 11:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page, which one would assume defines the topic, reads:

• "The United States government's intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections"

Hence, the page title should, manifestly, be changed to "What the US intelligence agencies think about the possibility of Russian interference". Failing that, as requested by several people on this page, can we have a proper introductory sentence, which explains the full scope of the topic, and points out that investigations are ongoing, and then addresses, without prioritising any above all others, what various bodies, including but not limited to intelligence agencies, have said about alleged interference? The Kennedy assassination page, for example, does not start by simply declaring what the Warren Commission concluded – and that was a completed investigation. It's hard to see what is motivating the endless obstructionism on this point beyond politics and personal beliefs about what has happened tbh. This should be pretty basic stuff. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We should not obfuscate the title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA will explain why. I'm very open to exploring a better lead sentence that better describes the scope of the article.- MrX 17:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose name change. People have been proposing name changes for years and years now. Like since the times of Paul Revere. Sagecandor (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it feels like decades! Thanks for teaching me about Paul Revere. You never know what you'll learn each day on Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

parody

Not productive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this comment is off topic, but I thought it would be fun to do a parody of this article over on en.uncyclopedia.co, if anyone is interested and wants to help. I started one. Michael9422 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

NYTimes: Trump told Russians firing Comey eased pressure

This will quickly spread to all relevant RS; but it’s based on only one source and the original source was oral, which is bothersome. I think an official response is needed. [26] Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not dispute the comments to the Times.". Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. These are according to official White House records, corroborated by two inside sources. Several news sources are reporting it.- MrX 19:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is remarkable. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE

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.

---

There has been a little bit of an edit war to shoehorn the opinion of Dan Goodin into this article. I don't see that his opinion is widely-cited. It seems WP:UNDUE and we have much better sources than Ars Technica to rely on for expert opinions. I think this content should be removed. What do other think?- MrX 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE This is clearly FRINGEy COATRACK stuff at this point. As established at previous talk discussion, Goodin is not a notable journalist and this content does not belong in the article. The edit war has been stopped and the content will no doubt be removed by the next passer-by. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE. Agreed. It's also outdated by further events and better sources. It should be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion was to keep a brief mention of him in the article. Unless I am missing it I am not sure what you are referring to when you said it was established hes not notable? PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Remove based on WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk),

• DUE – Ars Technica is a highly respected technology publication and they regularly publish relevant commentary on cybersecurity. Dan Goodin is one of their top journalists. I see absolutely no reason to discount his analysis as fringe or undue. — JFG ^talk 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to a personal opinion but he is not wp-NOTABLE. eom. That's a first order screen of random opinions by journalists or pundits. As you know, this bit is out of date and reflects a view that is currently so marginal as to be extinct among notable journalists and accredited experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE – Ars (which leans left) has a record of publishing well-researched, authoritative pieces on several technical topics. It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than the author (security editor Goodin) at any major publication. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. Please respond to the given problem. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's the security editor for Ars Technica. Do you have any evidence that Ars Technica is not notable? -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. See previous 2 posts of SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, are you able to support your claim that "It would be difficult to find a more qualified security expert than [Goodin]" with some evidence—perhaps some cites?- MrX 20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A Google Book search shows a number of citations to Goodin's work. WP:IRS suggests we evaluate the publication as well; Ars Technica is also frequently cited. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That is your OR. The opinion of a non-notable writer is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR isn't relevant here. MrX asked about Goodin's qualifications, and James J. Lambden showed that Dan Goodin is cited in various books about cybersecurity. WP:OR says that we can't insert our own original research into articles. It says nothing about us not being allowed to figure out whether someone we're considering citing is competent. Throwing around Wikipedia policy acronyms out of context isn't at all helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Judging the reputation of an author or publication by the frequency of their citations in other publications is not in any way WP:OR. Please stop this disruption. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Find 5-6 mainstream publications that cite Mr. Goodin's opinion on the report and you will begin to make some headway on this. Also, please. It hurts my feelings when you accuse me of disruption. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings, BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, and MrX: Thank you for posting here. Let's be honest, "FRINGEy" is not a policy. Neither Goodin [27] nor Ars Technica are "fringe" sources and you've provided no links or data to suggest as much. Furthermore COATRACK doesn't apply to a source about the Joint Analysis Report if it is cited a section called "Joint Analysis Report." A coatrack for what - the subject at hand?

Here is what Goodin writes:

Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

.

Goodin also writes that "anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves," and

Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks... [the JAR] largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity.

Goodin's analysis, and those he cites, are consistent with other publications from the period. Counterpunch has a piece [28] that states,

For a document that purports to offer strong evidence on behalf of U.S. government allegations of Russian culpability, it is striking how weak and sloppy the content is. Included in the report is a list of every threat group ever said to be associated with the Russian government, most of which are unrelated to the DNC hack... nowhere in the document is any evidence provided to back up the claim of a Russian connection. Indeed, as the majority of items on the list are unrelated to the DNC hack, one wonders what the point is.

This is similar to analysis from a news piece in The Guardian suggesting the report had little credibility among experts:

The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late... Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.

France 24 has a somewhat more political take on the affair [29], writing that the report is theatre to justify the expulsion of diplomats (JFG pardon me if my translation is off in some way):

To justify sanctions against Russia, Barack Obama relied upon a report from the FBI that made Moscow responsible for the hacks during the American presidential election... In effect no concrete element placing responsibility for the cyberattacks on Moscow can be found in the FBI and DHS conslusions.

Similarly, French BFM TV writes a skeptical article [30] titled, "Election hijacking: FBI accuses the Russians ... without apparent proof." Arguing that this material is WP:UNDUE requires ignoring all this reporting.

Not only is Goodin's analysis consistent with others, it also reflects what a chorus of editors here (TFD, N-HH, Thucydides411, K.e.coffman, Adlerschloß, etc.) have been saying for months: there is a difference between what intelligence agencies might state, and what we actually know via reliable sources. There is no reason in policy to exclude every source that disagrees with the statements of American intelligence services and your personal political views. And that's OK. You can (and should) cite critical commentary without leading readers.

Lastly, I see that Lord Roem has taken upon themselves to ban Thucydides411 for adding the Goodin material, which is a pretty impetuous or aggressive move considering the context. Markbassett and JFG have both argued here to include Ars Technica as a source (recently), and a consultation of the archives appears to show consensus for its inclusion in the past (Archive 3). -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE Unsurprising that not every expert out there agrees that Russia is at fault, but the overwhelming majority of them do. This non-notable one doesn't merit inclusion. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Geogene that's not an accurate summary of responses to the JAR and you've provided no evidence to indicate otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodin's analysis does not gain credibility simply because you found a few sources that have reached similar conclusions. What would be much more convincing is to show a list of sources that cite this "top" journalist from this "authoritative" publication.- MrX 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe these examples were given in response to the comments suggesting his conclusions were "FRINGEy." Other sources reaching similar conclusions are directly relevant to that point. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards no inclusion -- not because the opinion is "Undue" or "Fringy", but because the para is fine as it is without the Ars Technica quote (shown in the diff by the OP as the "before" version). This is veering towards excessive intricate detail, especially as the Daily Beast quote in the same para is really good. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And thus do we confirm what was already known: There is no consensus to include this bit in the article and it may be safely removed like a hotswap hard drive. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE: Ars Technica is obviously a fine source for analysis of the technical case on alleged Russian hacking. It's a well-respected technology publication, and this sort of issue is its bread and butter. Dan Goodin has been writing for over a decade on computer security, for the Associated Press, The Register and Bloomberg, and is now the "Security Editor" for Ars Technica, so he's clearly competent to write on the subject. His article on the JAR is a good run-down of what various cybersecurity researchers thought about the report. Goodin's view isn't "Fringy" (he's reflecting the views of several prominent security researchers), and it isn't UNDUE (it concerns the JAR directly, and summarizes the dominant view among security researchers). I frankly don't understand the vehement opposition to including a quote from his article. Does anyone care to explain why they're so adamant that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited? It's just puzzling to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not WP:NOTABLE. it's his opinion. He's. not. notable. Fin SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica is notable, Goodin is a senior editor for it, and has worked at other news agencies around the world. Of course he is. Arguing otherwise is extraordinary, especially at a tech-centric place like Wikipedia. If you want to convince anyone and if your objections are good-faith, go to WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether Dan Goodin is WP:NOTABLE; all we need to establish is that he, along with Ars Technica, is a WP:RS. They are, beyond any doubt. — JFG ^talk 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RS? It's his opinion. Is my opinion going in the article? I used to work for Le Monde. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The cited article is not an opinion piece. Goodin reports on facts, analysis and opinions of various experts about the subject matter. It's called journalism, as your former press card surely shows. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My original argument still stands. It should be removed because it's outdated by further events and better sources.

I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions. They are therefore NOW fringe opinions, even if they may not have been in the early days where much was not known. To give them prominence now gives them undue weight in relation to newer information from better sources. Remove it, and other sources with equally outdated opinions of that nature.

If we were to keep Goodin and others of that persuasion, they should be moved to a "history" section which shows that in the early days with little evidence, there were doubters. Their opinions are now relegated to the rubbish heap of outdated theories. Such a rubbish heap exists for medical and scientific matters, but I'm not sure we want such a heap in this type of article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well put, and the harsh reality is that, unlike in medicine and engineering -- where the state of knowledge is constantly advancing -- reportorial rubbish is more frequently associated with efforts evincing less knowledge and insight. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions" do you mean? Dan Goodin's article discusses the JAR, and summarizes the very harsh reviews it got from cybersecurity experts. We have a section on the JAR, and that section should note how it was received. Are there newer, better sources that say the JAR was well received by cybersecurity experts? Please list them, because I haven't seen them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the abundant RS which affirm that the foreign and American intelligence communities are convinced that Russian hackers performed the hacking. The 35-page dossier gets even more specific, mentioning not just Russian hackers, but also Romanian hackers controlled by Putin, but paid by Trump. Note that evidence of who performed the hacking isn't only found in technical data, but also in evidence from surveillance of involved persons talking about it. To illustrate, a burglar can be convicted on technical data (finger prints, possession of stolen goods, etc.) and/or surveillance evidence of their own speech or the speech of accomplices. When crooks brag, that too is evidence.

At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it. Only fringe sources and older references express such doubts.

I'm not going to do any OR to second-guess the best sources, and I'm not going to give credence to outside and fringe observers who try to second-guess them. I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are "abundant RS" that contradict Dan Goodin (and the cybersecurity experts he cites) and say that the JAR contained strong evidence, then it should be easy for you to list a few. So far, you haven't. "I suggest you also refrain from such OR or from using the speculations of fringe and old sources." I don't know what original research you're talking about: I'm talking about an article by Dan Goodin in Ars Technica, not my own research. I also don't know what "fringe" sources you're talking about. Ars Technica certainly isn't "fringe." And I don't know what your point is about the article being "old" (5 months, to be precise). Are you suggesting that there's some newer source that does a better job of describing the JAR?

"At this time, no serious RS harbor any doubts that the Russians did it." Please read the section immediately following this one. BBC and Reuters treat "the Russians did it" as an allegation that may or may not be true. Are BBC and Reuters not serious?

Please, be more concrete, because you're making a lot of very bold statements without showing any evidence. Give a reason why BBC and Reuters should not be taken seriously, and list sources that contradict Dan Goodin's reporting on the JAR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Abundant RS affirm that US intelligence has issued an assessment. That is not the same as affirming the truth of that assessment, which obviously has not occurred to this point. Intelligence agencies are dubious as sources; it is important to report what they are saying when that is notable, but treating them as either perfectly competent or perfectly honest, when the underlying evidence beneath their claims has not even been displayed, would obviously be inappropriate, or even evidence of an "authoritarian mindset" that has always plagued societies (some people feeling they do not need to see evidence for a claim, because they trust a structural authority). Intelligence agencies are often incorrect, incompetent, and dishonest, full stop. US intelligence even in recent years has often displayed these attributes.

It stretches comprehension to claim that RS reporting the stated assessment of dubious intelligence agencies (an assessment offered without proof, to "protect intelligence sources", conveniently) would qualify as making earlier technical analysis actually based on evidence "outdated."

I am unsure why you would even mention the 35 page dossier in this context when RS pretty universally describe it as "unverified" or worse. Bob Woodward called it a "garbage document." Adlerschloß (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Looking at the above discussion, I count 5 editors in favor of inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis, 5 against, and one leaning against (K.e.coffman). You've removed not only Dan Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but that of Kevin Poulsen, saying, "looking at talk this does not appear to have support." That's not an accurate statement, given the 5 editors above favoring inclusion of Dan Goodin's analysis. Moreover, K.e.coffman explicitly said in their statement that the Daily Beast quote is "really good," so I take it they wouldn't favor your deletion of that quote. Instead of there being "no support" for the material you've removed, there appears to be a majority here that would actually oppose your deletion. Given that, you should self-revert, and you should refrain in the future from leaving false edit summaries. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Correct -- Either Ars Technica or Daily Beast should be included; see the "before" version here: diff. I participated in an earlier discussion on the Daily Beast quote and the material arrived at seemed to work fine back then. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE. Ars Technica is an excellent source and Goodin is a well-known security journalist. An anecdotal aside here, years ago in San Francisco I was recommended to seek employment at Ars, and Goodin was the person I was actually supposed to speak with. That ended up not happening; but I can note that the person who referred me to Goodin was a keynote speaker at multiple computer security conferences, and was nominated for multiple Pwnie awards over the years (receiving an honourable mention at one, which is actually mentioned in our Wikipedia article on the subject). Goodin regularly attends the Baysec computer security professionals meetup in San Francisco which is one the most elite such gatherings in the entire world (and I'm sure "Russiagate" has been extensively discussed there), basically he can in no way be derogated as "fringe" in contexts of the industry. Adlerschloß (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You showed up for a job interview and didn't meet Mr. Goodin therefore the non-NOTABLE Mr. Goodin whom you didn't meet should be quoted in this WP article? And you say you've heard that Mr. Goodin hangs out at an open meetup called Baysec? SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising my recounting. My point was that Goodin was held in very high regard by one of the leading reverse engineers in the world. Regarding Baysec, attending regularly for years would entail Goodin communicating often with globally-leading information security experts, from both the private and public sector, in an informal setting in which everyone is "saying what they really think." I am sure "Russiagate" and evidence regarding that narrative (or lack thereof) were substantively discussed.

Any source that contradicts a narrative that is being strangely and anomalously pushed on en.wiki through pointing out the obvious, namely that none of this has been proved and almost no evidence has been offered to substantiate the allegations, is being maligned and dragged through the mud, called "fringe", as occurred with Jeffrey Carr. The point is, I happen to personally know that Goodin is not regarded as fringe by anyone whose expertise would be relevant in this context. It is bizarre and confusing why anyone confident of their own assessment on this matter would be working so hard to keep sources out of the article that display what is, again, the obvious: that there is no technical proof justifying the US intelligence assessment of this. Generally those confident about their own viewpoint do not work to censor opposing arguments or evidence, and the repeated pattern of this here is suspicious itself (I feel rather agnostic on the specificity of accusations against Russia, but the behaviour of those wishing to depict that accusation as proved or universally accepted when it obviously isn't is suspicious enough to cast the accusations themselves in a new light for me). Adlerschloß (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Adler, I have read what you said about Mr. Goodin. You are presenting your personal conclusion, based on the sort of inference and circumstantial information every human uses in everyday life. We all sink or swim by our savvy reactions to people and events. But WP editors are not supposed to rely on our personal opinions when we propose content for the encyclopedia. I hope that with some reflection you can understand that your personal confidence as to who's who in the IT world is yours alone, and that it cannot relied on by the community here without RS documentation as to Mr. Goodin's standing as a WP:NOTABLE expert whose opinion needs to be published in an encyclopedia.

It's amusing sometimes to watch the Americans on their cable-TV news programs. I read the mainstream US media and I do sometimes indulge in some CNN and the like along with my BBC and RAI. I haven't seen anyone pausing to say "alleged interference" in a long time. Occasionally last year, occasionally in January this year, but as of May 2017, it's a WP:FRINGE POV that the Russians did not interfere. And anyway it's telling that you appear to think Goodin's questioning the interference when in fact he's criticizing the US Gov't's need to withhold classified information from the published summary report. Finally, your wrap-up is kind of surprising. If the efforts of 20-30 WP editors who struggle to sustain the mainstream narrative here makes you doubt the underlying facts as to geopolitical events, that seems like one giant leap for mankind -- logically speaking. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE, Not notable. Opinion of a writer at an online tech mag. I don’t see where he has any experience in counterespionage. Objective3000 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What level of "experience in counterespionage" would you require a journalist to have before you would agree to quoting them in the article? I would have thought being the "Security Editor" for a well-respected technology publication, and a former cybersecurity journalist for major publications like Bloomberg, AP and The Register would be enough qualification. Does he have to be a former intelligence agent? I'm just trying to get a sense of what threshold you're setting before we can cite a journalist's work here. After you've set that level, perhaps we can go through the article and remove all the reporting by journalists who don't meet it (and since Goodin is probably one of the most expert journalists we cite, we'll most likely have to delete most of the journalistic sources in the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably have more experience in the area than he, going back to the 70s. And I most certainly don't think I have the gravitas needed. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know as he has never been a part of the intelligence community. He is a writer in an online mag. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Experience regarding cybersecurity has been evidenced by many above, and that is at least as important in this context. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Hes a well respected cyber security expert from an good reliable source. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest include - I'll say seems obvious here's a prominent tech publication's cybersecurity lead giving an evaluation of the intelligence papers ... obviously relevant source with authority on topic, and seems more relevant than including right behind it of 'former hacker' from the Daily Beast who is saying much the same thing: both saying 'that did not give evidence'. Leave it in and move along, or else put it to a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the suggestion that a non-WP:NOTABLE writer is being called an authority on the technical subject of cybersecurity-cum-counterintelligence. Moreover as many editors have said many times: The non-classified report is not the basis for the human mainstream's near-universal acceptance of the fact that Russians interfered. If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that the US Government is too dumb to figure this out with the vast resources and information available to the US and its allies' intelligence services. Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist. When there are important points deserving DUE weight, there's no scarcity of RS citations. I would like to see an acknowledged counterespionage cybersecurity expert, perhaps a distinguished former intelligence official (not an Iraq-war-era weapons sleuth) who articulates the problems in a compelling way that can provide the basis for article content. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing puzzling about it. Dan Goodin is the Security Editor for Ars Technica, and he previously wrote for Bloomberg, AP and The Register on cybersecurity. If a respected tech publication like Ars Technica (along with AP, Bloomberg and The Register) thinks he's qualified to write on this subject, and even to make him their senior editor on such topics, then he almost certainly is qualified. "If there are flaws in the report, that would mean that there could have been a "better" (per some undefined standard) unclassified public statement on the matter. That's all it means." That's your own personal speculation. All we can do in the article is reflect what journalists have written about the JAR. "Anyway, if there is significant commentary about the report itself, we would need to find a notable expert, not an internet journalist." This may surprise you, but some of the best tech publications are published on the Internet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The responses you have posted to half a dozen editors here are entirely unresponsive, misrepresent the demonstrated flaws and objections, and pose straw man deflections instead of simple proffers of the material that would support inclusion of your POV in the article. BTW there are millions of journalists roaming the planet, each of them with their fans and admirers. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I reverted this edit of yours (but recovered your citation fix), because the context of the articles by Goodin and Poulsen is clear. They were both written shortly after the JAR was published, so there's no reason to repeatedly state the publication dates. You wrote in your edit summary, "add dates for context. When these opinions were written is crucial. ALL early reports were "alleged" and doubting, while many later ones are more certain." I don't see any evidence for the dates of the opinions being crucial. You've now claimed several times that there are abundant reliable sources that contradict Goodin's analysis of the JAR, but so far, you haven't posted a single one. I don't think the general evaluation of the JAR as a very weak report has changed since early January 2017. If you have sources that say the evaluation of the JAR has indeed changed, by all means, please post them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• DUE Per JFG and Lambden. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your edit summary includes an explicitly POV rationale: "The dates are necessary to show this is ancient information." In other words, you're trying to downplay the articles written by Goodin and Poulsen. You've stated repeatedly that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR are contradicted by newer reliable sources, but I'm still waiting for you to find even a single source that supports your assertion. So, do you have those sources, or are you going to admit that you don't have them?

Enough is really enough: Goodin and Poulsen criticized the JAR heavily (as did other prominent cybersecurity experts, cited in Goodin's article). You can't just relativize every fact you don't like in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You have removed those dates before, and we shouldn't have to keep restoring them. Just as with attribution for opinions, including dates for time sensitive commentary can be important. We often do this. Since we haven't yet created an actual timeline of events, as suggested, this is the next best thing. As for your comment about "weasel words", the part you removed was from the source. Without those words, the content is misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• UNDUE per Objective3000.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need for parsing to determine due weight

@BullRangifer: Again, can you post your sources that contradict Goodin and Poulsen's analyses of the JAR?

Also, the version you've reverted to emphasizes one very minor aspect of Goodin's commentary - one that only gets a single sentence of mention in Goodin's piece. I can't help but conclude that you're just trying to downplay Goodin's criticism of the JAR, especially since you said explicitly in your edit summary that you'd like readers to know the criticism is "ancient." -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the current wording (my bold emphasis). A parsing of the whole concept, and of certain phrases, is crucial for any discussion about how editors here should determine due weight, and that's what the following is about:

"... Goodin criticized the Joint Analysis Report for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted so as not to reveal sources and methods of cyberattack detection."

Leaving out the bold balancing words of that second phrase of the sentence was really bad and clearly your "truther" attempt to push the idea that the Russians were not involved and are innocent. By doing so, undue weight was given to Goodin's other words of criticism. Even Goodin realizes that the report cannot be expected to tell the whole story, and, like any other intelligence report, it doesn't reveal all that is known by the experts in the investigation.

Criticisms on that basis are naive and should not be given much weight. While called an "analysis report", it's really just a morsel reluctantly thrown to the masses to appease them, rather than a completely open and comprehensive attempt to inform them. That's how the intelligence community functions. They have to do that. Everyone wants more info, including experts, and they are frustrated when they don't get more. C'est la vie. They should be happy they got anything at all. As long as the investigations are ongoing, and right now they are intensifying as more things are confirmed, we're not going to get the full story. If Trump's obstruction efforts are unsuccessful, we may see this cleared up in court.

I share the POV expressed by "former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, [who] stated that while there is solid evidence of Russia's interference from other sources,..." It is that "solid evidence" which should get more weight, and complaints given less weight, or not even mentioned when they are obviously contradictory to the facts. We shouldn't give "truthers" (your POV) any weight here. A passing mention showing how foolish they are would be all that should be allowed.

The reason I don't give this criticism of the JAR report much weight isn't because of other technical details which might find fault with it, if they even exist, but because there is so much other evidence (Kevin Poulsen's POV), which we also mention in the article. It shows that Russians were behind the hacking and interference. No doubt about it. Period. Full stop. (Only truthers doubt it.)

Technical data, especially the incomplete bits we know, should no longer be your sole focus. Stop giving it so much weight in your thinking. It doesn't change the bigger picture. Look at the big picture and realize that right now the technical data is a minor aspect which is deliberately slurred from our view, and therefore criticisms of it should not be given much weight at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments made on this talk page appeal to the authority of the unseen evidence which remains hidden for protection of sources and methods. But the reliance on the classified version of the intelligence report is overblown. Even people who have seen it admit that there is not much more in there than in the declassified version.

The new report incorporates material from previous assessments and assembles in a single document details of cyber operations dating back to 2008. Still, U.S. officials said there are no major new bombshell disclosures even in the classified report. A shorter, declassified version is expected to be released to the public early next week.
— The Washington Post January 5, 2017 [31]

— JFG ^talk 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that just says that it's clear the Russians did interfere and that there are no conclusive pointers ("bombshells") to the further facts and details that are currently under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, I find this wording in the first phrase of the sentence rather awkward, especially the highlighted words:

"... for its lack of evidence connecting hacking to Russian efforts to affect the U.S. election, while acknowledging that details were probably omitted...."

I suspect there is some ambiguity there, so I'd like to know what you think that means. How should it be parsed?

1. Does it suggest there may not be any connection between the hacking and the Russians? Is Goodin a "truther", like you?
2. Does it mean we haven't explained well enough how the Russian hacking actually affected the elections?

We need more eyes to parse this phrase and then tweak it to clear up any ambiguity. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As editors respond to BullRangifier's very clear and well-founded concerns with respect to this content, bear in mind that the declassified reports are not the subject of this article. So to the extent that these critical pundits and blogotypes are directing their criticisms at the reports or at the fact that the intelligence agencies do not share all their sensitive and privileged information with the internet, this content is really off-topic and classic UNDUE. At some point we need to just get it out of the article and work on the mounting backlog of relevant significant RS reporting on core content. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer hasn't presented any well-founded concerns with respect to this content. BullRangifer keeps asserting that Goodin and Poulsen's analyses are out-of-date (despite refusing to give any sources as evidence of this), and then goes on to try to denigrate anyone who wants to include reliably sourced criticism of the JAR as a "truther." BullRangifer is giving explicitly political reasons for excluding or relativizing Goodin and Poulsen's analyses.

"[T]his content is really off-topic": Criticism of the JAR in a section about the JAR is not off-topic. Reliable sources criticized the JAR heavily, but you're trying to exclude that criticism from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just an assertion. As I asked BullRangifer almost a month ago:

(BullRangifer speaking): No, just no. Those who understand these things best have "concluded" that Russia interfered in the election, and numerous RS have so stated. This is a very controversial proposal. One cannot make such a decision based on the presence or absence of one word. It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed. Investigations since then have been on the basis that the allegations were correct, and discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it, and that Putin directed it.

What's left is to confirm the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election. So far what's been discovered tends strongly to confirm that allegation. So far we're calling that part an allegation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(JFG speaking) Regarding the lead section, you should both comment in the RfC. Somehow all discussions have turned into a kind of source battle on the word "alleged" but that's not what the amended text says, so I would appreciate that opinionated editors give a honest look and state their position.

Now, BullRangifer, I wish you could convince me about your statements:

1. "It started as allegations, which quickly were confirmed" – what confirmation did we get besides the allegations, started by CrowdStrike and the DNC in June 2016 and repeated ad nauseam by US intelligence services and politicians since then, that Russian intelligence services were the perpetrators of DNC hacks and acted as sources to WikiLeaks, while being directed by Putin himself? On what basis, and by whom, were these inferences made? And with which evidence?
2. "Those who understand these things best" – you mean the intelligence services of a nation alleging misdeeds by intelligence services of another nation? or a political party who happened to lose an unlosable election alleging misdeeds by a rival political party who happened to win it? or established members of a political party alleging misdeeds by a newcomer into their party who happened to win the support of their voters, to their dismay? or vested interests who fear what an "unfit" president may bestow upon them?
3. "discoveries since then have repeatedly confirmed that Russia was behind it" – Which discoveries have confirmed anything? I read an awful lot about this issue, and see only innuendo. If you have seen some tangible confirmations which are not mere allegations, I'd love to see them.

Never received an answer. Please enlighten me as to this "mounting backlog" of evidence confirming the Russian intervention since the initial allegations of June 2016. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've also been asking for BullRangifer to post their sources for a while now, without any luck. BullRangifer keeps claiming that "abundant" RS say one thing or another, but doesn't actually cite any RS when asked to do so. For example, BullRangifer said that

"I have no problem with Ars Technica or Goodin, per se. Ars Technica is an excellent source, and Goodin might be an expert, but his opinion, and others who share that opinion, have been overrun by further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions."

I asked what reliable sources contradict Goodin's article about the JAR. I still haven't gotten a reply, even though BullRangifer continues to revert my edits on the rationale that Goodin's article is obsolete. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to make light of it, but that's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your dog?" -- You won't find articles that bother to scrutinize relatively weak opinion on the internet for the purpose of debunking it. This is an issue that comes up all over WP. Fringe or inexpert or non-notable comment is not refuted by the mainstream -- it is ignored. Goodin, as a non-notable journalist, is not daily on the radar of the Wall St. Journal, NY Times or Washington Post. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the question before answering? Thucydides asks BullRangifer to show "further evidence and multiple RS which clearly contradict those opinions." He doesn't ask for somebody to opine about Goodin's qualifications, just somebody who would refute his point. A point that most cybersecurity experts have made too, i.e. the abyssal weakness of report after report. And yet every time somebody dares question the official narrative, they are mocked with "look at the reports, the proof is there, the facts are clear". — JFG ^talk 23:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost everybody has a viewpoint that is inconsistent with Goodin's and as to "refuting" Goodin, that can only be done with specific reference to Goodin and such reference will not be found in the overwhelming majority of cases wherein a WP editor cites minor, fringe, or non-notable opinions on widely reported issues. Please consider whether your "did you read it?" was civil or constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It having now been demonstrated that there is no consensus to include, and with no secondary reference to Goodin's view supporting DUE WEIGHT to include it, the disputed Goodin sentence should now be expunged from the article, leaving the Poulsen bit in place to move to the head of that paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It should be minimized or removed altogether as clearly UNDUE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In the case of true WP:NOTABLE experts whose opinion is widely regarded as dispositive, there will be many secondary RS citations to that notable expert analysis. In this case, Goodin is quoted in a nice piece in Breitbart, on a few fake news blogs, and on a scattered and scant sample of other venues. And that's not even before we get into how the current text misrepresents Goodin's own emphasis on the report not the acknowledged Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

From the above input (in bold), it looks like there's more support for inclusion of Goodin's article than opposition. Given that, the edit summary of its most recent deletion is inaccurate. Since editors here lean towards including Goodin's article, let's figure out what sort of phrasing would be acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an election. This is just one of those things that does pretty good in the popular vote but doesn't make it across the finish line. There's no consensus for this stuff. Time to get back to more important work here. SPECIFICO talk 10:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If this isn't an election, then who determines if there's consensus? You?

A majority of editors supported inclusion. You haven't given a good argument for excluding Goodin's research. You've been throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks: WP:FRINGE (Goodin's analysis actually represents the mainstream view of the JAR), WP:UNDUE (the JAR is central to this article, and cybersecurity experts' views on it are important to note), your idea that Goodin isn't an expert (he's written for a number of respected publications on cybersecurity throughout his career, and his analysis is publised in a reliable source, so your objection about expertise is spurious).

You challenged inclusion of Goodin's analysis, and it turned out a majority of editors didn't agree with you. Unless you have some constructive suggestions on wording, I'm going to reinsert Goodin's analysis using the same wording I used in my original addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: consensus & elections: Please review WP policy and guidelines concerning closing of contentious discussions. If Mr. Goodin's view were shared by the mainstream view of reliable sources, we would not have to reach into Ars Technica to pluck it on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the policies. Again, if not a majority of editors, who determines consensus? You're just asserting that there's no consensus, despite the balance of opinion falling in favor of including the Goodin article. It sounds at this point like you're asserting your personal veto on the material.

We're not reaching at all by citing Ars Technica. The Ars Technica article happens to be a very good summary of various cybersecurity experts' analyses of the JAR. There are other articles that also note the negative reaction to the JAR, such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung article cited in the JAR section. I simply picked the Ars Technica article because it gave a good overview, and this subject is one that Ars Technica often covers with greater competence than some larger publications. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this guy has any expertise in the narrow fields of cyber intelligence or counter-espionage, or knowledge of the particulars of this incident. As I understand it, he’s a guy that writes articles on security of interest to server and PC owners. That’s what the readers of Ars care about, not government cyber-warfare. He has demonstrated no government security clearance or knowledge of top secret analysis methodology, or any of the particulars in this specific investigation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You've already made the argument above that (essentially) only former intelligence analysts should be quoted. I don't agree, and a majority of editors apparently didn't find that argument persuasive. Effectively, your argument is that if a journalist didn't spend time working at the CIA or NSA, we shouldn't quote them when they write about a US government report on cybersecurity. Your argument, if we followed it, would introduce a very serious bias into Wikipedia, in favor of the official US government position.

If a journalist is assigned by a reliable publication to write about a given topic, that means that the reliable publication considers that journalist competent to write about the subject. I don't have to sit here and list Dan Goodin's CV to you. He writes for Ars Technica, and has written for a number of other highly respected publications on similar topics throughout his career. He doesn't need to have done a stint at the CIA to be able to report on these issues. If we only quoted former US intelligence analysts, as you're suggesting, we'd end up writing horribly biased articles.

So, if you don't have any suggestions about wording, I'm going to edit according to the above consensus for inclusion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That is NOT my argument. My argument is that he has demonstrated no expertise in the subject at hand, cyber-warfare. Objective3000 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't reinsert that stuff. You can post a request at WP:AN to have an uninvolved Admin close the thread if you believe that it justifies reinsertion, but it will accomplish nothing to continue your edit war based on your personal preference. SPECIFICO talk 11:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You keep making the same claim over and over again, namely that Dan Goodin shouldn't be cited because he's "not notable". That is not the question: we are not writing an article about Dan Goodin, we are citing his bona fide journalistic work published in a reputable reliable source. Moving the goalposts and repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your view. When I asked you: Please show me the policy that says Wikipedia can only cite notable journalists. you responded with… crickets.

The other objection we see, notably from BullRangifer, is that Goodin's study is ancient and has been superseded by more recent sources. However, the age of his article doesn't change its validity, just like the age of the ODNI reports doesn't change what they say. Intelligence services have published reports in October 2016, December 2016 and January 2017; each of these publications has triggered feedback from various commentators at the time. Since then, no new report, no new feedback, and prior feedback remains valid unless substantial new information comes to light. Given the lack of new information, understandably, when asked by Thucydides411 and Adlerschloß to provide these "more recent sources", BullRangifer responded with… crickets.

At the beginning of this thread, answering your unsubstantiated claims of WP:FRINGE and WP:COATRACK, Darouet asked you: Do you have any evidence to suggest Ars Technica is a marginal source? You responded with… crickets.

On pure editor count, we have now 8 people considering this content DUE (JFG, Thucydides411, Darouet, Adlerschloß, PackMecEng, James J. Lambden, Markbassett, Jrheller1) vs 7 people considering it UNDUE (MrX, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, Casprings, Geogene, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek) and one neutral (K.e.coffman could accept either Ars Technica or The Daily Beast but doesn't think both are necessary). If this were an RfC, the closer would evaluate the strength of the arguments on both sides, in light of policy. In a discussion about inserting some contents, where proponents demonstrate the suitability of said contents per policy, while opponents fail to justify the arguments they cite or just go "me too", I don't see why we should abide by the same opponents' vocal calls that "the matter is settled, there is no consensus". Your repeated attempts to curtail discussion by declaring the issue settled while you are heavily WP:INVOLVED are at best disruptive, at worst evidence of bad faith.

Finally, spending weeks and walls of text discussing a simple, journalistically well-sourced sentence in an article that otherwise is quite wordy and repetitive, strikes me as counter-productive; possibly something we agree upon. Let it go! — JFG ^talk 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How does this witticism contribute to improving the article? — JFG ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you are saying applies to you as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, User:SPECIFICO is not an admin (see your INVOLVED link). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, he's a simple editor heavily involved in the discussion. That gives him even less authority than an involved admin to act as judge, jury and executioner on said discussion thread. — JFG ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. That applies to you as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No: I never declared this discussion settled. — JFG ^talk 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG please re-read my statement. I said that this would be resolved by soliciting an uninvolved close. It's surprising to see you misrepresent my clear and straightforward statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes you did today,[32] thanks for that. You also did call it settled several times before: May 8, May 14 and May 16. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, "yes you did today" -- What did I do today? Did you intend this to be a response to my previous post? In what way is that a response? Please have another look at the words in my previous post. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @JFG: You overlooked the comment from Fyddlestix, which makes this a tie in terms of vote count, and certainly not indicative of a consensus at this point.- MrX 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this ought to be excluded as well. It is out-of-date, and I think there are significant weight concerns. (As a compromise, the Kevin Poulsen stuff might be OK - don't see why we need both him and Goodin). Neutrality^talk 16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The faction promoting the UNDUE source here is experienced enough to understand the difference between editors stating the obvious -- that there is no consensus for inclusion -- and on the other hand, editors declaring this a settled, formally closed issue. And that is why this thread has devolved into a time sump of monumental suction. The simple remedy of the aggrieved complainants would be to articulate a convincing theory for inclusion that could tip consensus to their view. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Agent Registration Act and Russian-speaking members of AIPAC

This is not a forum. Objective3000 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems there is a higher-than-normal ratio of Russian, Slavic, or Yiddish speaking member of AIPAC than other Lobby groups focused on in the current investigation. Are they not one and the same, and doesn`t this need to be thouroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If not, why not? Liberty and Justice FOR ALL. This smacks of Neo-Conservative Neo-Liberal McCarthyism with an Islamophic twist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.200.105.194 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see User talk:125.200.105.194 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_violations_by_Conspiracy_theory_user_spamming_links_to_AIPAC_and_anti-Israel_on_unrelated_pages for more on this user. Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

can you add in see also " Israel interference in the 2016 United States elections ? or at least put it somehow ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources or it didn't happen… Off-topic too. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 20 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.

"See also" links to McCarthyism, etc.

I have removed the addition of "see also" links to McCarthyism and Propaganda in the United States.

I'm happy to talk about this further, but this seems baldly POV to me; it suggests (in Wikipedia's voice) that this topic is related to those topics, and that's a very contentious (and indeed rather fringe) point of view. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how either of those subjects are related to this one. Augurar, perhaps you could explain?- MrX 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like POV to me. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

POV unless good sources are provided. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Oval Office meeting RE: national security risk

Odd overnight news, not sure how or where it fits here: [33] [34] [35]. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As the election is over not at all. This is a different issue now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Still in the area of ramifications of their efforts.Casprings (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Really goofy. But, I don't think it improves the article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[36] -- At least one White House insider is quoted as saying it's more "terrifying" than "goofy" -- we need to see more RS reporting on this. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cornell and Georgetown University professors quoted on the seriousness of the national security risk of the Trump administration apparently letting Russian government bring electronic devices into oval office. Here: [37]. Former Deputy Director of the CIA and a former KGB spy's comments also were also reported. Trump staff claimed to have been "tricked."[38] [39] [40].

This is being widely discussed in the mainstream media and it appears increasingly significant to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reports indicate that a White House official photographer was present as well as the official Russian photographer. Amusing anecdote for the ongoing spy story but this is certainly not related to election interference. WP:KITCHENSINK? — JFG ^talk 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Weasel again. What reports? RS please? The POTUS slipping highest security access to the Russians is not kitchen sink. And that is not my opinion, because I have no particular interest in the Americans. But this is receiving huge ongoing coverage including coverage of real accredited experts, not the "consultant pundit" and blogmeister types. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:Waiting to hear back from you what RS reports that the a White House official photographer was in the Oval Office for the meeting of Trump+Russians. The exlcusion of US press has received ongoing coverage in light of the subsequent leaks of discussion in that meeting, including Trump's remarks concerning his dismissal of Director Comey and his boasts that he shared information which intelligence experts believe compromised Israeli intelligence assets in Syria. @MelanieN: I'd be interested in your current thoughts as to whether you still agree that the exclusion of non-Russian press was just an amusing anecdote. I am inclined to add some article content on this. Also pinging @Slatersteven: who commented below. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Here's NPR from May 11, for example: That's all they let into the room, the White House photographer and what they thought was the official Russian photographer. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Or if you prefer CNN on May 12: The White House blocked US reporters from photographing the meeting, opting to allow only White House and a sole Russian photographer to capture images of the leaders' interactions. — JFG ^talk 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether the American media was excluded. According to every RS report, the American press was excluded. The CNN video on the page you link above states that the American media was excluded around 3:20 in the video. It is irrelevant whether an White House photographer under Trump Administration's control was permitted in the room. That's not American media and it doesn't help address our editorial duties to deflect from the issue. JFG has cited a stale report that did not have the full context of subsequent revelations concerning the meeting. It is contextualized in the majority of more recent mainstream accounts, e.g. [41] [42][43]. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I was merely answering your question about a source stating that a White House photographer was present in addition to the Kremlin photographer: I gave you two sources. Now you ask why the press was excluded; I have no idea but methinks you're reading too much into this. Trump met the Ukrainian foreign minister the same day and it doesn't look like the press was invited either. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the description "amusing anecdote". It is not part of this story (Russian interference in the election). And it is not receiving "huge ongoing coverage", at least not in mainstream/neutral sources. It was a best a one-time sidebar. Reflective, perhaps, of Trump's ongoing eagerness to be pals with the Russians, but that is not (at this time) part of this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just grabbed a few quick RS discussions, but apparently if JFG is seeing revisionist accounts of the matter it must be receiving ongoing attention both from the White House and from the mainstream press accounts JFG has seen. According to the links I found, the possibility of a Russian surveillance device in the Oval Office is a big deal. Why is the appearance that US officials may be facilitating ongoing Russian interference in the US any less relevant than the long list of other follow-up events that we have included in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:01, May 12, 2017‎ (UTC)

Its not, it's just a different issue. related maybe (in the same way say Ww1 and Ww2 are related) but not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JFG - this isn't related to the 2016 election. It might belong in Russian espionage in the United States. Burley22 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Now it finally all makes sense: Russian intelligence services worked very hard to get Trump elected, so that they could plant a microphone in the Oval Office and listen to him fuming at CNN all day while Putin strokes his white cat. Bwahahahahaha!!! — JFG ^talk 18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The strange and unprecedented and exclusion of US media in favor of a Russian "photographer" from Tass is once again in the news with the reports in RS press that Trump compromised US national security by sharing classified information from which US intelligence assets locations or identities can be inferred.[44] [45] SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

The recent investigation material has moved around in the article because of several edits attempting to reorganize the content. I question whether the recent report that a Trump advisor is being investigated belongs under "Investigation by Special Counsel". None of the source articles that I've read specify that. Are we assuming that any ongoing FBI investigation of this falls under the Special Counsel investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Special Counsel is essentially picking up the investigation where the FBI left off and possibly amplifying it, so yes it makes sense. — JFG ^talk 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. The investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation. Are we documenting all three phases? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Right now, 'Investigation by Special Counsel' is a third level section under '2017 Developments'. In my opinion, there should be a level two 'Investigations' section broken down further, either chronologically, or (my preference) by 'Criminal investigation' and 'Counterintelligence investigation'. The investigations are a very significant aspect of this subject, and most of the future coverage will likely fall under that category. This is a complex subject. Coming up with a consistent structure is going to be important to making sure the article is informative to our readers.- MrX 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)