Wikipedia

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 4

< Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Latest comment: 5 years ago by X1\ in topic This article is very long
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Finally getting on with fixing the article

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I recently made three edits to remove unnecessary information in the article here. This was unfortunately reverted by an editor who has been completely opposed to removing anything from the article and has been suggesting there is no consensus for trimming the article. I was very careful to remove only things that did not belong in these edits, so I'm here to see if there is anybody who can actually substantively disagree. Much of what's included is simply ridiculous in how only tangentially related it is with subjects of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing the disagreements among editors, I have started a process to build consensus on each theme of subject matter. Please participate in the various sections above. — JFG talk 13:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have anything more to add other than to say everything you've proposed to be removed does not belong in this article. We're not here to document the background or the context of anybody involved. That can be done in other prose articles if necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are just a few items which could arguably be removed. Others should stay, including the events long before 2015 - see General Discussion and other sections above. I can see two general problems with suggestions by JFG:
  1. He had to list specific items for removal, but he did not post them properly (i.e. as they appear on the page). For example, he posted "Trump attempts to sell American vodka to Russians. Epic fail." and a lot of other similar statements. What is that? In some cases, there is simply no such item in the time line. In other cases, there is an item, but JFG rephrased, distorted or selectively cited it in such manner to make it appear irrelevant and ridiculous. There are many such cases.
  2. In many cases JFG suggested to remove items whose relevance to the timeline has been established by RS currently cited on the page. That includes info about the events before 2015. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the problem, it's simply not feasible to list every single entry that should be removed, and have a debate over each specific entry. There's just far too much to go through. It is at least feasible to talk about topics and individuals, some of which are clearly detailed far too much outside the scope of this article. Going through the talk page archives it's clear that editors have been contributing entries to the article in attempts to show the motives of certain individuals, and to absolve certain individuals of allegations. These do not belong in a timeline and most certainly fail the WP:10YEARTEST. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • None of that is "recentism". Some events are dated several years ago, others are dated more than 10 years ago. Yes, it is now clear that many past events, even the trip by the current president to Moscow in 1980 were in fact significant - per sources. They already passed the 10-year test. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not what the ten year test means. The question is if readers will think this is relevant to the article in ten years. There is no suggestion in the sources that these 1980s trips were significant to actions of the Russian government in the 2016 election. The sources only say that these trips happened, and it's the same with many other things that are in this article, like the very lengthy and needless background we are given about Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and others. The issue of the Russian government involving itself in the American presidential election is certainly not going to be as big in ten years to necessitate how much background and possibility we are giving, and isn't currently either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not consider Donald Trump's visits to Russia as relevant to Russian government actions in the 2016 election. It's only relevant to Trump's various business relationships with Russian entities. They only document that these visits happened, which may be relevant to some other article, but certainly not this one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree: this is probably just a conjecture or maybe an important historical background. But this is a history of the subject of the "interference" as described in RS. If RS describe these earlier visits in relation to the subject of this page or consider them to be a part of this subject, so should we. This is reference work. The link above is about the book Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win by Luke Harding. And that book not only tells this is relevant, but it tells there was certainly the "collusion". OK, perhaps you did not read the book and do not trust me. Then let's cite a source about the book [3]: "Harding leaves little doubt: It was collusion. He presents an overwhelming number of connections between Trump and his close associates with Russian intelligence and organized crime, and he digs into all of them with hard evidence. Initially, Trump and his associates denied it all, but since they had to admit their many meetings with Russians, their guilt appears all the more evident." None of that was disproved by the Mueller Report. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
If RS describe these earlier visits in relation to the subject of this page or consider them to be a part of this subject, so should we. They do not. They're just mentioned in the same articles that they may also talk about the 2016 election. They don't say the events are related. This is nothing to do with the accuracy or relevance of Luke Harding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Book "Collusion.." by Harding is about the "interference". Right? It describes the older events as a part of this story. So should we. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No, we're writing an encyclopaedic article here. We're not writing a book. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, we are not writing any books here. We are using them as reliable sources. Do you understand and agree? My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In his book, and in coverage thereof, Harding was speculating. He admits that himself if you read the language he uses: KGB "could have" been interested in Trump, Putin "probably" has kompromat on Trump, etc etc. Not reliable. — JFG talk 21:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The book is a reliable secondary source per WP:RS. You seem to be under wrong impression that we only have to include events and people that were proven to be related to the subject of the page. No, absolutely not. We must include events and people who are discussed in RS in relation to the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting?

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Someone placed a notice to the page: "It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles." Where it has been suggested? Splitting to what, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is in reference to #This article is very long. - PaulT+/C 05:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I do not see any specific suggestions to split. Looking at the edition history of the page, it appears that people who argued to split only tried to delete the content, not to split it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have suggested specifically how to split the article several times but this was completely ignored. I continue to support splitting the article and this is not exclusive of removing content from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
What suggestion you are talking about (any link?). Did you suggest to split events prior to 2014 to a separate page? My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggested splitting the events regarding Donald Trump's financial and business interests with Russian entities. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean? Which items or parts of this page should be split/moved and where? My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Items relating to business connections between Donald Trump and Russian entities. In the future please notify me when you completely change a response to me, particularly questions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It is still not clear which exactly items or parts of this page you mean. Do you mean something also noted on page Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia? My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
One article could be about Russian interference in the 2018 U.S. elections, which is the topic of the article. That could cover the allegations that Russia hacked into the DNC server and released the information through Wikileaks and set up fake social media accounts in order to influence voters. Both these actions have attracted U.S. indictments. The rest of the article could document connections between Trump and Russia, none of which have any relevance to Russian interference in the 2018 election, which is the topic of this article. TFD (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We already have separate pages about Trump-Russia connections and DNS hacking. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Good. And this article about Russian interference in the 2018 U.S. election. TFD (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
From the various threads above, it seems that we do have a scoping problem. If there is no consensus to remove entries that are not directly relevant to actual Russian interference in elections, I would support forking them out. That would seriously de-clutter the timeline, and make it a more useful resource for readers, while appeasing people who wish to WP:PRESERVE every morsel of speculation that has been floated by sources over 2+ years of collusion hysteria. — JFG talk 17:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Please don't say "collusion hysteria." The Mueller Report shows numerous instances of collusion, but does not focus on it since it's not always a crime. Instead, Mueller focused on "conspiracy" in the sense that there had to be a near written or recorded "let's conspire" agreement. That piece of paper or recording was, of course, never found because conspirators hide what they're doing. There were abundant reasons to suspect collusion. It was not hysteria then, nor is it now. It's still a justified suspicion and allegation, with plenty of proof it happened in many instances. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I use the words I wish, thank you very much. Yes, all of America has been under mass collective hysteria for 2+ years, and that applies to both sides of the political divide. It's high time this country got over its own navel-gazing and self-bickering. If Russia wanted to disrupt the USA that much, they got a lot of help from USA's own political class. Now back to article contents. To split or not to split? — JFG talk 20:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a "scoping problem". The scope is stable and long standing. We have a disruption problem here. @JFG: as a reminder, if you want an alt Timeline with significant RS deleted, you can copy information from here to create one. X1\ (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Instead of accusing people of disruption, why don't you contribute to the various discussions I opened above? They are here precisely to try and build consensus. — JFG talk 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean to say "to build anti-consensus". X1\ (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are getting tiresome. — JFG talk 20:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: again, if you want to build an alt, go do it. To be clear, not by destroying this article. We all can look at the article you built, to clearly see what you want. X1\ (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in duplicating information yet again in a forked page. I just want this article to provide clarity for readers about its subject matter, viz. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. There was legitimate suspicion since 2016 that Trump people were aiding and abetting such interference, but the Mueller Report has put this theory to rest. Accordingly we must focus on what Russia actually did and the impacts it actually had. — JFG talk 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
BullRangifer, could you please provide me with any exampes of the "numerous instances of collusion" shown in the Mueller report? We can then ensure they are in this article and remove any extraneous material.
I am interested too if it explains why the Russians set up a troll farm in Moscow that hired people with broken English and little understanding of the U.S., when Trump could have set one up in the U.S., just as the Democrats did with Correct the Record.
TFD (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution opened

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Given the deadlock in various discussions about article scope, I have initiated dispute resolution proceedings at WP:DRN#Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. All recent contributors to the talk page have been notified, and others are free to join. — JFG talk 06:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election Investigation Fast Facts

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This has dates for the start of several investigations and a nice timeline:

BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Thank you for the tip. Here is a quick organizing one: [1], and I'll put some money-laundering related ones in an above section shortly. Also of interest is the Ibiza affair, if you haven't seen it; notice the similar "woman posing as the niece of a Russian oligarch". X1\ (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tracking 29 Investigations Related to Trump". nytimes.com. May 14, 2019. Retrieved May 18, 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme

Latest comment: 5 years ago119 comments9 people in discussion

Moving forward with the #2 item from the action plan above. Grouping events by themes makes it easier to evaluate their relevance. — JFG talk 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's visits to Russia

  • 1987: Trump visits Russia to scout for real estate deals: no followup.
  • 1996: Trump visits Russia to scout for real estate deals: no followup.
  • 2005: Trump gives Bayrock rights to build Trump-branded property in Moscow: no followup.
  • 2006: Two of Trump's children visit Moscow: Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka allegedly "sits in Putin's chair" during a tour of the Kremlin. Tourists these days…
  • 2007: Trump attempts to sell American vodka to Russians. Epic fail.
  • 2008: Trump Jr. visits Russia to scout for real estate deals: no followup.
  • November 9–11, 2013: Trump attends Miss Universe 2013 in Moscow. He allegedly hires hookers to pee on Obama's bed. Even Christopher Steele doesn't quite believe his own report.

Bottom line: Nothing. — JFG talk 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

1987, 1996, and 2007 can more than likely go - no direct relevance to the campaign.
2008 can likely go - some potential relevance around future Moscow Tower negotiations, but without sources supporting that it probably shouldn't stay.
2005 possibly can stay - some potential relevance around future Moscow Tower negotiations, but I haven't checked the sources on this.
2006 possibly can stay - wasn't this visit specifically mentioned during the campaign as a reason why they (the campaign) was going to get support from Putin (or something like that)? I distinctly remember something about "Ivanka sat in his chair". I have to double-check sources, but I think this one can stay.
2013 should stay. Even if the events have not been proven to be linked to the peepee tape, the fact that the events are in the Steele dossier makes it relevant for this timeline. - PaulT+/C 13:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything relevant to "Russian interference in 2016" here, except for highlighting when the impossible to prove or disprove pee tape could have or could have not been created. This is supposed to be a "timeline of major events related to election interference that Russia conducted against the U.S. 2016 elections" and also include "major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials." It is not a timeline of Donald Trump's world travels. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not relevant because Trump never discussed inference with Russians and these events occurred long before the election. Certainly there was no Russian plan in 1987 to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. TFD (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course there was no plan in 1987 to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. The KGB guys could not even dream about such luck in 1987. They simply "worked" with all "promising" foreigners. But Luke Harding and other RS did describe this old story as connected to the 2016 election. Hence include. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again, this is just Luke Harding's speculation. He got a lot of mileage out of that one… Not Wikipedia's job to elevate his speculation or anybody else's. — JFG talk 13:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: No consensus among commenting editors. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 07:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump Tower Moscow

  • November 2013: During the Miss Universe event, Trump makes some contacts with local property developers and bankers. He then brags: "The Russian market is attracted to me. I have a great relationship with many Russians."
  • December 23, 2013: Trump agrees a tentative deal on construction of a Moscow tower. Finally!
  • February 1–4, 2014: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump attend a Jewish event in Moscow. Ivanka checks out the proposed Trump Tower construction site.
  • June–August 2014: Trump Jr. and Ike Kaveladze discuss the architectural details and business prospects of the planned Trump Tower Moscow.
  • September–November 2014: The Trump Organization progressively loses interest in the Moscow project. Nothing gets built.

Bottom line: Nothing. — JFG talk 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

These should all stay. Trump was negotiating to build the tower all the way up through election day while consistently lying about it to the public. It belongs on this list. - PaulT+/C 13:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
These 2013–2014 conversations are not the same as what Cohen tried to activate in 2015–2016. I'm not against keeping the latter. The former is just background information which is out of scope, and could be mentioned briefly in the 2016 efforts. — JFG talk 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Since the Russians did not coordinate their interference with Trump, his presence in Moscow is irrelevant. Even if we believed that they took pictures of prostitutes urinating on Trump's bed, it played no part in the 2016 election interference. TFD (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Did not you check the link above? It tells that "The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed President Donald Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to answer questions" related to the "plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow". That's right now, and it is related to the 2016 elections. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: No consensus among commenting editors. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 07:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's public statements about Putin

  • October 15, 2007: Trump praises Putin during a CNN interview.
  • October 17, 2013: Trump says on TV that he has met Putin, but that's obviously false. The usual baseless bragging,
  • February 10, 2014: Trump brags on TV that Putin contacted him while he attended Miss Universe 2013. Bull.
  • March 21, 2014: Trump reacts to the annexation of Crimea on Twitter, saying Putin is "a big hero in Russia", "has zero respect for Obama or the U.S.", and "will continue to re-build the Russian empire". Armchair quarterback observations.
  • April 12, 2014: Trump opines on TV that Putin is popular in his own country, contrary to Obama.
  • May 27, 2014: Trump again claims he spoke to Putin when he was in Moscow. Bull.

Bottom line: Trump talks a lot of nonsense; we knew that already. Nothing worth mentioning in relation to 2016 elections. — JFG talk 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG - why is it nonsense when Trump says he met Putin? Enlighten me please, I really don't know on this issue. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Because they didn't meet. Perhaps the Kremlin protocol service sent a friendly letter to Trump thanking him for hosting Miss Universe in Moscow, but that's the extent of Trump's "contacts" with Putin "who couldn't have been nicer", he said. — JFG talk 03:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
JFG Because they didn't meet. - source, please...? starship.paint (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Proving a negative? Is there a source establishing that they did meet? We do have several sources reporting that prior to the Helsinki Summit in 2018, both Putin and Trump said they had never met before. — JFG talk 03:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: - so you believe Trump (and Putin) regarding statements that they did not meet, but don’t believe Trump saying they met? I know we can’t prove a negative, but wouldn’t the logical approach be that we don’t know if they have met? Instead you said obviously false and bull. starship.paint (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
What I believe is irrelevant: only the sources count, and we don't need to find any source to disprove an allegation, we need to find sources that prove it. It's simply more likely that the Liar-in-Chief was goofballing as usual, rather than Putin having made time to see Miss Universe and meet this weird businessman-turned-TV-star. I'm pretty sure pictures would have emerged by now. Putin was already the sitting president and his agenda is well-documented; we could check official sources from the presidency office for his November 2013 schedule, but that would be WP:OR. In the meantime, Trump's 2013 TV utterances are irrelevant to this timeline. — JFG talk 04:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Taking the above conversation into account, given Trump and Putin's conflicting statements on this I think it is helpful to see how Trump & Putin saw/charactarized their "relationship" inline with other entries in the timeline. Nothing should be implied/inferred and the entries should only state what is directly in the sources. - PaulT+/C 13:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC) (With the exception of the 2007 mention, that is old enough to be worthless in the context of the election.) - PaulT+/C 13:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how anything Trump said here has anything to do with what Russia did in 2016. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is all relevant and should be included simply because it was widely covered in sources in relation to the subject of the page (such RS are easy to find or already used on the page). That was allegedly one of the reasons why Putin interfered to the elections at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
These statements were used as evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but since there was no collusion they are irrelevant. TFD (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Who said there was no "collusion"? Certainly not the Mueller Report. Mueller just decided not to bring the charges. Insufficient evidence of a claim does not mean that the claim was wrong. What the sources actually tell? For example, "Harding leaves little doubt: It was collusion. He presents an overwhelming number of connections between Trump and his close associates with Russian intelligence and organized crime, and he digs into all of them with hard evidence. Initially, Trump and his associates denied it all, but since they had to admit their many meetings with Russians, their guilt appears all the more evident." [4]". Well, but that is exactly what the Mueller report tells. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Methinks you've been reading too much Harding and not enough Mueller. — JFG talk 13:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: No consensus among commenting editors. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 07:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

History lessons

Bottom line: There's an encyclopedia for this. We can link to background historical events when relevant (e.g. Putin's purported retaliation against Clinton for intervening in Russian elections), but we don't need to spell out in the timeline itself the history of Russia, Ukraine, or their relations to the United States. — JFG talk 01:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have very limited time, so I looked only on this block so far. #1 - yes, removed. #2 yes, removed. #3 - no, the source seems to make connection with subsequent campaign. #4 - the Magnitsky act is relevant, but the source does not make connection - this should be better sourced or removed. #5 - to which lines of the list this belongs? - I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Several lines refer to #5: look at 2013 November 21 and 2014 March 6, plus the March 21 Trump comments on Crimea annexation (already covered in section #Trump's public statements about Putin above). — JFG talk 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with my very best wishes: keep 2011-2013 and 2012, remove 1991 and 2004, and 2014 needs further investigation. Regarding that last point (and in addition to other potential reasons), it could be relevant to show Russia's relations with the US at the time and potential motives for interfering, specifically regarding the US-imposed sanctions. - PaulT+/C 13:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to include this stuff, we may as well include a lot more from Russian history. We're missing many of the reforms undertaken by Peter the Great, where he attempted to bring many influences from Western culture to Russia. If the USA had existed then, he surely would have taken cultural norms from the USA, exactly what Trump may have wanted him to do. We probably also need to include how an American misled the world about the famine and mass starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930s. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
All irrelevant unless there is a clear connection. Is anyone claiming that had the Soviet Union not been dissolved that the KGB/FSB would not have interfered with the U.S. election? TFD (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: We have consensus to remove the 1991 and 2004 entries, and I will do so. The rest remains under discussion. — JFG talk 06:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Butina and Torshin

  • 2011: Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms [ru]" organization.
  • May 2011: Russian Senator Alexander Torshin is introduced to NRA president David Keene in Pittsburgh.
  • 2012: Torshin attends the NRA convention in Missouri and visits NRA HQ in Virginia.
  • May 2013: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in Texas.
  • October 2013: Butina presents "Right to Bear Arms" in Israel.
  • November 2013: Keene and conservative author Alan Gottlieb speak at a Right to Bear Arms conference in Moscow, upon invitation by Butina and Torshin. They have dinner with them.
  • December 2013: John R. Bolton appears on a video by Right to Bear Arms promoting gun rights in Russia.
  • 2014: Butina tells a Facebook friend in California that he should demonstrate for gun rights.
  • April 2014: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in Indiana. Butina makes NRA president Jim Porter an honorary member of Right to Bear Arms.
  • Late 2014: Butina resigns from Right to Bear Arms.

Bottom line: Gun activists from Russia entertain friendly contacts with gun activists from the United States. None of them interferes in elections. Guest starring John Bolton as The Mustache. Totally irrelevant. — JFG talk 02:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I could ask the same for any your sub-list, but let's consider this as an example. You are making your own judgement that this is not relevant to the list. However, multiple RS, including Mueller Report do cover these people and these events in connection with "Russian interference", so this needs to be included. This not your or my call. That's the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not my own judgment, it's a fact and it's a matter of scope. This is background information on Butina's activities; it fits in her biography and perhaps the NRA article, not in here. — JFG talk 20:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No, Butina is generally described in RS as "a Russian national who sought to infiltrate both the Trump campaign and the NRA before the election" [5] and therefore belongs to this page. She was questioned by Mueller team [6] and she was involved [7] to the controversy. Therefore, all significant details about her, including her penetration to the NRA arguably belong to the time line. I would say only #5 in your list might be removed, but you did not cite it properly. Here is how it appears on the page: Butina makes a presentation on "Right to Bear Arms" to the Association for the Promotion of Weapons Culture in Israel. Her presentation includes a slide claiming her organization has cooperation agreements with similar organizations in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Estonia, and she informs the group that it also has a cooperation agreement with the NRA. Another slide states it has a cooperation agreement with the International Defensive Pistol Association, which the Texas-based organization denies when asked in 2018. No, that should remain on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Since neither person interfered with the U.S. election, it is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There's clearly consensus here to remove references to Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin. They are only tangentially related to the Russian interference, and not a part of the interference itself. Wikipedia most certainly does have standards on what is considered sufficiently relevant to the topic to be included, and doesn't just include everything that any source has ever said is connected in some way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This has been open for almost two weeks and only My Very Best Wishes has opposed removing these. JFG has called it "totally irrelevant", The Four Deuces has said "neither person interfered with the U.S. election" and "it is irrelevant", and I Onetwothreeip agree with both of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. WP:UNDUE WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:SCOPE WP:RELEVANCE. Stating that "the policy is on my side" doesn't make it true. These are only relevant to Russian entities being involved in American politics generally, not the 2016 elections. Clearly when you say in the edit summary that there isn't agreement, you just mean that you haven't agreed to it so it's not allowed to happen. If you think it's true that there isn't agreement, then you should self revert and wait for someone else to revert the edits. You've put your points across and we just haven't agreed with you, and I think it's now time for JFG or The Four Deuces to restore the removals persuant to the consensus here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: A majority of commenting editors agree to remove all this, but one editor strongly opposes. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 06:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See further discussion #About Butina below. — JFG talk 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Deripaska and Manafort

  • Too many events to list. Special guest star John McCain having dinner "with a dozen people in Montenegro" for his 70th birthday.

Bottom line: We are treated to a detailed account of the business relationship between Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and American lobbyist Paul Manafort. The Mueller report has established that Manafort did not play any role in Russia's election interference attempts, although he was indicted and sentenced for a litany of unrelated criminal offenses, notably bank fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. If some Wikipedians want to create a timeline of Manafort's bad deeds, please fork it out. Here, it is decidedly out of scope. — JFG talk 03:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting sideline:

Perhaps that's worth mentioning in a future Timeline of British and American cultivation of Russian intelligence assets?[FBDB] — JFG talk 03:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting or not, it has nothing to do with the election and of course Manafort did not coordinate with Russian interference, so also irrelevant. TFD (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
No, Muller report did not establish that Deripaska and Manafort did not play any role in Russia's election interference. Deripaska almost certainly did play a role. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Deripaska almost certainly did play a role. Source? — JFG talk 21:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: Too few comments to assess consensus. Waiting for input from more editors. — JFG talk 06:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Kilimnik and Patten

Bottom line: We don't need the CVs of these people. Besides, Ukraine is not Russia. — JFG talk 03:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

These should all go. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I think that providing some significant background information on people who appears on the page is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, no connection with Russian interference in the election, so should be removed. There is no need to provide background on everyone who is on the paged and most people mentioned had no connection whatsoever with Russian interference. In particular, no Americans colluded with Russia. TFD (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
According to our page about Kilimnik, he was "a person of interest in the 2017 Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, particularly due to his ties with Paul Manafort...". That sounds correct, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, he was even indicted by Mueller for witness tampering. However, I don't believe his school background is relevant. Neither is the exact date he started to work with Manafort. His own article is the place to document such things, not a "timeline of interference". — JFG talk 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: A majority of commenting editors agree to remove all this, but one editor opposes. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 06:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

George Papadopoulos

Bottom line: Background story about Mifsud, Mangiante and Papadopoulos. Relevance here is sketchy. Probably better suited to Timeline of Operation Crossfire Hurricane or Timeline of Spygate, if you have a knack for the -gate scandal names. — JFG talk 05:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence that the Russians used Papadopoulos to interfer with the election, it does not belong. TFD (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Pleas check this section. At least two bottom paragraphs (they are sourced) explain his involvement to the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, why do we need to tell readers when Papa's future wife met the Mifsud professor? — JFG talk 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: A majority of commenting editors agree to remove this, but one editor opposes. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 06:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Carter Page

  • January 2013: Carter Page, a petroleum industry consultant, passes documents about the oil market to Victor Podobnyy, a Russian intelligence agent. He later claims the documents were public information. Podobnyy is charged with being an unregistered foreign agent in 2015.
  • April 13, 2013: Two agents of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) discuss recruiting Page.
  • July 3, 2013: Carter Page schedules a dinner with potential investor Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg to pitch his fledgling natural gas business. It is unclear whether the meeting took place.
  • August 25, 2013: Page sends a letter to an academic press in which he claims to be an adviser to the Kremlin.

Bottom line: Looks like one of many dead-end tracks. Did Podobnyy play a role in Russian attempts to influence the election? Page certainly didn't, or he would have been charged by Mueller. Did the SVR recruit Page? Apparently not. Did Page meet Vekselberg? Who cares? Keep these reports for the Carter Page article. — JFG talk 05:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

These are all irrelevant, as the Mueller Report confirms Page didn't do anything wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this comment by Mr. Ernie reveals faulty logic behind the reasoning by JFG. To the contrary, all significant events that have been described in Mueller report belong to this timeline simply per WP:NPOV. See also my comments in "General Discussion." My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with NPOV; it has to do with article scope and with WP:DUE WEIGHT. Whatever Page did in 2013 is totally irrelevant to election interference; that is a better fit for his biography article (if it is significant within his life that he may or may not have had dinner with Viktor Vekselberg). — JFG talk 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? In addition to the Mueller report, these two publications alone would be enough for inclusion [8], [9] (there are many more). I am not implying any guilt by him, and no one should imply any guilt. It it just that he appears in multiple RS as a significant participant of the controversy and therefore should be included to the time line. This is reference work. Same with all other your suggestions to remove, assuming that the items are sourced. If something is not sourced, then yes, you have valid point with regard to unsourced items. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not only is there is no evidence that the Russians used Carter Page to interfere with the election, but there is no theory as to what role he played. TFD (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
How come? He appears in a large number of RS related to controversy of the "interference". Just to cite a couple, here they are: [10], [11]. We are not talking here about any scientific or judicial proofs or theories. We are simply talking that he appears as one of important participants of the controversy in multiple RS on the subject, and therefore must be included in the timeline. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes he appears in sources, but 1) what he did in 2013 is irrelevant 2) he was not charged with anything after intense scrutiny by Mueller, so we should remove all this speculation about his role. That's only Steele dossier material. 3) keeping unfounded accusations about a living person, on any page, is contrary to our BLP policy. — JFG talk 14:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
He appears on the page many times, but I do not see unfounded accusations about him. What exactly info/statement do you think was poorly sourced and should be removed? I do not see any refs directly on Steele dossier. Yes, he appears in connection to the "dossier" n one of the paragraphs, with refs like that. They look like RS. Are you saying these publications have been retracted? My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he was investigated, and his name was cleared. Therefore we do not need to mention his life story here; just say in a couple entries when he was to testify and why. — JFG talk 21:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: A majority of commenting editors agree to remove this, but one editor opposes. Waiting for guidance from DRN process. — JFG talk 06:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Russian interference activities

  • 2012: According to the FBI, Russian agents try to recruit U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher.
  • August 2013: Hackers gain access to the Trump Organization's domain registrar account at GoDaddy, and register hundreds of "shadow" subdomains pointing to a St. Petersburg company known for hosting malware. The issue is rectified in November 2017, although the company denies that any breach occurred.
  • April 2014: The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) creates a "translator project" department, which focuses on interfering in U.S. elections.
  • May 2014: The IRA begins its campaign to "spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general."
  • June 2014: Aleksandra Krylova and Anna Bogacheva, two IRA employees, travel to the U.S. to collect intelligence. Maria Bovda, a third employee, is denied a visa. All three are indicted in February 2018 for their work on election interference.
  • September 11, 2014: The IRA spreads a hoax they created about a fictitious chemical plant fire in Centerville, Louisiana, purportedly started by ISIS.
  • September–October 2014: The Material Evidence art exhibition in New York, partly funded by the IRA, portrays the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine in a pro-Russian light.
  • November 2014: An unnamed IRA employee travels to Atlanta.
  • December 2014: The IRA spreads two hoaxes via Twitter, both purported to have taken place in Atlanta: an Ebola outbreak, and the police shooting of an unarmed black woman.

Bottom line: Finally something relevant to Russian meddling, although it's not about the 2016 elections. Unsure about Rohrabacher being a target of the same Russians who fomented the 2016 election interference. Do we have a source making the connection, apart from stating "both actions were initiated by Russian intelligence", hint hint connect the dots? — JFG talk 05:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of these have nothing to do with the election of 2016, and should go. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with Russian interference. Not every bad things Russia did were part of an attempt to influence the 2016 election. The atomic spying of the 1940s for example wasn't very nice, but was not part of a long planned attempt to rig the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
How come? You are saying that Internet Research Agency has nothing to do with "Russian interference"? My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not what TFD said. — JFG talk 14:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
One of the items you suggested to exclude is this: "April 2014: The Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) creates a "translator project" department, which focuses on interfering in U.S. elections.". OK. It appears that you both believe this should be deleted as insufficiently relevant to the subject of the page. TFD even said "None of this has anything to do with Russian interference". This is strange. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the 2014 "translator project" and further IRA activities are relevant and should be kept. I have doubts about the rest, so I would remove Rohrabacher 2012 and Trump domain names 2013. Everybody who's running any Internet business has had their stuff hacked one day or another. It's routine. — JFG talk 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: Consensus to keep some of the IRA's 2014 activities; we can still debate which ones. No opposition to removing the 2012 and 2013 entries, and I will do so. — JFG talk 07:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, for example, this NYT article explains why Rohrabacher is relevant to the 2016 "interference" (he "dined with Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of the Russian central bank who has been linked both to Russia’s security services and organized crime. During Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, Mr. Torshin tried to set up a “backdoor” meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, according to an email that has been turned over to Senate investigators.") My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Bottom line: So what? — JFG talk 05:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing here has anything to do with the 2016 election. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not related to the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Status: There is consensus of commenting editors to remove this, and I will do so. — JFG talk 06:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Filing a DRN request is fine if everyone involved (and especially the filer) agree to refrain from reverts and drastic changes to push "their version" during negotiations. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Just the opposite. I asked a question here [12], but received no response from admins or other uninvolved contributors. Let's wait until the DRN case is ether closed or results in something. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

I honestly challenge anyone to find a single thing in the pre-2015 content that is about Russian interference in the 2016 election. It's just stuff that shows Trump's connections to Russia which may very well be interesting but certainly not the scope of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
What I would like to see for 2014 is who why what where when GRU agents decided on a campaign of disruption, the researchers they sent to the U.S., the facebook pages they set up, other social media, hiring trolls, etc. And then how they decided which candidates to disparage or praise, the ads they presented, the number of readers, etc. TFD (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Mueller indicted 12 GRU agents. Some of them entered the country, did their work, and left. They will never see the inside of an American courtroom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not asking what happened but saying what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
As a baseline, anything that is in the Mueller Report, belongs on this timeline. That includes pre-2015 material. - PaulT+/C 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Paul. But the Report is only one of many sources published on the subject. Therefore, I would suggest the following. Simply check if any current item in the list was properly sourced, meaning the source does make the connection of the item with the subject of the page, no matter which year. If it does, keep the item. Quick checking shows that most, but not all items are properly sourced. This is just a general criterion for including anything to any list. For example, for creating a list of spies, one must have some sources telling that person X was described in RS as a spy. Just above, JFG placed lists of items for removal. I can see two general problems with this. First, many of the items listed by JFG actually do not appear on the page - as written. Secondly, many of them are sourced. Removing them would be acting against WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    Agree that everything must be sourced, but please note also that not everything is due, and that is where we must make editorial decisions. If we blindly copy sources, without consideration to appropriate scope and weight, we will end up with a copy of the full Mueller Report; that's interesting, but that's not what an encyclopedia does. Regarding my lists of items which are not exactly as written, I have shortened them for simplicity, otherwise I would be fully copying the article contents here. I have made sure to cover everything that is in the pre-2015 timeline so far. Waiting for more feedback. — JFG talk 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No one suggests to copy the full Mueller Report here. However, listing all events from the Mueller Report in this timeline would be fine (but I suspect they are included already in the list!). Which events are sufficiently important for inclusion is a good question. I would say that anything involving people we have pages about is important and should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: The Mueller Report is a primary source, so not everything in that belongs here. The report itself is further reading, so this article has to summarise parts of that report that relate to Russian government involvement in the 2016 elections.
If there isn't broad agreement to remove the pre-2015 content, is there broad agreement to remove the pre-2014 content? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this is actually a secondary source, but even if you are right the primary source (and especially such important and notable as that one) can be used for sourcing per WP:RS. It just should not be interpreted by participants. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
As about pre-2014 content, no, this is wrong approach in general. For example, the Trump Tower Moscow obviously belongs to the timeline, but that story started much earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
My very best wishes Trump Tower Moscow simply has nothing to do with the 2016 election. The background of participants in the election and in the interference, such as their motivations, can be included in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article, if at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Simply has nothing to do"? Said who? Sources tell otherwise. Here is one of examples (the connection with the subject of this page is made in the end of article, and the relevance is obvious any way). This is just an example, a review of a book by Luke Harding who is a notable investigative journalist, and the review also cites views by other experts like Suvorov, etc. Please note that we are not saying about the connection as matter of fact. This is a notable sourced view published in books already. Therefore, the earlier events must be included per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, with appropriate attribution to the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Why should we still give any credit to Harding's conspiracy theories? He's been peddling speculation for several years, and made good money selling his books. Wikipedia is not in the business of giving such speculation an elevated standing. — JFG talk 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Why "conspiracy theory"? There are many RS about it, and yes, according to the book by Harding, there was the collusion ("Harding leaves little doubt: It was collusion. He presents an overwhelming number of connections between Trump and his close associates with Russian intelligence and organized crime, and he digs into all of them with hard evidence. Initially, Trump and his associates denied it all, but since they had to admit their many meetings with Russians, their guilt appears all the more evident." [13]). OK. But this has never been disproved, and certainly not by the Mueller report. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Whatever you're trying to cite to Luke Harding, this is not encyclopaedic. Even if this person is reliable, what he is reporting has to reflect the consensus view of reliable sources for us to include in the article. You simply haven't established how Trump Tower Moscow is relevant to the 2016 presidential election. It's things like this that have made this article simply the intersection part of a Venn diagram with one circle being "Trump" and one circle being "Russia". If this proposed hotel is someone's motivation for something here, that further shows the irrelevance to the topic. We're not here to show the motives of the participants related to this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No, the reports and books by individual investigative journalists should not "reflect the consensus view of reliable sources". They usually do not. If they did, there would be nothing new to report. My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree that everything in the Mueller Report should be in the article. Mueller's responsibility was to track down all claims, including ones that lead to dead ends. For example, Mueller tracked the claim that Cohen visited Prague in 2016, which turned out not to have happened. It has nothing to do with Russian interference in the election. My very best wishes, Trump tower pre-2014 does not belong in the article, since it has nothing to do with Russian interference in the election. It was just another dead end in the Mueller investigation. TFD (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again, no one suggests to place everything from report to the time line, but only factual events and notable claims made with respect to the interference. Also, no one suggest using only Mueller reports, rather than all RS, as WP:NPOV requires. For example, this page does not' tell as a fact that Cohen visited Prague in 2016, but only mention this claim as something disputable. And it is indeed something uncertain or unproven, rather than disproven. Yes, Cohen denied it [14], but is he a trustworthy witness? My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no credible information that he was in Prague and Mueller does not say he was. As it turns out, it is irrelevant to Russian interference in the election, since the Russians did not conspire with any members of the Trump campaign. All these irrelevant details swamp the article so that readers have to dig deep to figure out what exactly the Russians are accused of doing. It's probably best put into another article, just as 9/11 truth theories are separated from its main article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We're certainly not here to report events that may have happened, they need to be verified by reliable sources as actually happening. Attempted actions by the Russian government, or something similar, would conceivably be allowed to remain in this article though. However, this would depend on the severity. An attempt to hack election machines would be notable, but an attempt to conduct a meeting with someone who worked for Donald Trump would likely not be notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be reasonable to rewrite two phrases about Cohen&Prague currently on the page, but this should be mentioned somewhere. Here is the overall idea. Consider a public figure who was unjustly accused (of course I do not mean Cohen, just in general,) and his case was widely covered in RS in connection with a controversy/story X. Yes, he must be noticed on the WP page about that story, and it must be noted that he was unjustly accused/innocent. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is very long

Latest comment: 5 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion

As of this revision, even after being split twice 449224 bytes. I'd like one or two parts of this to be split into separate articles. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: What is your specific suggestion? It would be helpful for you to be constructively involved here for such as comment. It isn't and hasn't been "too long". X1\ (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Editors BullRangifer and Volunteer Marek have re-added about 100,000 bytes of information between them that was previously removed. Before I revert these edits, I will give them a chance to show where consensus was reached for these parts, since they are claiming there has been consensus for them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the content was there for quite some time until you recently came and started removing [15] without consensus. So, the violation (if any) is yours. Any long-standing text means "consensus" by default. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Any long-standing text means "consensus" by default. Where are you getting this from? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That is the general understanding, and has been for many years. While bold editing is certainly allowed and often encouraged, when one makes large deletions (rarely a good idea without a clearly established consensus), especially of long-standing content, it's bound to get noticed, and when other editors protest it's best to back off and find out what's going on. That's collaborative editing, in contrast to solo editing.
Regardless of all that, now that BRD is the rule for this DS article (rather than "consensus required"), your Bold deletions have been Reverted (rejected), and we should Discuss until we reach a consensus on what to do. Until then, long-standing content created through the hard and good faith work of many editors should remain. (See WP:PRESERVE). As I'm sure you will agree, edit warring, including "slow edit warring" (the same type of rejected edits over many days and/or weeks), won't do any good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage you and others to read WP:BRD. This 100,000 bytes of information has been boldly placed into the article and I reverted it, unless you can point to where there was a consensus for it. Others have reverted these bold edits before but were themselves reverted, without any consensus to do so. Looking through the talk page I have found more disapproval than approval in this excessive detail, with the approval mostly being two particular editors. I am actually the one reverting edits here which is clearly very much needed. This is now Wikipedia's largest article at almost 500,000 bytes, with the scope expanding from actions of the Russian government to just about anything regarding anyone related to Donald Trump doing anything related to anyone related to the Russian government. These are major encyclopaedic concerns, when this article reads more like a detective novel imploring readers to "follow the money" and for readers here to be provided with a broad amount of information for them to draw a conclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can not see it in the editing history of the page. Who and when placed that 100,000 bytes of information? Which exactly "bold" edit did you or others revert? Can you give me a diff of the "bold edit" by someone else which you reverted? My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been here since 2003 and have contributed heavily to BRD, so the admonishment is unneeded. BRD generally applies to a single edit, large or small, by one person, or small group of connected edits made in immediate succession to each other by one person. It definitely does not apply to the slow and steady addition of content by numerous editors over a long period of time. When those edits are allowed to remain, they become the status quo/consensus version (even if individual editors may disagree with some of that content). Then a policy, not an essay like BRD, becomes the overriding rule, and that policy is WP:PRESERVE.
That's how we build the encyclopedia, and solo editors are rarely allowed to undo all that hard work (tear down the encyclopedia) in one fell swoop, unless there is a consensus to accept their massive change. That is a rare occurrence, usually only done with uncontroversial articles.
To make sure I understand you correctly, are you implying that one person added "100,000 bytes of information" in one edit or series of connected edits? If that happened, I'm pretty sure it would have immediately been reverted and BRD cited. I would certainly have reverted it. When did this mass addition happen, and which editor did it? Please provide the diff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he removed a lot of content, starting from Butina, which is quite obviously related to the subject of the page. One might argue the list should be split to several sub-pages, but not to remove this content. However, I would suggest not to split. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked for when this mass addition occurred. Splitting the article is always a possibility, but that too needs consensus. That happened with the "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)" article. It is now divided into three articles: 2016, 2017, 2018. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A clarification seems to be in order. The scope of this article isn't just Russia, but anything remotely related to the Russia investigation and history, and that obviously includes Trump and his presidential campaign, and Trump's history with Russia, because he and the Russians were already talking about his running for president way back in the 1980s. They knew in 2013, before Americans knew, that he would run in 2016, and they were publicly promising to help him. (Americans didn't notice this until later.) This goes very far back, and RS see that as the origins of the current interference in our elections. That's why this is all on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the cutoff for inclusion. These earlier events must be discussed in RS as related to events that had happen in 2016. To my knowledge, most of them satisfy such criterion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:VNOTSUFF. Anything can be construed as "related" to anything else. Luke Harding's speculations about "30 years of cultivation of Trump" by the KGB are only relevant for our articles about Harding's books. — JFG talk 04:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
According to policy you cited, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article..." First of all, no one tells that any verifiable information should be included, but only such the sources tell is relevant. Secondly, it tells about consensus. There is no consensus to remove this long-standing content. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes There have been many bold edits that contributed to the 100,000 bytes that are of concern here. They are simply not events of the Russian government, or reaction to them. All that has really come close in justification is saying that these things are "related". BullRangifer Either way, there has not been consensus to retain those edits which have been progressively added into the article. It is correct that content that is allowed to remain, that isn't contentious and that isn't reverted forms a status quo WP:SILENT consensus, but clearly I have not allowed to remain, and many people on the talk page have objected for years now. As I've said before, the scope of this article has clearly gone well beyond the actions of the Russian government, it's just an glorified detective narrative now, not an encyclopaedic article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. (1) As follows from your response (no diff), it is you who decided to boldly remove materials without getting consensus. (2) Like I said, earlier events must be discussed in some RS as related to the Russian interference during 2016 elections to be included in the list (yes, this is not an encyclopedic article, but a list). If you think that any specific event in the list was not discussed in RS in such manner, please tell which one, and perhaps it indeed needs to be removed, if there is a consensus to remove. This is the way to go forward. But just removing events which are related to the subject according to RS [16] is not going to work. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Anything before 2015 is irrelevant to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, and I have removed it again. Editors clamoring for inclusion bear the WP:ONUS to obtain positive consensus. Go start an RfC. — JFG talk 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Anything before 2015 is irrelevant". Said who? You? RS (see link above as one of many examples) tell they are highly relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a clear violation of our PRESERVE policy. Very disappointing, not at all collaborative, and without a consensus to trash the hard work of numerous editors. That certainly destroys any motivation to make any edits at Wikipedia if one editor can do that.
The burden is on you to start an RfC to delete that material. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
remove everything before 2015 to ignore the fact that Trump had to beat 11 other Republicans and then 1 Democrat to win. That's why this article is an insult to everyone who reads it.Jawz101 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jawz101: take it to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. You are behind the times. X1\ (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I don't need consensus to remove something that was placed in the article without consensus, this is basic Wikipedia practice honestly. I'm willing to hold the material on my user page if editors would like to salvage parts from that if they wish. It's also very troubling that yourself and BullRangifer think it's appropriate to include anything related to Trump in this article. If this article, a list article or not, is not enecyclopaedic then it simply does not belong here and should be deleted. These sources simply say that certain things happen, they don't say that they should be included in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. There is no silence in this case, otherwise it would be fine. I have objected here, and I have reverted the edits. A silent consensus means that while there is no formal consensus outlined on the talk page, the lack of objection to the content forms the consensus itself. There is clearly objection to the content here; I am objecting, and I'm not the only one either. The steps in WP:BRD are bold edit, revert and discuss, not bold edit, revert, revert, discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, let's follow WP:BDR. But what had happen? First, you made bold edit by removing a lot of content [17]. Then, someone else reverted you edit [18]. Now, you suppose to start talking and get consensus for the change pe WP:BRD. But what did you do instead? You started an edit war [19]. Now, I believe that everything was fully explained to you. Next time, someone might report this to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I made the revert, not the bold edit(s). The additions into the article are the bold edits. That doesn't mean they were good or bad, it just means they were made without consensus. They're allowed to stay there until such time as someone reverts the contributions, if consensus hasn't already been reached on the talk page. Per WP:SILENT, there is an implicit consensus when there is silence, and when there is disagreement (like now), that no longer exists. WP:ONUS makes this perfectly clear. I think instead we should focus on making a new article for the connections between Trump and Russia that may or may not specifically pertain to the actions of the Russian government in the 2016 election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No, your edit was not revert because you can not tell which exactly edits you reverted. Yes, there is now a disagreement, and it should be resolved per WP:BRD. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I reverted numerous edits that were boldly made. Do you really want diffs for that? You can check my revert, I didn't add anything to the article, boldly or otherwise, so no part of it was a bold edit for the purposes of BRD. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked you to provide diff, but you could not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to think that only additions are "bold" edits. No, deletions can also be bold edits, and this case extremely bold. We rarely see or allow deletions or additions of such large amounts of material at one time, except at the creation of a new article.

When an article like this has peacefully existed for a long time, all of its uncontested (during that time) content is considered the consensus version. Only content less than about 3-4 days old is up for grabs, so to speak. Then you came along and boldly deleted huge amounts of content without any consensus. Your Bold deletion edits were Reverted by several editors. That should have told you to back off, stop making your edits, regardless of what type there were (additions or deletions), and start a Discussion. That's how BRD works. We do not force edits when there is disagreement about them. That would be edit warring and uncollaborative solo editing. Brute force doesn't work around here.

Well, now we're in the Discussion phase, and the repetition of your edits is considered edit warring and it will be reported. BRD is not spelled BRDBRDBRD, or any other combination. It is only ONE BRD cycle, then full stop until there is some sort of agreement to move forward. Repetition of the phase before there is agreement is edit warring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

For some odd reason no one has placed an edit warring template on your page, although the warnings which you have received here also count against you as clear warnings. I have now placed a template on your page. You are clearly ignoring the instructions in that template. Please read it and heed its message. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes The point is that there are many diffs of such content being added. If you really do want some, I will find them. I said this to you when you initially asked for such diff. I also asked for an instance where there was consensus for the content I removed, and the only response I got was that there was an implicit consensus by silence, but obviously that ends when an editor such as myself is not silence and objects.

BullRangifer Whether or not my actions were bold is irrelevant to whether the contents added were bold. The additions most certainly were bold, and there's nothing wrong with being bold, but those edits have been challenged by at least two editors now. The statements We do not force edits when there is disagreement about them. and Brute force doesn't work around here are completely untrue, the two principle contributors to this article have been doing that for years now. Others have reverted what they've added and have objected to content on the talk page, but they have been largely ignored with highly unproductive exchanges and edit summaries, as their determination to edit the page as they wish is greater. You could call my actions a bold revert, but the additions were bold and I made a revert of them. The next step is to discuss, not to restore the bold additions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your bold deletions are the only bold edits in this situation. Please self-revert to the long-standing stable/consensus/status quo version that existed before you made your bold deletions and stick SOLELY to discussion until this is resolved. Make no controversial or disputed edits during that time. Please follow BRD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... It seems a lot of recent and important info has been deleted before by another contributor [20]... My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
BullRangifer Your bold deletions are the only bold edits in this situation. To prove this, you would have to show that there was an explicit consensus on the talk page for these edits. There isn't a silent consensus, as myself and others have objected. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, you write "there are many diffs of such content being added." Of course, but those edits have been accepted for a long time. That's how we build content.

We didn't ask for you to provide many diffs documenting every single bold edit which was accepted and become the consensus version. We asked for a diff, as in ONE diff for ONE bold addition of the type of edits you are making, like ONE edit which ADDED 100,000 bytes. That did not happen, but you are trying to remove that much content at one time.

Now think of this in other terms, as in "collegial" and "collaborative" terms. Myriad editors have added content in good faith. They may have spent hours finding sources and crafting good content which then was accepted by the community and it became part of the existing consensus version. Now you, one solo editor, comes along and slaps ALL THOSE EDITORS in the face and says to them: "You're all wrong, only I am right, and I'm going to trash all your hard work." Stop and think about how demoralizing and disruptive that type of action is to what we all do here. We work hard to craft good content, and no editor has a right to just delete it because they think their judgment trumps everyone else's. Think of it in those terms and then say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Please try living by the Golden Rule and everything here will work much better. There is no rush. Discuss this calmly and civilly and work it out with others. -- BullRangifer (talk)

Of course, but those edits have been accepted for a long time. They're simply not accepted anymore. It's not just me, but certainly at the point I removed the content those edits were certainly not accepted. ...which was accepted and become the consensus version. It hasn't become the consensus view. There hasn't been an explicit consensus on the talk page, and clearly there is not a consensus by silence either. We asked for a diff, as in ONE diff for ONE bold addition of the type of edits you are making, like ONE edit which ADDED 100,000 bytes. That did not happen, but you are trying to remove that much content at one time. That doesn't make sense, you would be happier if I reverted the content one sentence at a time? I never claimed that the content was added in one bold edit, I have always maintained that it was many bold edits.
Myriad editors have added content in good faith. They may have spent hours finding sources and crafting good content. I'm happy to acknowledge that the edits were in good faith and made with at least some amount of effort. Unfortunately, no matter how much good faith or how much edit these additions had, they are still completely subject to our policies on consensus and on encyclopaedic content. I've personally had edits that I've expended effort on being reverted, and that is fair enough because they were bold edits. Most of all, please don't pretend like you're trying to discuss the matter calmly and civilly. I've been attempting to bring this towards an actually constructive discussion, but all you want to talk about is the validity of the bold edits and the reverting and so on. Are you now going to address the suggestions raised? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No, this is now just you given the comment by JFG below. If you could suggest some way of splitting the timeline instead of removal/deletion, perhaps that would work. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: If you could suggest some way of splitting the timeline. You have continuously ignored my suggestions for this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I "have continuously ignored your suggestions". Perhaps I missed it. How exactly did you suggest to split and where? Or you can create a split version in your user space. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_4&oldid=1012413788"