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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rename

Hello. This article would be improved if it was either one thing or the other. Can you find your way to rename it? "Timeline of scandals related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and attempts to impeach Donald Trump" becomes "Timeline of scandals related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" and "Attempts to impeach Donald Trump." -SusanLesch (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article desperately needs to be renamed. It is way too complicated. "Scandals" is not WP:NPOV and there are too many subjects covered by the existing title. Events related to Efforts to impeach Donald Trump can be included on the timeline without explicitly including it in the article title.- MrX 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. The word "scandals" is a free ticket to having this article deleted. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really, this is a complicated thing, and nobody has yet to come up with an easy catch-all name for this in the media, like Watergate or the Arab Spring. It would be nice if they, or rather YOU did. Any suggestions? BTW, anything that causes multiple investigations, both Congressional and criminal, is a scandal. It's IS WP:NPOV because everyone is treating it as such in the real world. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of subjects are complicated but we don't use the title to explain them. We also don't use words like "scandals" or use WP:SYNTH to connect subjects to imply that there are actually attempts to impeach Trump because of Russian election interference. I have boldly moved the page to a new title. - MrX 12:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If sources do not say Impeachment neither can we

The BBC source does not say Impeachment it says investigation, the sources about the Israeli intelligence are also being misrepresented, can we stop this and say only what sources say? As it stands this page is little more then a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bold dates

Is there a reason why some dates are bolded and not others?- MrX 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing most of this myself, and I'm a bit lazy. They should all be in bold. Please help me by doing that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's all fixed now. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Resolved

Just putting in a section per WP guidelines of [Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup Template messages/Cleanup], for discussion of the neutrality tag inserted 24 May, here.

I think this I over the wording such as 'scandal', and the tone/choices for the narrative. Others may fill in ac desired. Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... the user who added it still needs to explain specifically what's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The article was very POV at the beginning; I think we can remove the tag now. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

More or less. Even things as simple as calling Donny Trump and Hilary Hillary. As to why I did not exp;lain it, I raised a couple of issues above.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's not needed a this point. The tag has been removed.- MrX 11:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Israel

What Trump said (according to the Salon source "I never mentioned the word or the name ‘Israel,”. So what we have is a headline that does not match the text of the actual article. Thus I think we have problem with this sourcing. Also it does not say Mossad, it says Israel.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli intelligence agency is called MOSSAD. When Israeli intelligence does anything, it's as Mossad. If the CIA gets intel from Israel, they get it from Mossad. Simple, no? Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So if (say) the FBI passed intel onto Israel that would be from the CIA?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Israel statement, which was unrelated to the Russian interference and investigations thereof, and was poorly sourced anyway. — JFG ^talk 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not the crime that get's you it's the cover-up.

• Comment This RFC is not about Mr Rich, it is about the wire taping of Trump by Obama, anything else if irrelevant and off topic and just confuses this RFC. Inn fact it is disrupting this RFC, so please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply It's about including the pushing back against the investigation by using fantasy and fake news. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?"Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This (by the way) was originally part of the above RFC, and not a separate thread.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(as I as saying) someone doesn't understand what the term: "related to" means.

When I first created this article, I called it:

What?Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

When I first created this article, I called it: "Timeline of scandals related to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and attempts to impeach Donald Trump." There was a reason for that and in light of certain large revisions that I was forced to revert, allow me to explain it.

Let's go back to Watergate. There was the break-in, and then there was the coverup, then investigations and other related scandals, such as "dirty tricks" during the primary campaign in the primary, when Muskie was beating Nixon in the polls. The notorious "Canuck Letter" and Senator Muskie's weeping himself to oblivion have nothing to do with the break-in at the DNC headquarters the following June, but they are very much part of the scandal.

Trump's allegation that Obama bugged his office literally derailed the House intelligence committee's investigation for months and ruined Devin Nunes' career. This is highly relevant for a single reason: It was meant as a distraction from the main investigation and it worked for a time. The next two public hearings in the investigation were CANCELLED in part because of it. It was RELATED TO the scandal as it is part of the cover-up.

Someone in the media said that this whole thing may be a "cover-up with out a crime." This may indeed be the case. The Trump administration has been trying to stop the whole mess from the beginning in a most ham-fisted way.

the whole matter can be basically broken down into a few topics:

• 1) Michael Flynn: his rise and fall and the reprecussions.
• 2) Sergei Kislyac: the spymaster and his Republican dupes.
• 3) The hacking of the DNC and the investigations.
• 4) The coverup (the "wiretap tweet, the Comey firing, etc.)
• 5) Trump, Trump and more Trump.

When I titled the article "....scandals related to..." I did so to be inclusive and build a comprehensive shorthand narrative. Removing large sections on the cover-up as "irrelevent." is not helping that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, lets go back to Watergate...it was investigate and the investigation is over. We know what is (and what was not) related. Nore has there been an impeachment (or even the launching of the first steps) of Donny.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I was in high school when Watergate happened. The media at the time knew exactly what it was, at least by January 1973. It was about the cover-up and dirty tricks by CREEP, as well as low-level corruption. I remember Walter Cronkite doing a special on it in the spring before the Ervin Committee was televised. The break-in itself was was largely besides the point for most of the time. If you look at the articles of impeachment against Nixon (go here), you will notice that they're mostly about the cover-up. They also include Tricky Dick's tax problems, which would never have been investigated if not for Watergate. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, as this is 2017 and Wikipedia. We cannot say what RS do not say, and we are not (explicitly) allowed to try and predict the future. When someone tries to impeach Donny, and it is over the Russia thing we can include that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you define RS(reliable sources)? You keep on removing references from many major newspapers, Cable news and other sites. Are CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post RS? How about Fox news, which promoted several conspiracy theories over the years, are they?

Have I, which source have I removed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You could shorten the title further by removing "events related to." Timelines are by definition involve events. TFD (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• While I do generally agree with Arglebargle79's apt description of Watergate, and while I believe something similar is unfolding now, I think Trump's wiretapping claims are little more than diversion. I don't see it having much bearing on the course of the investigation, unless new information surfaces that ties it back to Russiagate.- MrX 16:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

YESS!!!! You got it!!!! IMHO, Trump's wiretapping claims ARE little more than diversion, but that's the whole point. It stopped the investigation into Russia cold for a month. The person who was LEADING the investigation was forced to resign because of it. When Comey testified, it was supposed to be about the Wiretapping charge. but that's how we knew that there was still a Russia investigation in the first place. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, and you may be right, but when I say diversion, I mean a diversion from a presidency generally mired in controversy because of questionable cabinet appointments and executive orders, the Muslim ban, business conflicts of interest, lies, tweets, and diplomatic gaffes. I can be convinced otherwise by seeing sources that say the diversion was created to throw the Russia investigation off track.- MrX 17:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

When I say diversion, I mean only from the Russia investigation. Or fightback against it. The Wiretapping thing was specifically sent by the White House for investigation as part of the HIC's Russia task force. That had genuine effects on the investigation and nearly ended it. That's germane and why it should be included. The stuff about the Secretary of Education endorsing homophobia or the Head of the EPA promoting pollution has nothing to do with this, which is why nobody has mentioned it here. It's not just about Russia, it's about foreign influence, which is why Flynn's in hot water over Turkey, and that should be included. The emoluments clause, which may be an article of impeachment if Rep. Green decides to introduce it, is not part of the investigation. Getting the committees to chase their tails instead of going forward is something that this adminstration has been doing about this since before it took office. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Scandals and narrative

The dictionary definition of scandal is "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." Russian interference in the '16 election is certainly that, and much of what happened regarding it since is also that. Take Devin Nunes behavior last March, with his cancellation of further hearings and the cowflop (can I say BxxxShxx here?) in the White House and all, IS a scandal in it's own right. So are the behaviors of Trump, Flynn and Manefort.

Timelines are a shorthand method for charting a narrative, and that's what I want to do here. Someone got rid of a number of things as "irrelevant" that actually are extremely so. I started it with Flynn's getting fired by Obama as head of the DIA in '14. Why is it relevant? Because it's the start of Flynn's journey to possible treason. He was really mad at Obama. While the concept of the Russian hacking elections has nothing to do with him, his relationship with the Russians leads from there. The article is less than a day old, and there's lots of stuff that needs to be added (Impeachment is only in the title at the moment, and I wish to put a bunch of municipal resolutions and such in the timeline).

There are two conclusions of this narrative: Exoneration or a Pence administration. It's too early to know where exactly this is heading, but at this point in time, it is far to late for it to be just stopped by Republicans scared of how it will effect the '18 midterms. What I need you guys to do is find the early stuff, links to what was going on (contemporaneously or retroacively) between 2014 and 2016. Flynn and Manafort are targets of investigations. There's Flynn's Turkey Kidnapping caper, which needs to be in here. Etc. Etc.

I also think that we should have mentions of the Russian hacking of the Dutch and French elections this year. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

no it is not, as no one has yet been prosecuted for it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at the Clinton e-mail scandal, no one was prosecuted for THAT either. IN fact, most presidential scandals didn't have any indictments or convictions. We DO have resignations, however: Flynn and Manefort.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But there were investigation that have concluded, so we know what to report. This article is about two topics (the Russian interference and impeachment, which may have sod all to do with that) as well as the Clinton e-mail scandal (which also has nothing to do with Russian hacking or Trump).Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven - I think you're putting forward evidence this whole article is a POVfork or too-vague and unintelligible collection of things. I would say that constructing a narrative is saying it is WP:OR, but at the moment the article does not have understandable narrative, it just seems a chronological list of events that are not linked or put into a context of being "related to Russian interference". I'm glad to see User:JFG today removed some of the line items with no relationship shown, like this mentioned COnway, Ivanka, and Hillary email. I can think of a couple things that might help:

1. It might help if someone try to put in a beginning intro that better explains what the scope is to help decide what's in and what's not and explain the whole. For example, I'm not seeing "Russian interference" in the "Trump announce" appointments after he is in office as definitely or even stated as related to interference. Nor is the Rosenstein appointment. And Muellers passing of ethics review seems just not a legal nit. And really, what does the whole Obama wiretapping fantasy have to do with Russia let alone be worth so many items over who said what about it and when ?

2. Try dropping speculation and fantasies ? Even more generally, how about dropping all items that are just some spokesperson spouting away a speculation or fantasy rather than a distinct testimony or declaring an event ? This lists Feinstein statement twice, and Greene mentions impeachment but is just speculatively talking, there's not much 'event' to a speech and it's not introducing a motion or basing on any prior fact or later outcome. 'Senator X says nasty thing' seems about as noteworthy as 'Dog barks loudly'.

Alternatively, we could just nominate for deletion -- it could go back to someones sandbox until it's ready to be shown. Or maybe just drop it -- as I'm not seeing any 'timeline' as a significant coverage in media at the moment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion criteria

(pinged) Hi Markbassett and fellow editors! Let me explain my perspective. With this whole "Russian affair", there have been many unfolding events over several months and the narrative is burdened with "he said she said" drama, information leaks, political smears, media sensationalism, retcons, etc. Therefore I believe that crafting a factual timeline of events is a worthwhile endeavor. Thinking of readers first, it gives a solid reference frame when delving into the details of complicated articles such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I don't think we need an external source for the full timeline, as there are multiple examples where Wikipedians have built their own from many sources (one of my pet projects is the Timeline of spaceflight series, e.g. 2015 in spaceflight, 2017 in spaceflight, etc.) As long as each statement on the timeline is accurately sourced, we can aggregate them into a complete timeline without delving into OR or SYN.

We must however define some criteria for inclusion of people and events, and those are currently a matter of editorial judgment. I think a good yardstick would be "how is this event related to Russian interference in the presidential election?"

1. If it's one step removed, we can keep it, e.g. "Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats and expands sanctions against Russia": Russia waged an influence campaign towards the American electorate (step 0), Obama punished them as a direct retaliation (step 1).
2. if it's two steps removed that's debatable, e.g. "Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone have been under investigation": Russia is accused of intervening for Trump in the election (step 0), those people have links to Russia and Trump (step 1), they get investigated (step 2).
3. if it's three steps removed it doesn't belong here (e.g. "Schiff calls Nunes' actions inappropriate"): IC reports showed a pattern of hacking and propaganda from Russia (step 0), House Intelligence Committee opened an enquiry to check if Trump was complicit (step 1), committee chairman Nunes gathered some evidence on intercepted communications of Trump associates as part of this enquiry (step 2), Schiff criticized the way Nunes gathered this evidence and talked to the press (step 3).

We must also avoid any particular political slant, rumors or sensationalist wording. Unfortunately the first versions of the timeline (e.g. this version of 23 May) were admittedly quite partisan, focusing on "scandals" and potential paths to impeachment. Meanwhile the title has been neutralized and the content has evolved towards a more balanced list of events.

As Markbassett points out, the timeline should not conflate the investigations into Russian interference with whatever else the Trump administration does which is deemed controversial. In that sense, I would agree to remove the back-and-forth about wiretaps and step-by-step details of the Nunes episode. After my extensive work on the article yesterday,[1] there are still a bunch of statements that lack citations; help would be appreciated on this front. — JFG ^talk 07:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Usually I am against AFD's just because "it's not well written", but yes this looks like a POV fork that was written is some pretty POV language. It is better now, but as we cannot really know what is and is not going to be a significant part of this until after any investigation I think we are jumping the gun here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - the number of steps away seem like a nice and reasonable approach, I'll suggest it would be good to put that in the lead of the article. Avoiding sensationalist or partisan wording may be not doable as the way things are said and presented in media tend to be the word games. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the wiretapping "fantasy" as unrelated to the Russian interference and collusion.- MrX 12:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play: IC reports showed a pattern of hacking and propaganda from Russia (step 0), House Intelligence Committee opened an inquiry to check if Trump was complicit (step 1), anxious to derail inquiry, Trump tweets about Obama wiretapping "fantasy", which derails the investigation for a month (step two). Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting theory but step 2 is speculative, assuming that Trump predicted that his tweet would distract people from the Russian probe. In fact, as soon as Trump's story was proven bogus, the suspicions into his wrongdoing got reinforced; that tweet didn't work too well for him. I provided a more realistic explanation below (6 steps to Nunes' recusal). — JFG ^talk 03:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sarcastic" / "many media-outlets interpreted ...."

I have removed a recent addition that said that Trump's urging of Russia to hack into Clinton's emails (July 27) was "sarcastic" - that doesn't appear in the cited sources at all, that I could see.

I also took out improper distancing: "Many media outlets interpreted this as a request for the Russian Government to commit cyberespionage..." We do not need this vague, doubt-casting attribution. In addition to being weasel, it is improper because we have multiple high-quality sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Politico) all reporting the same thing, we should directly state, not insert hedging. WP:NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. ... there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

Finally, this event was, as the Washington Post reported, "an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented maneuver in American politics." I think this indicator of significance should be in the entry. Neutrality^talk 14:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: At the time, Trump quickly said himself that he had been sarcastic, and plenty of sources acknowledged that. I'll add one and put "sarcastic" in quotes to show that was Trump's own explanation. (And frankly, it's hard to take that statement seriously but anything can happen in election "silly season".) About your other point, that's just a hyperbolic WaPo opinion; I'm sure there were plenty of "extraordinary and unprecedented" comments made by every US President who ever was on the campaign trail. It doesn't bring value to the article, especially as we are dealing with a timeline here, listing brief summaries of events and sticking to bare facts, as much as possible. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm fine with later noting that he later said that he was being sarcastic. But I am certainly not OK with your wording "triggers a backlash from media and politicians who criticize Trump..." That is simply not true - media outlets are reporting, in straight-news accounts, what occurred, not "criticizing." It is purely original research to say that they are "criticizing" (and doubly OR to lump in media and politicians). You are also simply incorrect that the "unprecedented" language is a "hyperbolic WaPo opinion" - this is (1) not an opinion piece, but a front-page news article; and (2) the fact that this was unprecedented is a fact, not an opinion. Neutrality^talk 13:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I think this deserves wider attention, I'm tagging the most recent logged-in, non-bot users (regardless of their view) to this article and its talk page: Jasonanaggie, PerfectlyIrrational, Markbassett, Plastikspork, JJMC89‎, Enthusiast01, MrX, Ethanbas, Arglebargle79, Slatersteven, The Four Deuces, Casprings, ‎DrFleischman, Anythingyouwant, ‎Volunteer Marek - if you wish, please weigh in on this change being discussed. Neutrality^talk 13:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I recall that Trump said he was being sarcastic, and I think we should include it. As to it being a genuine request as stated by RES, can we have chapter and verse for that please?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Politico: "Donald Trump invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails on Wednesday..."; NYTimes: " Donald J. Trump ... encouraged [Russian intelligence services] to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state." WaPo: "Republican nominee Donald Trump pleaded directly Wednesday with the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. presidential election by finding and releasing tens of thousands of private emails from his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented maneuver in American politics." Neutrality^talk 14:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording in the Washington Post is Trump asked "the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. presidential election by finding and releasing" the emails. I do not read that as necessarily asking them to hack into Clinton's servers, but to release the emails if they had done so. At that point the missing emails had been erased permanently from the servers, some of the hard drives had been physically destroyed and the servers were no longer on-line. Also, the Clinton emails had been given to the FBI by Clinton and released by the FBI, not by hackers. I do not know if Trump was being sarcastic. The press did not say he was, just that he said he was, so that is how we should present it. TFD (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The we should say "according to the Washington post".Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible alternate language

Possible alternate language that I thought of - I think this might be agreeable to most:

At a news conference, Trump urges Russia to publish stolen Clinton emails, stating "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." [cite NYTimes, Washington Post, Politico1] The Washington Post reported that Trump's statement was "an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented maneuver in American politics." [Cite WaPo] Trump later says that his remark was "sarcastic." [cite Politico2].

--Neutrality^talk 14:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope as he does not ask them to release the e-mails, he says he hopes they have them. As we are so het up on being pedantic about what Donny actually said then lets at least be accurate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven: The reliable sources all directly describe the request as one to release the emails:

WaPo: "Republican nominee Donald Trump pleaded directly Wednesday with the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. presidential election by finding and releasing tens of thousands of private emails...";

NYTimes: "Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen..."

We should not ignore these direct statements, in the first paragraph of front-page stories in the nation's newspapers of record. Neutrality^talk 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nor should we word it to imply it is what Donny said, we should only quote what he said and then attribute the analysis of what he meant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We follow what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources paraphrase. What the NYT, WaPo, etc. are doing is reporting/summarization, not "analysis" in the opinion sense. A contrary interpretation would suggest that we can only report what a person says through direct quotation, which is obviously not correct. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we should ask readers to analyze what Trump meant, when we have reliable secondary sources that do that. Interpreting what someone meant requires knowledge of the circumstances and the person's speaking style. Lawyers advise clients making statements that what is written down may come across differently from what they intended. I think it is fair if we use the sources and say that Trump later said he was being sarcastic. TFD (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I also do not think we should put other peoples interpretation of what he said in Wikipedia's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the alternate language proposed by Neutrality is good, although I'm not sure how important it is to say that it was extraordinary and unprecedented. That has been the status quo for almost every event in the Trump candidacy/presidency for the past two years.- MrX 22:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Provide the full quote and be done with it

Having been pinged here, my opinion is that the entry in this timeline should be simple and brief. Give the date and the full quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you'll be rewarded mightily by our press!" His campaign's subsequent interpretation and the media's subsequent interpretation are unnecessary. Readers who want subsequent interpretation can go see the footnotes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1979–2014

Some editors recently added a bunch of events spanning decades including anecdotal tidbits such as "Stone first met Trump in 1979" and trivial historical facts such as "Yeltsin came to power in 1991". While this looks like interesting detective research, I would argue that most of those entries are UNDUE for this timeline. There may be a few things to salvage, if they can be shown to be directly linked to the article subject. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Start trimming. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. For a timeline, how key players know one another or early connections to Russia(if commented on by WP:RSes) should remain.Casprings (talk)|

Roy Cohn is not a key player, so why start out the timeline pretending he is? He died decades before there was any Russian interference. Moreover, we list 25 relevant individuals, so their first meetings would number 25 factorial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to Cohn not being mentioned. I object to the delecting of when stone and trump first met.Casprings (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I only put Cohn in there to be overly specific, it isn't necessary for why I have the event in there, but I think it needs to be shown how far back Trump and Stone go, especially with how they have seemingly stuck together through thick and thin for over 30 years. Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This is also turning into an attack page, with labels of guilt by association such as "Jared Jushner, son of Convicted Felon, Charles Kushner". Calm down, please! — JFG ^talk 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That should go.Casprings (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Jasonanaggie who added most of the recent material. Your opinion is welcome here and in the section below about article title and scope. — JFG ^talk 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I placed those events in the timeline is Yeltsin; begins the kleptocracy period after the USSR turns to the Russian Federation. Trump previously stated that he was wary of investing in the USSR as one would be investing into something you would not ultimately own. The other switches in presidency of the Russian Federation show the much slower pace that Russian intel often starts with on people they wish to use. The only reason I felt that Kushner's father is pertinent to it is that he has stated how much this event shaped his life, he cares very much for his father and visited him every weekend in the Alabama correctional facility while he was at Harvard. It also explains why Kushner was determined to get Christie out of Trump's administration and why there was the purge of anyone who Christie brought into the Transition Office.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would take it all out. We do not know the relevance of any of it to Russia's interference. It appears to be an attempt to prove Russia interfered in the election by documenting past connections between Trump and Russia, which is original research. Maybe the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow was a cover for meeting with the KGB, but that's just speculation. TFD (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This is frankly getting ridiculous, No this materiel should not be here. Frankly I am thinking that this is a POV attack page and it is all it is ever going to be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This content would make much more sense after the scandal has concluded, and after the players have been either sanctioned or exonerated. It seems heavily weighted toward speculation at this point.- MrX 22:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits

Can users please remember that minor edits are not edits that add information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the chapter "The Russian Connections?" TFD (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Article title and scope

Following a suggestion by TFD on May 27,[2] Casprings just changed the page title to "Timeline of Russian interference…" instead of "Timeline of events related to Russian interference…" I think this would unnecessarily narrow the scope of events to include, so that lots of relevant content about investigations would fall out of scope. In parallel, other editors have been adding many events spanning decades, which are far removed from any Russian interference in 2016. We need to pick a scope and matching title. I see three options moving forward:

• A. Keep everything and rename this article "Timeline of Donald Trump's ties to Russia"
• B. Restore the "Timeline of events related to" title and keep only items about Russian interference in 2016 and investigations thereof
• C. Keep the "Timeline of interference" title and keep only items about Russian interference proper

Opinions? — JFG ^talk 04:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Option B – Looks like the appropriate and relevant scope:. — JFG ^talk 04:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Current title and around the same content Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option A – I understand where you are coming from, but to truly get a feel if an individual has been used by Russian intelligence, you need to look back to initial contacts, It may stray slightly off of what the title states, but it lays the predicate for why the 2014-2016 period events matter. Russian intelligence starts slowly to turn an individual and getting ties into the individual over years often using business contacts really helps one see how a relationship could have been established over a longer period. Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Current title and around the same content is fine. It just provides context, as you would expect a timeline to do.Casprings (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option D keep the title "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and have the same scope as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Typically articles about crimes include information about the investigations. "Option C" makes no sense because we do not have any items about Russian interference proper, certainly not the dates required for a timeline. TFD (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• CommentI am easy with any option, as long as we have a firm decision. But I am afraid that option A will be a bit too ORy and POVforkey without some very careful watching. How do we even begin to define "ties with Russia" , holidays, buying a hamburger in the Moscow Macyd's?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment When I started this article, I wanted it about about Russian interference in 2016 and investigations thereof, including Republican interference in the said investigations. That includes Prebius calling the chairmen of various committees and asking them to deny any crime took place, and Trump's "Obama's wiretapping me" tweet, which derailed the investigation for a month in the HIC. We should start with Flynn getting fired as head of the DIA, mainly because the whole thing starts there with the possible collusion. However, I like what's been done to the article of late. Good job! Arglebargle79 (talk)
• Option D keep the title "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" and have the same scope as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael R. Caputo

Michael R. Caputo

New article, might have sourced info you wish to use to add to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference

Started a new article that I see as important and needs development and some more content. It is here: Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Timeline, not parent article

Do we really need all this detail?, its a time line.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would support someone else's proposal to merge this into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but have neither time nor interest to do it myself. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have trimmed the recent fluff. — JFG ^talk 05:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merging this page back into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, page should be kept separate as chronological timeline serves different purpose than the main paragraph text article. Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Then that is all it should be, one line for each event.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It seems that there is a consensus to not include this. It was proposed, in the above threads, that there be an inclusion criteria where things 3 steps or further from the Russian interference should not be included. This, albiet with a lack of participation, was generally agreed on by the editors involved in the discussion. Thus, since this is at least 3 steps away, the argument is that it should not be included. In addition, there is a danger of the timeline straying too far away from its central subject. The main argument in support of including this is because Trump's tweet is an attempt to draw attention away from his supposed collusion with Russia. But, it seems that the fact that "Trump makes baseless accusations does not impact this investigation" would make this not eligible for inclusion. Thus, the consensus is that this should not be included. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?- MrX 14:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• YES. It's a vital part of the story of the cover-up. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• no It has not been established by RS (or investigation) these are related, It does not matter what Obama did or did not do to Donny unless it involved the Russians in some way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes IIRC the implication was that Obama had Trump wiretapped as part of the Russia probe. It does not matter whether that really happened (we do not know that Russia interfered in the election), just that the claim was made. TFD (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - Unless some sources are provided by (someone, anyone, Bueller?) to show the clear relationship between the the wiretapping side show and the very serious investigation into Russian election interference and collusion. Readers are best served by a relatively narrow scope of events that are closely related to the central subject.- MrX 15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• No – Let's try to evaluate this entry against the #proposed inclusion criteria above. Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential election (step 0). The Trump campaign is suspected of colluding with Russia to help their chances (step 1). Various tidbits supporting those suspicions about Trump associates were leaked to the press (step 2). Reacting to the leaks, Trump accused Obama of having wiretapped his campaign (step 3, too far away). Various people then reacted to Trump's tweets (step 4, way too far away). If somebody can demonstrate a better chain of connection, I'm ready to change my opinion. — JFG ^talk 15:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• No, with caveat per explanation by MrX. Sagecandor (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. It's stupid but it is significantly covered and it is mentioned as related to Russian interference, so seems "Timeline of events related to ..." is obligated to include. Markbassett (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes but we also need to mention the rationale sources mention this in relation to Russia. The commentary is that Trump did this as a distraction to the Russia investigation. [[3]], [[4]] . Seen in that context with a short sentence that makes that connection in a WP:N way, would be fine.Casprings (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• No, Not relevant to this article. That Trump makes baseless accusations does not impact this investigation, and no one has shown any connection to Obama. UNDUE. Objective3000 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes but neutrally, per Casprings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. Too far afield. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• No(Summoned by bot) needs more RS and then neutral wording. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes: It doesn't matter whether there really is a connection between this and allegations/investigations of Russian tampering. What matters is whether Trump or anyone else notable has publicly drawn or alleged connections (crazy or plausible) between the Russia thing and the wiretapping thing (and the Rich murder and whatever else). The purpose of this page is to lay out a timeline of whatever noteworthy things our readers may come across as being somehow related to the Russian-tampering topic. Whether the connections are tenuous, proven, or debunked is a matter for regular article prose about these matters. A timeline list like this is primarily a form of navigation to richer and more contextual content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

As I said above, this is a timeline of events of the WHOLE thing, not just the physical hacking of the DNC servers by Russian agents. That includes the coverup. The BS about that poor DNC staffer who was murdered last summer is part of the cover-up. Using stuff to distract and lying to exonerate. It's all part of the greater whole. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed entries about Seth Rich, which are totally unrelated to the Russian interference and investigation thereof: he was murdered way before this whole affair came to light. (Besides, that's not the subject of this RfC.) — JFG ^talk 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

While the murder itself is unrelated to the subject, the conspiracy theory based on it is not. Sean Hannity and Kim Dotcom, among others, have been promoting that theory (see below) to stop the investigation by pinning it on him and not the Russians. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Do any RS make the claim it was part of the Russian probe?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)-

yup. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Care to provide the link and the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Go here Here's the quote you asked for:

"The retracted May 16 online story reported as fact that the late Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer, was actually the person who leaked tens of thousands of emails from the DNC to WikiLeaks and that his murder was tied to that action. " If true (and it's not), it would exonerate both Trump and the Russians, and Hillary would locked up for murder. It's "it's not YOU it's not ME, it's old Crooked Hil-a-ree!" The Israel leak, which was removed as irrelevent (but it's not) was all about the impression that Trump is in thrall to Russia. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about the Obama wire tap, can we please keep focused?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

sigh....Lawmakers expand Russian probe to include Trump’s claim of Obama-sanctioned spying

“One of the focus points of the House intelligence committee’s investigation is the U.S. government’s response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign,” Mr. Nunes said. “As such, the committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it.”

Do not sigh, you were asked to do something and did not (that is your fault). It is down to you to support this inclusion not us. I will need to read this to decide whether to change my vote, I ask you to please treat other users with a bit more respect if you want cooperation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Mmm problematic, it says they have included it in the Congressional instigation as the request of Donny, but it does not say it was part of the Russia business. I think we can include the fact it has been included, but not the actual sequence of events. I suggest.

"March 5th 2017, Republican lawmakers included the allegations of Obama's wiretapping into the congressional probes of Russian campaign meddling."

That is all I think we can include.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your suggested entry is fine. But we should have the entire Fall of Nunes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - I'm tempted to go 'no' based on the distance proposal, but consider <Russians> + step 1 <Obama wiretaps trump tower to investigate> +step 2 <Breitbart makes this known>. The harder question weems would the distance proposal mean we cut it at step 3 -- allowing no further levels of 'then intelligence heads deny it. Markbassett (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: That step 1 looks fishy… What may have happened instead is: step 0 routine interceptions of Kislyak's communications show him talking about some suspicious stuff with some Americans, step 1 Susan Rice gets intelligence report on that and asks for identity, finds out Flynn and Kushner are involved, step 2 she reports to Obama, Lynch, Yates and possibly to the DNC, step 3 leaks happen, step 4 Trump hears about it and fires off a Friday morning tweet accusing Obama of spying on his campaign, step 5 Washington does its weekly meltdown over yet another "tempest in a teapot", step 6 Nunes chops his own head off. — JFG ^talk 03:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG - well, in 'No - against the proposed criteria' being 4 steps away from russian interference being too long was asking someone to show a better (shorter) chain of connection, and ... this was the only way I could think of that it got that short. I think it's a good counter-example though that the "steps" approach for setting scope has issues of 'whose steps' and that it would cut off a thread after step 3 -- as well as it's not looking like folks want to stop running amok. I think I'll try tagging the article and starting 3 subthreads for improvement, under the theory that may help get to better, plus be a note of concern to readers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why a 30-day RfC?

• Comment – I was going to ask this question, but do we really need a 30-day RfC process to sort this out? — JFG ^talk 15:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No. But some don't want have a really good timeline that mentions relevant tangents. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, RfCs do not to need to run for 30 days. If there is an obvious consensus, or if participation drops off, the RfC can be concluded. It also doesn't need to be formally closed.- MrX 15:31, 27 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.

Preet Bharara

Earlier I removed mentions of Preet Bharara as off-topic. Jasonanaggie added him back, but I fail to see how Mr. Bharara is related to Russian interference in the election. Can you point to a source making this connection? — JFG ^talk 02:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/did-trumps-personal-lawyer-get-preet-bharara-fired

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/that-russian-attorney-might-just-be-the-reason-trump-fired-preet-bharara/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-russia-russiagate-magnitsky-affair-linked-again-w492290

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/ag-sessions-the-russian-lawyer-and-the-money-laundering-case-that-went-away-20170717.html

I can provide more if needed. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. All of those commenters talk at length about Veselnitskaya's pet topic, the Magnitsky Act, including Matt Taibi recounting that he was subjected to the same bait-and-switch technique reported by Trump Jr., i.e. being invited for a scoop and ending up being lobbied rather unprofessionally about this Magnitsky thing. Those are certainly interesting stories, but none makes any connection with Russian interference in the election. I think we should keep the timeline focused on the declared article subject, or else open an RfC to call this "Everything you ever wanted to learn about third-rate Russian lobbyists and were afraid to ask".

Now about Preet Bharara: so, as a district attorney, he happened to be involved in a 2013 case defended by Veselnitskaya. Separately, Jeff Sessions happened to fire Bharara along with 45 others who wouldn't resign, as a totally usual process every time a new administration comes in. Bharara is openly bitter about it and uses every opportunity to tell the media that Trump should be impeached. And in May 2017, the 2013 case was settled before trial, again a totally usual process. A bunch of opinion writers are trying to make inferences based on these circumstances but I don't see those sources making any connection between Mr. Bharara and Russia meddling in the US presidential election. Therefore I would remove him from the timeline. — JFG ^talk 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: Another editor notified me that I had reverted your post with sources here; sorry, this must have been an inadvertent click on the rollback button while switching windows: absolutely not intentional. — JFG ^talk 13:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No reaction after two days: removing Bharara again as off-topic. — JFG ^talk 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot resolve the timeline with an unbiased observation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

A total of 17 major candidates entered the race starting March 23, 2015, when Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was the first to formally announce his candidacy: he was followed by former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, businesswoman Carly Fiorina of Virginia, former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, outgoing Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, former Governor George Pataki of New York, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, former Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, businessman Donald Trump of New York and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. This was the largest presidential primary field for any political party in American history.

Sources

To summarize:

• "More People Are Running for Presidential Nomination Than Ever" -Time Magazine Feb. 2016
• May 26, 2016 Donald Trump wins the Republican Party ballot against 16 other arguably notable candidates
• In the first bullet point the winning candidate is poised for the entire timeline.

Wikipedia is neutral and this timeline should raise a red flag.Jawz101 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I am being a bit dense, but I am not really getting your point.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This whole timeline starts that Russia is interested in Trump the moment he enters the race... 20 months go by... He's President.

You have to accept knowing an outcome that defies odds.Jawz101 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly...part of the time line just be the fact that Donny stood, it is part of the time line. I do not understand what you mean by us knowing the outcome, we know the outcome...and this article was created after the event.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I get that but it's a rationalization of 1.5 years of New York Times and Washington Post articles with a few Twitter posts sprinkled in that tell us how we got to today. If there were more .gov pdf's cited that's more compelling. My concern with a timeline weighted heavily to the media outlets the page editors so far prefer is it doesn't average out as a neutral recall of events. But it is your story and I've said my piece.Jawz101 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No it is weighted towards the sources that have been found by community consensus to be RS. Also (as far as I can tell) the article makes clear when (and if) a RS makes a claim (the NYT reported). Nor is the article solely bases upon the New York Times or the Washington Post (as far as I can tell out of 191 cites 29 are to the NYT and 32 to the Washington Post, which means (combined) they make up less then half the cites).Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it to you that it seems to be a mixed bag of sources. Also, fwiw I got 32 of each when scraping the source code of the references section. Also, 148 is a broken link, 168 isn't labeled as Washington Post but the url is, 177 .. I have no idea if a blog post as fact. But I'll leave it to someone else. I also looked a little further on some of the other sources to see if they hyperlinked a lot to other news outlets but didn't get too far. One of my big concerns is referencing themselves or other outlets instead of gathering original-sourced information. (Otherwise, it's just a telephone game of a story.) Thanks for the replies.

It is indeed a mixed bag of sources. If you would like to see more gov.pdfs, then add some gov.pdfs. Please don't expect other editors to guess which gov.pdfs you are thinking of, or why they might be relevant. As for your general concern with sources, I expect that the sources and content will improve once Mueller's case has been published (charges or no charges), and contemporary histories and diaries begin to be produced. The page is not ideal in the meantime, but recourse to a wide range of news sources and publications remains perfectly legitimate. Your video link to James Comey's testimony that news agencies make errors is justified. However, it is noted that Comey did not say that all news agencies are all wrong all of the time. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Excessive day-to-day press reports

This article is turning into a daily review of press clippings related to the Mueller inquiry. I think we should stick to the declared subject: "Timeline of Russian interference in the election", not "Timeline of the Mueller inquiry as drip-leaked to the press." Opinions? — JFG ^talk 02:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The leaked stuff is generally rather accurate.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Splitting

AS the person who started this article, I have found it to be far too long so I've decided to split it in three. Indictments and further hearings are soon coming up, and it's not going to end until at least 2019. Say what you will about that, but the simple fact is, is that the article's too long already. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Far too long for what? It serves readers to have the information on one page. It's simply not that large. A better approach might be to trim some of the more trivial events. In any case, consensus should be sought for such a major change.- MrX 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So, reduce it to the salient points. It's annoying to have to click around. We don't want to be a slideshow site. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX and Objective3000 that the article should not be split. The "too long" issue should be addressed by mercilessly trimming the July–October entries that merely repeat sensationalist titles from press reports about the investigation. Stick to the essentials in prose, and keep press articles in citations. — JFG ^talk 20:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead tag

This is the discussion section for an article tagging per WP:TAGGING

The article needs and is missing the important material of a WP:LEAD. That is particularly mentioned for this apparent list type of article at WP:LISTDD, and WP:LEADFORALIST. Beyond just the guide that articles should introduce the article in an engaging way, the lead is for explaining the scope and inclusion criteria, and less obvious parts of the structure. The title alone has not been sufficient to make things clear even in prolonged TALK, and content has been running amok over not having a clearly identifiable WP:OFFTOPIC.

Since I'm putting forward the concern, I will propose the following "This is a timeline of major events of the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, limited to listing major events of the events of DNC email hack and Podesta email phishing, and actions taken stated as in reaction or for those events. "

I am setting this to exclude quoted favored opinions and speculations, or listing prominent names not indentified as involved with the acts or the responses.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs work, but your proposed wording is not representative of the reporting on the subject or the actual scope of this article. Also, it's rather poorly worded.- MrX 11:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a defined scope is a topic boundary. If anyone has a clearer explanation of topic to propose go ahead .... figuring out some explanation for all the random stuff that does not fit the title is not required. SOME things are going to lie outside of any defined scope, that is part of what LEAD is for explaining. Markbassett (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have attempted to solve this matter by editing the lead. The discussion above is stale, so I also removed the tag. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant bullshit

>The Daily Beast reports, Russia Recruited YouTubers to Bash ‘Racist B*tch’ Hillary Clinton Over Rap Beats.

This channel had 272 subscribers. Completely irrelevant for any election.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZLDR1KFAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dating

Is this article a list of news reports or events, if it is the latter then events should go in the dates of when they are alleged to have occurred, not when they were reported.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Events should definitely be listed on the date they occurred. Occasionally the reporting itself is independently notable, and in that case can be briefly mentioned at the reporting date (e.g. when the Veselnitskaya meeting was revealed).

Over the last three months, this article has turned into a daily news feed, and that's not the goal. Most of those updates should be listed in our article on the 2017 Special Counsel investigation instead. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And at the moment we have the article saying that in October she arrived at a meeting in June (and this meeting was not first reported in October).Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that, and deleted a bunch of irrelevant fluff. Much left to improve. — JFG ^talk 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And now we have stuff that seems to have sod all to do with election interference.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

plan to divide article due to increasing size, find natural breaking point

This article is getting increasingly large (and will likely continue into next year). It might be good to find natural breaking point. Suggestions:

1. 2016 election, November 8
2. end of 2016
3. start of Trump Administration, January 20, 2017
4. If size still okay, end of 2017

I'm not too particular myself, but this would be better to start to plan now. X1\ (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79:, @Bearcat:, @KConWiki:, @RevelationDirect:, Any comments due to your contributions to Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: January 20-June 30, 2017 ? X1\ (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jasonanaggie: as you have added what appears to be the majority of the recent items, any comments? X1\ (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a problem of size, it's a problem of scope. What started as a useful timeline of events directly related to election interference, has turned into a daily leak report from the Mueller investigation. If we want this level of detail, it should be in its own article Timeline of the 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Or just nuke it all except directly relevant and verified information about what the Russians did. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm with JFG — a natural breaking point would be to separate the timeline of what the Russians did or didn't actually do from the timeline of Robert Mueller's investigation into it. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Interference has not ended. This is of a vague starting time, with no clear boundaries. It would be great to already know those boundaries in order to create the best wp article, but "evidence" of the timeline is still being reported and collected here. It is premature to assume, but maybe years in the future that would be possible. X1\ (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it had ended. But the timeline of the Mueller investigation should be separated from the timeline of the original events that he's investigating, because they're two different topics (and, for that matter, Mueller's digging into other stuff not directly related to Russian interference too.) Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a scope problem. Events that occur after November 8, 2016 do not belong here, but in a separate article. However, any action by the Russians or any statement belongs here, since Russian actions are apart of the timeline of the Interference. In addition, the Russian Sanctions and retailiation to those sanctions are a response and belong here. And of course, the Inauguration of President Trump belongs here. Everything else should go in another article. Theoallen1 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Breaking the information out to a separate article for the Mueller investigation timeline (or perhaps some other related timeline?) is acceptable to me, as long as we have those two pages reference each other, and as long as we are not throwing away information. KConWiki (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, when I CREATED the article, what I wanted was to have a timeline of the entire scandal culminating in the expected impeachment or resignation of President Donald Trump. As people objected to this (Chrystal ball), we changed the title. Timelines like this are useful index pages, a simple overview of everything that was going on. The attempted kidnapping of that Turkish cleric deserves inclusion as do all the various side scandals like the Nunes fiasco.

I tried to cut this before, but everyone objected. I think that it should be cut in three parts: 2015-Jan. 20, 2017, January-October 2017, when Manafort was indicted, and the third from then on until something MAJOR happens. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a good thing to cut up unless we want just smaller pages.

I would pick say six month intervals in reverse order with the most recent events being stored on the main page, and links to the previous intervals in separate pages. This really is the only place online that has all of the stories consolidated in the footnotes that allow people to go back and refresh their memories on just how much crazy stuff has happened.

This allows those keeping up with this ongoing saga (It is an ongoing event until resolution is made by counterintelligence and special council probes.) There are just too many strange Trump/Russia events still happening on a daily basis; just look at the K.G.B. company that was hired today to secure the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. This thing is crazier than any Spy Novel and nothing is leaking from Robert Mueller; so we have no idea how sprawling this story will turn out.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Some relevant individuals

Is it normal to have a section of an article (in this case the first section) devoted to listing "Some relevant individuals", without any sort of explanation to the reader? I've certainly never seen it, and to me it smacks of deliberate priming. Since most readers will only give this long list a cursory glance I'd also question why they are presented in that particular order. Julian Assange, for example, appears in second place on the list, and he's arguably more widely recognized than many of the other names, so it's likely that he will catch the eye of many readers, particularly the ones who don't read the article in its entirety. Is he alleged to have played a key role in this? It seems doubtful to me, but he almost tops the (unqualified) list of "relevant individuals". In other words, I think the list is highly likely to mislead people, many of whom genuinely believe that "there's no smoke without fire" and other claptrap.

I haven't read through the article yet, since it seems to be changing at a rapid rate, but I'm worried that what we have here is a collation of uncorroborated half-stories, and a repetition of mudslinging articles from politically biased news outlets presented as encyclopaedic 'truth'. I'd like to urge the editors of this article to be very careful when sourcing material and to err on the side of non-inclusion, rather than shoving as much meat into the sandwich as soon as possible and worrying about trimming the nonsense only when it comes to light that it is nonsense. It isn't Wikipedia's place to simply collate ongoing news, which is often found later to have been erroneous. Ultimately it would be better to have no article at all until we can all see clearly where the chips have fallen, and then document that dispassionately and with veracity. Wikipedia does not report the news, and has no business trying to refresh people's memories on "just how much crazy stuff has happened". nagualdesign 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested improvement? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a good reason for having an unqualified list of "relevant individuals" at the top of the article I'd suggest that the section be removed. If there is a good reason for having such a list I'd suggest that it be preceded by a paragraph explaining exactly what the list is and why the individuals are considered "relevant", and I'd also suggest that the list be alphabetized or placed in some other NPOV order. (Yes, I realize that Assange will still be near or at the top but at least readers will see that it's just alphabetical and won't begin to infer something that isn't intentionally implied.) I'd strongly suggest that nobody takes it upon themselves to order the list 'in order or relevance', which would undoubtedly fall foul of WP:NPOV.

The suggestions I made in the second paragraph above are self-explanatory. nagualdesign 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Scratch what I wrote about alphabetization. I see now that the list is already alphabetical by surname. nagualdesign 19:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Since no explanation for the list is forthcoming I'm going to be bold and remove it. Since I don't wish to undo anybody's hard work I'll simply comment out the section. When somebody can provide a good reason for including the list and they're willing to add an explanatory paragraph it will be a simple matter to make the list visible again. nagualdesign 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My problem with this list is that it deems some names are notable and others are not. Such examples include Hope Hicks, John Podesta, and Sally Yates. For that reason, this list should remain commented out.Theoallen1 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this 'problem' is to simply add more wikilinks within the article so those new to these topics can simply click to find out more at each point of the article. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: The list contains names of people who are mentioned repeatedly in the timeline, either because they are central figures of the Russian interference affair, or because they have received large amounts of RS coverage. The list excludes people who are only remotely connected to the timeline subject or who have only been mentioned briefly in the press. I will uncomment it, because it provides an easy glossary for readers who are unfamiliar with this complex affair, therefore helping to fulfill our encyclopedic mission. Readers first! — JFG ^talk 18:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen a Wikipedia article where the names of the people involved are collated into a glossary, devoid of any context or any sense of what that involvement was/is or to what extent they were/are involved. Names and other things are normally just linked to other articles where appropriate in prose. An "easy glossary" doesn't provide any help to readers, in my opinion. Removing the context and simply 'naming names' is not at all encyclopedic. nagualdesign 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This timeline is so long that it's very hard for a reader to quickly pick up who the main characters are. Writing a lead section would help, but on the other hand, this is a timeline which complements the main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, so readers can refer to that prose for context. — JFG ^talk 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Encouraging readers "to quickly pick up who the main characters are" is precisely what I have a problem with. Who decides who 'the main characters' are? Anyway, I've said my bit. I've also placed a note at the BLP Noticeboard. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this is permissible. nagualdesign 04:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; we need more voices from other editors. — JFG ^talk 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: Reacting to your "mudslinging" comment on BLP/N, I removed a bit of phrasing saying thet somebody pled guilty of something.[5] That was indeed not appropriate in the glossary of people; let's stick to their names and job titles. — JFG ^talk 04:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Reza Zarrab

I fail to see how Reza Zarrab can be construed to be involved in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. All entries about him say that:

• He is a Turkish-Iranian dual citizen.
• He was a gold trader, and was arrested in March 2016 for violating US sanctions against Iran.
• He is reportedly close to Turkish President Erdogan.
• He is said to be cooperating with prosecutors regarding Flynn relationships with Turkey.
• He recently pleaded guilty to money laundering.

Nice criminal find by Mueller's team, but there's no Russia in there, and nothing on US elections. This is why I had removed Zarrab's entries, but X1\ restored them. Let's debate this: do you have any justification to add this person's story to our "timeline of Russian interference"? — JFG ^talk 04:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JFG on leaving out Zarrab. *Numerous* reports suggest that his story may be the trailing thread from which the whole thing unravels - international money laundering may turn out to be fairly central in the end ... Panama-Florida-Manhattan-etc-etc-etc, anyone? However, these reports are explicitly speculative. (Having said that, I won't be in the least surprised if we end up copying and pasting all the Zarrab material back in again.) Cpaaoi (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur, this is about Russian interference, not wrong doing by Donny and his cronnies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the link? I agree that this should be kept out, although it is not final if some link comes out.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Removed per quick consensus, thx. — JFG ^talk 17:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Flynn plea

In my view, the entire statement of the offense for the Flynn guilty plea should be included in the timeline.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See no reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. And perhaps we should keep two of the best sources instead of piling on with 8 citations. Tagging, but no time to decide which source(s) are best: ideally one which has verbatim text and one which provides a good summary of the facts. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He is the proverbial Canary so he is the very center of this lovely probe, and thus include away! Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline from WP:RS

I think all the events and dates included here should be included. Unless there is disagreement, I will start to add them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/30/timeline-what-we-know-about-trumps-campaign-russia-and-the-investigation-of-the-two Casprings (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2017‎

Some items that specifically should not be included are the primary dates or the Orlando Massacure speech. In addition, if Access Hollywood is mentioned, it should be very brief in this article.Theoallen1 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

USA and Russia

How to put this without being sarky? Neither the UK, nor Turkey are part of wither the USA or Russia. As such material relating to those areas have no place in this article, can they be removed? This article is about Russian interference in the US presidential elections, not Russian interference in any election (or US citizens links to other nations).Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I will accept your snark, and answer the question disagreeing with your premise. The U.S. has relations with other countries that have seemingly changed very starkly into the image of the way that Russia interacts with these countries, seemingly in disagreement with what are in the best interest of the U.S., these odd situations are currently being investigated in the Russia-Trump probe by Robert Mueller and therefore are relevant. In my opinion, naturally. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not about US foreign relations, it is about the US election.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the results (and goals) of Russian interference is disruption and degradation of US foreign relations, thus directly connected. X1\ (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I removed entries about Turkey. — JFG ^talk 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Examples of the (global) connection. The Feds just flipped a Turkish gold trader accused of violating US sanctions — and it could spell trouble for Michael Flynn

from The latest Trump-Russia investigation news, explained Reza Zarrab ...name has intriguingly come up in recent reports about Flynn’s connections to the Turkish government."

from The Turkish government, the Clinton e-mails, a gold trader, the suicide of a potential witness "Mueller wants to know if Ankara enlisted Flynn, who in 2016 was a paid agent of Turkey as well as a Trump campaign adviser, in the effort to extradite Zarrab."

Notice the key word grouping in the articles; "Russia investigation" ... while I agree this is a current event with day-to-day, if not hourly changes, people who know more than me (credible reporters) see connections. We are to use the RS to create timeline, not to filter-out by our current personal opinions. So, please avoid superlatives and hyperbole. Connections exist, it is just whether items are included in this article or another, or not. X1\ (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

While most of these changes are fair, the failure to implement the sanctions law is tied to the interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like speculation. Got a source claiming a direct link? — JFG ^talk 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The sanctions law is the law passed against Russia for interfering in our elections.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but we need a better source: the Mother Jones article does not make a clear link: it sort-of implies that the Trump admin is dragging its feet because of Russia having some power on Trump; while the administration says they will get the job done. Both affirmations are speculative. I think we should just keep the entries that says Congress voted this sanction extension and Trump signed it. "Missing a deadline" is a non-action. — JFG ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not need to be a non action. Also, why are the Flynn ties to Russia not relevant? — Theoallen1 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not implementing is a choice, an action. X1\ (talk)

I only removed entries about Flynn and Turkey. His actions linked to Russia are still here. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Look if someone is going to claim speculation when sanctions in a bill that was passed because of the interference on the U.S. by Russia, this article may not be for you, you seem to be unpersuadable completely and might as well wait for the final Mueller report. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We say what RS say, we do not add our own analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This might be useful to add: "FACT SHEET: Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment". White House. Retrieved 11 December 2017. X1\ (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As is this, for December 28, 2016: "President Obama signs Executive Order 13757, and introduces new sanctions against a number of Russian security services and individuals for the following day". per Miles Parks (December 5, 2017). "The 10 Events You Need To Know To Understand The Michael Flynn Story". NPR.org. Retrieved December 10, 2017. with this Barack Obama (December 29, 2016). "Statement by the President on Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment". obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. White House Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved 11 December 2017.. X1\ (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

King of Jordan Meeting

Is there any reason to keep the January 5, 2017 Bannon / Flynn / Kushner meeting with the King of Jordan up?Theoallen1 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Any reason"? Follow the money & motivation. X1\ (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An alleged $1tn private business arrangement involving the Russians and the Donald's now-in-deep-trouble-with-the-feds National Security Adviser about whom there has been continuing evasion by the President and Vice-President (and all the others)? The burden here is surely to demonstrate why there would be a reason to exclude at this point. Especially when multiple reliable sources are asking persistent questions about how it fits into the overall Russia issue. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Does not really seem to fit in. Especially as this was happening while Russia was pulling back from the deal. Seems like a minor point not directly related to Russian interference, since the deal was going on before years before the campaign. PackMecEng (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems central, to me. What sources show that Russia was moving away? Cpaaoi (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Should events before June 14, 2015 be included in this timeline? Theoallen1 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, see #1979–2014 discussion a few months ago. — JFG ^talk 02:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, but I'll wait and see for now. Luke Harding has said that the public has thus far been told about 10% of the story. David Cay Johnston has said comparable things. I suspect that when this is all over there will be a strong case for beginning the timeline in 1977 when the KGB first opened a file on the Donald following his first marriage. But for the sake of clarity, probably best to limit it to the current earliest point. At least the removed material is there in the edit history, ready to be copied and pasted back in before very long (as has already started to happen with *previously* removed material)! Cpaaoi (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Closer to a half year ago, than "a few months ago". Mueller was appointed 17 May 2017. Indictments and guilty pleas have occurred since then. Excessive pruning is premature. This event has been called a "political pearl harbor", "an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11. Let's give this article due weight in thorough content. X1\ (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind Ivana Zelnickova was born (1949) in a Soviet Bloc country, married DJT (1977) while Czechoslovakia was still Soviet, and

There was periodic surveillance of the Trump family in the United States. And when Ivana and Donald Trump, Jr., visited Milos (Zelníček, her father) in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, further spying, or “cover.”

and

The KGB wouldn’t invite someone to Moscow (1987) out of altruism.

per Luke Harding reference, and common sense. X1\ (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Firmly agree. I certainly don't believe that the timeline must to conform to the dates of the election itself. Indeed: already it does no such thing, since it presents many details from the period of time from election day to the present. There is in fact more justification for presenting details from the period of time prior to the start of the campaign season, not less. The Russian secret services are known to have been explicitly looking for people exactly like The Donald who could be politically useful to them at unspecified points in the future, in which case election interference may be characterized as starting long before any official electioneering took place. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Russian secret services are known to have been explicitly looking for people exactly like The Donald who could be politically useful to them at unspecified points in the future, in which case election interference may be characterized as starting long before any official electioneering took place. That's speculation. — JFG ^talk 09:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@X1\: Is Harding claiming that Trump was invited to Moscow by the KGB??? Sounds damn WP:FRINGE — JFG ^talk 09:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Social engineering (security) (Human engr.) / Social engineering (political science), You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar even during the Cold War. X1\ (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@X1\: You did not answer my question. I don't have access to Harding's book, so can't verify what he says. Does he actually make such a claim? If yes, it should be cited to the relevant book page and attributed to Harding. @Cpaaoi: You seem to be familiar with Harding's claims; can you provide an exact source mentioning an invitation of Trump by the KGB? — JFG ^talk 00:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hidden History of Trump’s First Trip to Moscow. Politico Magazine, an excerpt of his book "Collusion"; from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Further reading. X1\ (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source. Reads like a spy novel, but is almost entirely speculation. The author takes a few acknowledged historical facts about the Soviet intelligence services in the 1980s, and proceeds to try and fit them with Trump's documented visit to Moscow in 1987, going back to his 1977 marriage to a Czech national. We can't seriously glean any RS material from such mental gymnastics. And even if we could, it would be another leap of faith to connect 1980s events in the USSR with 2016 politics in the USA. — JFG ^talk 00:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like we need to cram all this in here because it might be important later. Not how things work. PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it isn't speculation, is it? Luke Harding has made the allegation - this is verifiably true. And Harding is a credible source - not fringe at all, in fact; and neither are those fringe who have published or reported on his allegations: Faber & Faber, The Guardian, Politico, The Nation, and more. And Wikipedia acknowledges credible allegations across the board, including on this page. We only seem to meet resistance when the allegations on this page are deeply unpleasant and directly involve the Donald himself, it seems. We don't appear to have a problem with Trump's lawyers alleging systemic bias across the FBI and the DOJ do we, now? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Election interference started when they...interfered in the election. Collusion or grooming may have occurred before then, but it is also very highly speculative, and this is a BLP. And yes any invited to Russia by the KGB are speculative without actual proof (such as a an invite on KGB note paper). MR Harding is ma reporter, not then pope, as such he is not infallible (where by the way does he say Trump was invited by the KGB?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What is a "ma reporter" ? X1\ (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Please avoid superlatives and hyperbole such as "very highly" speculative. Saying "speculative" is enough, saying "very highly" makes you appear biased. Following wp:AGF; If you are not biased, please tone it down, if you are are biased, please continue ... X1\ (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We have "investigation into Mueller's investigation", but do we have "Trump's lawyers alleging systemic bias across the FBI and the DOJ" in the Timeline? Accusing the the FBI and DOJ in toto is notable. X1\ (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly - it seems pretty clear from the source material that that is the gravamen of Sekulow's demand for an investigation, but some of the source material seems to limit the matter to the Mueller inquiry only; perhaps we should clarify this? There certainly seems to be a movement - reflected in the material - to paint the Strzok texts as proof of root-and-branch corruption throughout the Bureau and the Dept. of Justice. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hidden History of Trump’s First Trip to Moscow: In 1987, a young real estate developer traveled to the Soviet Union. The KGB almost certainly made the trip happen. (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842) See also Harding's new book about Trump and Russia. ... And as a general aside, looking at some of the recent edit summaries, may I say that I am not much impressed by arguments that say that because the KGB could not have possibly known in 1987 that The Donald would become President in 2016 that he has therefore not been subject to attempted manipulation. No-one may tell which acorn will grow into an oak, but if you keep scattering acorns it is likely that a tree will eventually appear somewhere. See also venture capitalism, which has been compared before now to Putin's political techniques. Interesting to note Harding's point that The Donald first starts talking about running for political office upon his return from his first visit to the Soviet Union. And no-one has claimed that Harding is infallible.

And then there's also recent appearances in:

* Stuff.co.nz (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99411726/kiwi-spies-knew-of-trumps-collusion-with-russia-as-it-unfolded--guardian-journalist)

* CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-november-30-2017-1.4425138/trump-russia-scandal-bigger-than-watergate-says-author-and-reporter-luke-harding-1.4425141)

* The New York Times and the Santa Cruz Sentinel (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20171128/LOCAL1/171129692)

Harding's also appeared on MSNBC a number of times to talk about Trump, the KGB and the Russian mafia. Here is he is talking about the 1987 KGB visit and also the Russian mobsters who used to stay in Trump Tower, and all the rest of it: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/dossier-author-says-trump-s-russia-deals-deserve-investigation-1097888835875

Harding was also recently interviewed by U.S. News, describing the Trump/Soviet 1987 visit as being arranged by Intourist under the KGB, and pointing out that Trump suddenly bought political ads attacking (who else?) Reagan's (what else?) foreign policy upon his return, and announced he was thinking of running for the Presidency a few weeks later. This timeline is going to look very different in the end. (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-11-22/author-luke-harding-says-russia-trump-ties-are-credible) Cpaaoi (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK if it is not "highly speculative" let me ask, what visit was it the KGB invited him on?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The 4 July 1987 visit, arranged by Intourist under the guidance of the KGB, according to Luke Harding. And, just today, Charles Kaiser at The Guardian has expressed confidence in Harding's research and the point of view that the Donald has been cultivated by the Russians since the 1980s, and also that Mueller is almost certain to bring a federal case against the White House. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/14/collusion-how-russia-helped-trump-win-the-white-house-by-luke-harding-review) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpaaoi (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Harding piece only shows that this guy has enough imagination to pull a narrative thread from disjoined facts and speculative claims -- he will surely sell plenty of books! — JFG ^talk 01:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Books based on "substantial evidence" (Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times) and described as "comprehensive and compelling" (Charles Kaiser, The Guardian) do indeed have a tendency to sell well. Cpaaoi (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

- Although we may assume it won't sell much in Russia, since I see that Sputnik holds an opinion of Harding's work similar to yours. (https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711241059414892-us-trump-russia-harding/) Cpaaoi (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

- I'm having a good ol' look around now, and I see that Rolling Stone, MSN, the Associated Press and even Newsmax - Newsmax! - appear to take Luke Harding seriously. I think if Luke Harding's thesis reads like a bad spy novel, it's probably because the real-life cast have all been behaving like characters in a bad spy novel. Remind me, what was Paul Manafort's email password again? (- another person, in fact, that Harding has been following for many years) Cpaaoi (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Never read about Manafort's password, but I remember Podesta's was allegedly "p@ssw0rd". — JFG ^talk 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reportedly it was 'Bond007'. Sad! Cpaaoi (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

References

This seems pretty simple to me. If WP:RSes make the connection to Russian interference, then it should be here.Casprings (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think what is listed is acceptable. However, pruning needless facts is very important. In addition, speculative information and opinions should be deleted.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is as clear-cut as you imagine. The dates and contents of allegations (for example, Harding's research on the Donald's first trip to the Soviet Union courtesy of the government and the secret services) are a part of the story. Note, for example, the entries on Matt Tait. We don't know if Tait is credible or if his allegations are true, but it is significant that he has made those allegations, and that Tait has thus come to Mueller's attention. And the same goes for a lot of the material on this page, and other pages. For there is speculation and there is speculation: I don't give any credence to David Icke's speculations about alien life, but I do have a lot of time for Carl Sagan's speculation on the same subject. I would object to entries here about speculative tweets concerning the President's guilt/innocence from nobodies with too much time on their hands, but I do consider that research-based speculation by serious journalists of the caliber and experience of Harding are fair. And I don't agree that opinions should necessarily be removed: as long as they are not the opinion of the Wikipedia editor but the expressed opinions of persons close to or knowledgeable about the subject matter, then they are just as much part of the story as any White House statement of denial or proven lies about adoption meetings. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Miss Universe out of scope

Details about sponsors of the Moscow-hosted Miss Universe 2013 pageant have been added again to this timeline, despite a total lack of evidence that this event is related to Russian government interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Apparently the Agalarovs were used by Veselnitskaya via Goldstone to try and approach Trump and lobby for her cause under the bait of providing damaging information on Clinton. Neither Aras Agalarov Sr nor his singer son Emin played any role in those 2016 contacts, therefore mentioning their 2013 interactions with Trump as part of Miss Universe is out of scope for a "timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". I would suggest erasing the Miss Universe event from the timeline and removing Agalarov's name from the glossary of relevant individuals. Opinions? Rationale? — JFG ^talk 01:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: While I do appreciate the positive contributions you have made to this article, and have sent you public "thank"s for some of them, a question keeps coming to mind. Do you pretend to read this article and its RSs or do you not read them and comment anyway (taking the piss)? Per your Time Card are you getting quality sleep (sure doesn't appear so), or do multiple people edit under your Username? See the lede section This timeline also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links in 2016 between associates of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian officials. Your lack of focus on improving Wikipedia is getting boring. X1\ (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do edit WP when sleepless, or I get sleepless when editing… For the rest, please AGF. Agalarov is unrelated, although Goldstone and Veselnitskaya are. That's quite clear in sources. — JFG ^talk 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, please read my #Proposed inclusion criteria from May 2017; still relevant today as an objective yardstick to decide whether an event is in scope of this article's declared theme. — JFG ^talk 21:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS say it is in scope so we should too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/30/timeline-what-we-know-about-trumps-campaign-russia-and-the-investigation-of-the-two/?utm_term=.5a4ef7fb08b4 Casprings (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I am truly sorry to hear you suffer from sleep problems. I know it is nothing to smile about, as I have suffered from insomnia, although my sleep issues are not as medical problematic as yours appear to be. Quality sleep is needed for learning and memory. This topic is connected to a deadly serious topic akin to Cold War II. It is not a subject to be confronted with poor quality sleep. X1\ (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to focus on content and not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern; rest assured that my sleep patterns have no influence on the seriousness with which I attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia. In this particular instance, please note that I did not edit the mentions of Miss Universe or Agalarov after they had been added again; I just came here to open up the discussion. Let's just agree to disagree on the relevance of those events. — JFG ^talk 00:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump praises Putin

With regards to "Trump praises Putin's actions" referenced to this tweet. If a secondary source says he was praising Puting, that is fine. But it is OR for us to interpret a primary source. Otherwise we should not really be referencing primary sources to begin with, if not a direct quote from the source. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There are no doubt multiple RS which do make that interpretation, and then we can quote them, and use them and the primary tweet as references. There is probably enough material on this subject for a whole Trump/Putin love affair article, or more accurately Trump potential blackmail victim... -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. We could just quote the tweet directly, without commentary. I'm going to do this. — JFG ^talk 00:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Including the two discussions this week without commentary is fine.Theoallen1 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions status ?

Found this (below) lost in deletion storm with an edit summary of "Remove some marginally-related or totally unrelated news headlines; copyedit some entries", for 2017:

* October 12: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in a joint statement that, despite an October 1 deadline, the White House has still not acted to identify Kremlin-linked targets for sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

References

This delete storm, summarized as "Cut fluff" removed the October 1 deadline, but was restored previously.

What is the current status of the sanctions? X1\ (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack Burkman

The epithet "eccentric" was used in the Politico article that's cited for the recent mention of Jack Burkman, eccentric, flamboyant, controversial, trickster Washington media operative. An editor has now removed that description, claiming inexplicably that it is "POV". Unless there is objection, we should restore the RS description of Burkman, which relates to the context in which his name came up in recent investigatory affairs. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

When you complain about an edit, it would be helpful to provide a link. Here it is. The problem with the description is that it is an opinion, but was presented in the article as a fact: "Of particular concern to Jackson is Gates' involvement with the eccentric Washington-area lobbyist who organized the event, Jack Burkman." If you think the description is bigly important, then it must be in scare quotes, showing that it is Jackson's description, not Wikipedia's necessarily. TFD (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for no link. Everyone describes Jack in the same terms. Actually "eccentric" is kind of a white shirt euphemism for how he's usually described. At any rate, in WP terms it wasn't POV, it was what the source stated. The edit summary did not properly describe the removal. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I can find quite a few sources that do not call him eccentric, so at best you would have to ascribe it to a source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not every mention of Charles Manson calls him a crazed killer, but that doesn't mean that the WP:WEIGHT of RS description doesn't justify it. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio ?

How is this below, from 'February 7 (2018) a copyright violation?

Jeanette Manfra, the head of DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate, the U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election.

X1\ (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

That's a good question for JFG. More questions: Is it an actual exact quote? Isn't it fair use? What's the issue? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the cited article reads: The U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election. Copying a source article word for word is lazy editing, and a copyright violation. Verbatim snippets like this one keep being added to the timeline; sometimes I edit them to correctly paraphrase the source, sometimes I lose patience and just delete. This particular piece of news is definitely relevant to Russian intervention, so an editor with more patience than me today can insert some appropriate text. I also mentioned that this is old news, but I suppose we already cover so much repetitive information that it won't matter much. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed copyvio[6] — JFG ^talk 09:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem wasn't copyvio, but plagiarism. Enclosing it in quotes would have resolved that problem. Then it still wouldn't be a copyvio problem because such a small amount is covered by "fair use", but paraphrasing is also okay. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should improve, not delete, and your final edit was a good resolution.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why were my edits revised (828472789)?

Hope Hicks' resignation has absolutely no clear link to the Russia investigation other than the fact that she testified before the House in reference to it the day before (which is why I added that fact). Secondly, please explain to me what Kushner's real estate company receiving a loan from CitiBank has to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election. General indicators of corruption, sure, but there is no relevance to Russian interference, which is what the article is about. It seems to me like this is beginning to become a timeline about miscellaneous White House malfeasances rather than Russian interference. 18Things (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

666 Fifth Av

Why is the entry on March 2 relevant to Russia? Theoallen1 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like the answer to this as well. It seems as if any piece of news that might have even the tiniest inkling of relevance to the Mueller investigation is being included onto this timeline which is supposed to really only stick to "Russian interference in the 2016 election" as per the title. I'm not liking the direction some editors are taking this article down.18Things (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be renamed? As this timeline, is, also attached to the U.S. Special Counsel Investigation page in the recent portal. Not sure, just a suggestion. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, the ongoing events section. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

See lede.

This is a timeline of major events related to election interference that Russia conducted against the U.S. in 2016. It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links in 2016 between associates of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian officials

X1\ (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

See next section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Lede must define the inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following is my trial attempt (take a look)--which I self-reverted--to add more to the lede which will clearly delimit the content. We must define the inclusion and exclusion criteria:

The timeline is very broad, in that it covers "any matters", including events previous to the election campaign and persons not directly connected to Trump or the election campaign, in keeping with the special powers bestowed on Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which oversees the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".

While the content of the timeline is broad, it is also limited to those "any matters" which arise or may arise directly from that investigation.

What think ye, my fine collaborators? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally think it's good, but others may think it's on the wordy side... if they don't think so then count this as my vote for inclusion. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's here for comment and improvement, in whatever way gets the point across clearly and best, whatever that point is, and that too may be discussed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too much scope creep. Either we keep this article about Russian interference and closely-related matters (i.e. investigations into Trump associates who have been suspected of dealing with Russia), or we turn it into a general news feed about anything that the Special Counsel investigation is looking at (and then we change the title). The second option would in my opinion deserve a separate article. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per JFG.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This appears to be the standard used right now. Support the position of JFG on scope of article. Theoallen1 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This issue of just looking at the title for scope has come-up a few times, and changing the title to be specific would make it too long; such as Timeline of events associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It would do more to improve than harm. As far as the "scope", it has been the de facto scope, and is used by other pages as roughly the timeline of the investigation. For example, see the Investigation's article, and the Portal:Current events's right side box "Ongoing events", where this is used also as the Investigation's article. X1\ (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, stuff unrelated such as Mueller's current target that is unrelated to Russia or interference in the election does not belong here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, that would mean deletion of some content here, in fact quite a bit. What solution do you propose? A "split" has been suggested, but, as I have described below, that won't work. It's easier to tweak the title and use the clear inclusion and exclusion criteria I have proposed. It's easy to be against something, but do you have any constructive ideas? Without them, opposition here is just destructive and violates WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion and exclusion criteria of this article has been gone over numerous times as I am sure JFG could attest to. With all the stuff unrelated to the article it sounds like WP:COATRACK and should be removed if it is outside of scope. No comment on the split or what articles the info could go to, but this is not it's home. So that is my constructive idea for this article. PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: proposed inclusion criteria

From the archives, here are the inclusion criteria proposed in May 2017. They would still work well today if we want to keep a coherent scope.

I think a good yardstick would be "how is this event related to Russian interference in the presidential election?"

1. If it's one step removed, we can keep it, e.g. "Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats and expands sanctions against Russia": Russia waged an influence campaign towards the American electorate (step 0), Obama punished them as a direct retaliation (step 1).
2. if it's two steps removed that's debatable, e.g. "Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone have been under investigation": Russia is accused of intervening for Trump in the election (step 0), those people have links to Russia and Trump (step 1), they get investigated (step 2).
3. if it's three steps removed it doesn't belong here (e.g. "Schiff calls Nunes' actions inappropriate"): IC reports showed a pattern of hacking and propaganda from Russia (step 0), House Intelligence Committee opened an enquiry to check if Trump was complicit (step 1), committee chairman Nunes gathered some evidence on intercepted communications of Trump associates as part of this enquiry (step 2), Schiff criticized the way Nunes gathered this evidence and talked to the press (step 3).

A separate article about details of the Mueller probe unrelated to Russia could work with a different set of criteria, e.g. include people interviewed or charged, subpoenas issued, etc. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive comments
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
You're going to need a link if you want us to rely on a snapshot from the family album. If it turns out you're just trying to rehabilitate something or other you personally posted in the past, then it would be more helpful just to say so. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Reposting a random snippet some editor made at a long-ago talk page thread does nothing to advance the current discussion. Please speak to the issue at hand in your own voice. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC) It's my own voice; I was replying to PackMecEng who enquired about prior discussions of inclusion criteria. Please pay attention to the conversation before berating your fellow editors. — JFG talk 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Oh my! Well, it's ok to state your own opinion. I daresay it's rather unseemly to quote it without link or attribution in a big green box (family album thingy) as if it had been accepted as consensus the first time round, or as if should be accepted without a link that would show everyone the undisclosed former context. Always better to be forthright and direct. Very unfortunate it was just your own POV. It doesn't appear to be helpful here. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC) If you genuinely believe that it's not a helpful exercise to formulate inclusion criteria that attempt to remain on-topic, then feel free to disengage from the discussion. Certainly I would prefer to read your own proposal for broader or narrower criteria, or anything constructive at all. — JFG talk 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC) That's not what I said -- False premise. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of Trump’s foreign business ties

I think that one area that warrants a new timeline is Trump’s (and his families) foreign business ties and investigations. Two reasons include the Emoluments clause, and how Russian kleptocracy works. In addition, many of the proposed deletions are because they are about the Trump business. In addition, since no such timeline currrently exists, such events are often placed on this page, even though JFG and myself consider such information as not being relevant. Theoallen1 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

All of that is widely covered at Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia. Maybe add a summary timeline in that page? Definitely should remove from here all the details about failed real estate attempts in Russia. — JFG ^talk 08:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Anastasia Vashukevich

Should she be mentioned in this article? She's in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/world/asia/nastya-rybka-trump-putin.html CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anastasia-vashukevich-model-sex-guru-claims-donald-trump-russia-links-thailand/ Business insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/anastasia-vashukevich-russian-escort-jailed-in-thailand-claims-dirt-on-trump-2018-3 Victor Grigas (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This appears to be an action that was directly based on the interference. That clearly is relevant.Theoallen1 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. BTW, I just redirected her name to the relevant section in the main article; it was pointing somewhere else at first, to an article which didn't even mention her. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Events of 1987–2015

The timeline has recently been expanded with a variety of events, quotes and tweets from decades before the 2016 election. Most of that is undue. Trump's failed attempts to develop real estate projects in Moscow during the 2000s have nothing to do with election interference in 2016. His laughable ambition to sell American vodka to Russians is just… pathetic. The fact that Miss Universe 2013 was held in Moscow may be mentioned briefly once, not with 4 entries quoting any random utterances by Trump promoting his business or bragging about meeting Putin (hint: he didn't). Please, let's come to our senses and remove all this fluff, that detracts readers from otherwise valuable information. — JFG ^talk 11:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Longstanding entanglements with the Russian elite have everything to do with typical methods used by them to learn and exploit the weaknesses of useful foreigners. Please read RS reporting on this before making spurious challenges to RS content. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as RS make a link. But just having a list of things that RS do not link is Synthesis. So (JFG) do any of these entries fail the RS test?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's always a good idea to examine the sources for verifiability. Let's look at the first few entries under the "1987–2012" header:

1. Visit to the Soviet Union in 1987: the writer (Luke Harding) explains that the Soviets were probably gathering some information about Trump and his Czech wife. Interesting as a historical perspective on KGB practices, but no link mentioned to the 2016 election. Inclusion is WP:SYNTH.
2. 1996 visit to scout real estate: cites a New Yorker article from 1997, no connection to 2016 election, SYNTH.
3. 2005 deal with Bayrock: source talks about Felix Sater, the extent of his business relationship with Trump, and lawsuits. Makes no mention of Russian interference, SYNTH.
4. 2007 failure of Trump Vodka (dude, you were going to sell American vodka to Russians?), mentioned in passing in a rather long New Yorker piece about the Miss Universe 2013 contest. The article does mention that Trump's contacts made at the time of Miss Universe (notably the Agalarov family) "may also have helped give him the Presidency". Well, perhaps, but certainly the vodka thing is UNDUE.

Four out of the first four entries should be removed per SYNTH or UNDUE policy. Shall we continue? — JFG ^talk 22:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1,2, and the vodka part of 4, I would agree are likely undue. However, #3, has been mentioned in many RS, though someone else would have to provide them because I don't have time. Trump took a dumpy property he bought for 30+mil and sold it for ~95 mil without improving it much, to a known Russian oligarch with Russia mob ties. As you may know, the Russian mob has many former KGB and GRU in their midst. So, its very fishy... and likely a object of interest to all the investigations, including the special counsel probe. Its been mentioned many times in the public Senate and House intel committee hearings. So again, I agree to 1,2, and 4, but not 3. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Strike that , my bad, wrong deal... this stuff is hard to keep straight sometimes, lol. So I agree with all 4, my apologies JFG.Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; there's so much repetition of those old stories everywhere in the press that it's sometimes hard to keep track. Anyway, rather than refuting each item in turn, it would be better to spend some time selecting the few 1987–2015 events that may be indeed connected to 2016 election interference. It would be even better if we could agree on inclusion criteria (see discussion above) so that new editors would know what to insert or not. — JFG ^talk 08:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be reasonable. And if it turns out that the probe leads to the conclusion that Trump did get recruited/courted/manipulated directly by Russia, or more facts come out regarding those incidents, then those more obscure incidents can be added later. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I stepped on peoples toes/policies. I added a number of items to the 1987-2015 section because they provide context for subsequent events. It is widely known, now, that Trump has had a strong desire to do business in Moscow, as well as an arguably unhealthy fascination with Putin - both of which are likely relevant to Russia's desire to help Trump in the election. Many news articles since 2016 briefly mention this information as background material, so I thought it would be helpful to readers if this information was presented in the context of when it happened. --Websurfer2 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing a consensus on deletion, the items were removed.Theoallen1 (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus on removing "1987–2012" (see block quote below). I agree with Websurfer2.

'1987–2012'

• July 4, 1987: Donald Trump makes his first visit to the Soviet Union, at the invitation of Ambassador Yuri Dubinin. British journalist Luke Harding will allege in 2017 that this trip likely marks the beginning of a long-term cultivation operation typical of the KGB's Political Intelligence Department, under written directives initiated by First Chief Directorate head Vladimir Kryuchkov, to recruit politically ambitious Westerners susceptible to flattery, egotism and greed. "The KGB wouldn’t invite someone to Moscow (1987) out of altruism", Harding has written.
• 1996: Trump visits Moscow with Howard Lorber to scout potential properties for "skyscrapers and hotels".
• 2005: Trump gives Bayrock Group an exclusive deal to build a Trump-branded property in Moscow.
• 2007: Trump announces that Trump Vodka will expand its distribution into Russia, his first foray into the Russian market.

Sources

Since you are also top five contributors (per xtools.wmflabs.org), what do you think @Jasonanaggie:, @Cpaaoi:, &/or @Arglebargle79: ? X1\ (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that I see that will most likely to be relevant is the Bayrock deal in Moscow, that was done with Felix Sater, this shows his fascination with having a property in Moscow, so you could go ahead and include his possible cultivation by the KGB by Yuri Dubinin even earlier. Felix Sater is a convicted Russian mob figure and a known FBI informant in the past, and he worked for Trump, yet Trump in under oath testimony has lied saying he wouldn't be able to recognize him. I really don't think Trump Vodka is connected to anything but Trump's willingness to plaster his name on anything made in the world, but hey who knows with how crazy this story has gotten recently, the Vodka could end up being the linchpin that connects the entire story. Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@X1\: I gave policy reasons to remove these four entries, namely WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. Cited sources make no connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Do you have any policy reasons to keep them? — JFG ^talk 01:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As this is archived (in Archive 1, no less), I assume this is moot, and not attempt to understand the question. X1\ (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The apparent policy is that unless it is not relevant, it should be kept if posted. Theoallen1 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: I don't understand what you mean. Can you clarify? — JFG ^talk 10:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Theoallen1, but that's the essence of WP:PRESERVE. We try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Wikipedia (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller).

As long as certain basic policies are not violated (mentioned there), we should do just about everything possible to preserve content, rather than delete it. If such attempts fail, then it should be moved (not deleted) to the talk page for further work. Deletion is a last ditch action for good faith additions. There is no requirement that additions must be complete and perfect. We are all supposed to improve them. Sometimes that means moving the content to the talk page for work. That's fine. Editors should be treated respectfully and not discouraged by the careless trashing of their good faith efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The real problem is WP:Topic.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. This timeline should not be a coatrack for any and all Trump-related controversies. Off-topic additions should be preserved elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 09:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed the four entries again, per WP:TOPIC and WP:SYNTH. I have moved some details of the 1987 and 1996 visits to Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, upholding WP:PRESERVE. The Bayrock deal was already mentioned there. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion

I think the problem is that we do not have defined criteria. Since there is no comparable timeline to this article, we need defined criteria. The lede, however, is not clear enough so a new standard needs to be used. One example is that

1. All guilty pleas to Mueller are relevant.
2. The Clinton email server is not relevant.

This would solve the dispute between the broad standard of inclusion that we currently use and that many bullet points are routinely deleted as being outside the scope of the article. Theoallen1 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. The article was basically about the events leading up to and including the impeachment of President Trump. Sort of like Watergate and Iran-Contra. This includes all the events of the collusion, and the coverup, such as the Nunes shananigans. The Stormy Daniels thing might be included as well, as it may lead to an article of impeachment. Stuff like corruption by one of Trump's cabinet secretaries shouldn't be included, nor all the leaks about chaos in the west wing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the Impeachment of Donald Trump.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: there's an article called Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, this one is called "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". @Arglebargle79: If your intent when contributing to this article is to speculate on how Russian interference or a bunch of other issues may eventually lead to impeachment, you are failing catastrophically at understanding the encyclopedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Please tale a moment to reflect. — JFG ^talk 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But sometimes seemingly unrelated events may become relevant if they are seen as such in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And when RS make the link we can metion it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There have been four House resolutions introduced on impeaching Donald Trump. H. Res 438 is impeachment for obstruction, which is Article I for H. Res 621. Al Green also offered two privileged resolutions referring to Charlottesville, each of which were tabled by the Yeas and Nays. Those privileged resolutions (HRes 646 and HRes 705) do not belong on this page, but all four deserve discussion on the page about efforts to impeach Trump.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

When I created this article a year or so ago, the title was: "Timeline of interference in the 2016 Presidential election and other events leading to the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump." The last part of the title was removed, and while I wasn't particularly fine with that, I accepted it in good grace. Attempts to impeach Trump were always germane to this timeline, although I don't expect any serious attempt this year, as the Republican in Congress won't do it. At this point in time, saying that there will be a Democratic retaking of the House is definitely WP:CRYSTAL. Also remember that Sam Nunburg publicly stated that he'd been asked by Mueller's people about payoffs to women for their silence, bringing in the Stormy Daniels thing. However it's too early to add that now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Your initial title had an WP:AGENDA, and was rightly modified to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. I can agree that a desire to impeach Trump does motivate a lot of people to keep digging up and investigating a lot of things surrounding him. As U.S. President, he is certainly fair game. However, this is not our job as Wikipedians. — JFG ^talk 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)