Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --] (]) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
:Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --] (]) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::Unless articles are specifically discussing a lack of public evidence, then we can't use it because it's editorializing/OR. And again, <i>since we can't use this</i>, this post by Bob K31416 is another example of how Misplaced Pages talk pages are being hijacked to spread conspiracy theories without benefiting the article itself. Not only is this NOTFORUM, is the antithesis of the project's stated goal of disseminating knowledge, and this is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Let me reiterate: it was a mistake to unhat this thread. I hope that mistake isn't repeated in the future. ] (]) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:56, 2 November 2017
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, 21 December 2016, /Archive 2#Requested move 21 December 2016
MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Endorsed, 7 January 2017, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2017 January
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Not moved, /Archive 3#Requested move 29 December 2016
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, No consensus, 7 January 2017, /Archive 3#Requested move 7 January 2017
RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, No consensus, 4 February 2017, /Archive 5#Requested move 4 February 2017
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid, and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in which he wrote "Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." and material about Sater's series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen?
This is incorrect. Sater sent that email ("Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.") to Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, not to an aid of Putin. No article I've read discusses any contact Sater might have had with Putin, because the evidence they possess are Cohen's emails. I'd suggest you check the news source and edit this, because right now people are voting on false information. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
When the logical connection (an attempt, or at least an offer to use Russian Government officials to -directly or indirectly- aid a US election) is this obvious, and when the sources themselves are explicitly making the connection in their voices (note the use of the plural there), then this is a no brainer. Hell yes, we should include it. But if we're going to include it now, we need to find sources critical of those making the connection to balance. If we can't wait until we're using hindsight to examine the issue, we can at least try to be as balanced about it as we can. Also, we shouldn't be stating anything in wikivoice unless it's something that both political sides agree on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - There is an obvious connection to the 2016 election made by the sources. This material ties in closely with investigation into collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign.- MrX03:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Support, subject to correcting recipient, relevant and neutrally phrased. Links between Trump associates and Russian officials would be a good 2nd choice. As with other political scandals, the character of those surrounding the principal is as relevant as the actions of the principal themselves. Would you buy a used political campaign from this person? Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. The sources clearly connect it to Russian interference in the election: "The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process." We have to follow their judgment in terms of focus and weight, which means including things that they cover as relevant to this topic even if some editors personally feel that the papers are making a mistake or exaggerating it. I also don't see how anyone can credibly claim that it's WP:RECENTISM given that the sources are at least a month old; given the level and depth of coverage it received, at this point it clearly deserves at least a sentence or two in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The article scope is alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. Based on current reporting, the Felix Sater story doesn't seem to involve any Russian interference in the US elections. This article isn't a WP:COATRACK for all stories involving the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." If there is a strong desire to include the Mr. Sater story in this article, I suggest a name change: Trump, Russia, you connect the dots was only half in jest, since it's what some editors seem to desire out of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Off-topic. This material has nothing to do with any "election" "interference" by "Russia." Also, MrX misrepresents the sources above—the "our boy" quote is from an email from Trump business associate Sater to Trump lawyer Cohen. By misattributing this hyperbolic statement to an exchange between Cohen and Peskov, MrX falsely implies that Peskov (and perhaps Putin himself) considered Trump "our boy." The RfC should probably be amended, or else we are all debating a false premise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not here, but in the "links" article. That was good suggestion from Objective3000. Sater keeps turning up in these Russia connections, but there is no evidence he actually helped Russia interfere with the election; he seems to have been more of a freelancer with one foot in Russia and one foot in the Trump camp. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. As far as I've read, this story has nothing to do with actual Russian government efforts to interfere in the election. The way reliable sources present it, Sater just sounds like a braggart who didn't know what he was talking about, and who had no real contact with any Russian officials of note. If anything concrete comes of this, we can add it, but right now he's so completely irrelevant to this topic as to not merit mention. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It literally says "he could engineer Putin’s support for a Trump Tower in Moscow and thus, somehow, a victory in the US presidential election."Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OPPOSE because we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, not even a digest of periodicals, and not on a deadline. Rushing sensational material into an article is wrong no matter whose POV it favors.
Someone accused editors who oppose going with this just now of pushing POV. When the US's leading progressive political journal ran an article questioning the Obama administration intelligence community's assessment that the Russians hacked the DNC Emails, it got called "fake news" on this page several times, which will doubtless be a shock to The Nation and its subscribers. Usually, it's conservatives saying bad things about The Nation.
Strong oppose, this looks like WP:RECENTISM. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Sater actually had a hand in getting Trump elected. This is just another gossip story that was boosted by "Russiagate" media trend. --S. Roix (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Two minds, whilst I think it shows that there were some with (very) tenuous ties to the Trump campaign seeking Russian assistance it is also true that this was not his campaign directly (or even indirectly) doing this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It also doesn't seem to involve any actions taken by the Russian government. Russian actions are, after all, the topic this article purports to cover. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop being obscurantist. So what if it doesn't directly "involve any actions taken by the Russian government". It involves Trump associates SEEKING Russian government to take actions. There's the fact of interference happening. And there's WHY and HOW it happened. This is the second part.
The problem here for you is that you reject the idea of Russian interference a priori. So to YOU whenever a source tries to explain the WHY and HOW Russian interference happened, of course you're going to think it's not irrelevant because you don't such a thing happened in the first place. But that is YOUR own POV, that is YOU trying to impose your personal opinions on the article, that is YOU refusing to follow the policy of reliable sources. That is YOU breaking Misplaced Pages policy and now, edit warring in contravention of it. Not clear why we should put up with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Capitalizing random words doesn't make your point any clearer. This material isn't relevant, but you're trying to coatrack it into the article. And really, you're the last person who should be throwing around accusations of POV-pushing or policy violation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They're not "random". The capitalization stress the "YOU", as in Thucydides411, for a reason - to emphasize that YOU are trying to cram your own personal opinions down everyone's throat here, rather than relying on reliable sources per WP:RS. It's gone on long enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What opinions have I tried to "cram down everyone's throat"? I've been arguing all along for a more cautious approach in this article that doesn't strongly state any side's opinion. My personal opinions on Russiagate are very different from any content I've proposed to add to the article. I don't think you've exercised any comparable caution in how you've approached the article.
Just look at the current situation, for example: you're trying to add in new content, which I and a number of editors think does not fall under the subject area of this article, alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. From my perspective, it looks a lot like you're trying to ram something into the article that, at best, has only a tenuous relation to the subject area, and then you're throwing around accusations when you don't immediately get your way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
a number of editors Hope you’re not including me. I’m ambivalent on this subject and looking for a compromise. But, I agree with VM’s comments. I also think you should remove your comments from the HT talk page as I think they are harmful to HT, and not useful to the project. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I got to ask Thucy, on HT's talk page you say that "JFG is one of the few regular editors I interact with in American politics articles". Now, since you pretty much edit only this article, where exactly have you interacted with JFG in "American politics articles"? Or with HT for that matter, since the ONLY pages you've ever edited together are drama boards , not even here. Is it some kind of enemy of my enemy is someone I will try to get unblocked kind of thing? (And if you think this is off topic - it's much less so than bringing up 8 year old ArbCom cases just to be a deeayceekay) Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is exactly right. Thucydides411 is engaged in long-term tendentious editing on this article. His conduct should be reviewed at WP:AE. I began documenting a case three months ago, but unfortunately, I've been too busy to complete and file it.- MrX17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thuc, please keep your "personal opinions" off this page. WP editing is not about anybody's opinions. It's about conveying the weight of RS discourse on the subject. And by "subject" we mean the subject of this article, which -- as you know -- is not "alleged Russian interference..." RS tell us in some detail that psy-ops to create chatter among folks in Trump's circle is Russian interference. I'm not going to repeat the details here, because the current discussion is more limited in scope. All these Russian-Trumpan connections are understood by RS accounts to be elements of the extensive and wildly successful psy-ops campaign. SPECIFICOtalk23:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was that there is no evidence that any one fro the Trump campaign took him up on the offer. Thus the link is no more then Bert from the pub sending an e-mail to Cohen saying he get get trump two ounces of snout can be used to prove trump smokes dodgy fags.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but the subject in the sentence that is the article title isn't Trump; It's Russia. So to keep with the weed (I think it's weed, my euphemisms are more American than yours) analogy, we're not including "so and so offered to buy Trump two ounces of cheap weed" in an article about Trump, we're including "so and so said Backstreet Larry can get him weed at cheap prices" in an article about Backstreet Larry's drug-dealing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but anyone can claim they can do something, the issue is whether or not this is credible (and it seems not). Simply put this is a bet business man trying to sell a bridge and failing.There is no evidence that anyone took him seriously, or even actually had any contacts with the Russians to any meaningful degree.This really is some back street shyster getting for more publicity then his influence deserves, it's a nothing. The more I think about it the less relevant it all seems.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Slatersteven accurately paraphrases The New York Times: "There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries. ... As a broker for the Trump Organization, Mr. Sater had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen." Nowhere does America's paper of record endorse a connection to election interference; to the contrary, it explicitly states "The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ever heard of a disclaimer? News outlets like to do that. They make a claim, then they point out that the claim isn't 100% certain to cover their asses if they have to recant later. Cherry picking the sources to support an interpretation isn't a particularly smart thing to do when you're discussing things with people who've read the sources themselves, because it just reflects poorly on your judgement. And before you end up on a podium again:
The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process.
Or perhaps:
The Trump Organization on Monday turned over emails to the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election and whether anyone in Mr. Trump’s campaign was involved. Some of the emails were obtained by The Times.
Or maybe:
Mr. Trump, who began praising Mr. Putin years before the presidential campaign, has said there was no collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian sources.
For a source not drawing a connection, they sure seem to write quite a bit about the election inteference. Those quotes I gave aren't all of the coverage that article gives to the interference, and yet they still make up about 15-20% of the article themselves. I'm sorry, but when 20% or more of an article is devoted to a subject that's not in the headline, the assertion that the source isn't drawing a link between the headline and that subject is just complete bullshit.
It's surprising, really. There's a situation in which the Trump campaign was offered a chance to interfere in the election and they ignored it. To editors not so dead-eyed focused on defending Trump against any hint of wrongdoing (to the point of consistently denying the involvement of Russia to begin with), this seems like the sort of thing that would help balance out the views. It's a chance to show that the Trump campaign had standards, if not of ethics then at least of competence. Besides, you haven't been paying attention to the !voting, above. I actually !voted to exclude it from this article and add it to a more relevant article. So all you're accomplishing here is showing off your political POV, and we've all already seen it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
this is part of the long-documented and ongoing Russian psy-ops on the Trump team. It is not clear to me that we have enough context and detail to give a good encyclopedic balance to this content. RS clearly discuss the Russians having messed with the minds of the Trump circle, but the details, at least as publicly reported by RS, are not fully elaborated just yet. This may be one of those things that's not worth the trouble and will become clear with time. SPECIFICOtalk
Uh, what, SPECIFICO? No reliable source that I have seen suggests anything remotely resembling your spectacular, unsupported assertion that a plan for a Trump Tower in Moscow—proposed by a Trump business associate and completely ignored by the Russian government, which made no attempt to help the project along in any way, shape, or form—"is part of the long-documented and ongoing Russian psy-ops on the Trump team"—certainly not The Washington Post or The New York Times, which broke the story. Can you provide any sources to substantiate your claim, or is this yet more original research?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Suggest placing a list of sources at the top of the RfC so that un-involved editors who are invited via the RfC process don't have to read through the lengthy discussion to find out what developments have been made per wp:rs and wp:v - which are the main things which would affect my decision to support or not support this proposal. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 18 September 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.
Limitations of evidence publicly presented in written reports by intelligence agencies
Following on from Red Rock Canyon’s offering above re “a section on the limitations of the evidence publicly presented by the US government” — here’s a start:
The ODNI, in its 1/6/2017 report, indicated that the report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign".
The New York Times stated that "What is missing from the public report is … hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … he message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.' There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow's propaganda machinery."
It's important to not imply that the NYTimes article expresses anything but a wish for more information, not an accusation that the information doesn't exist. The ODNI and other sources make it plain that such information does exist in the full classified report, but it is not YET provided to the public, which makes complete sense. Key information MUST be withheld until the right time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's more than just a desire for more information. The author discusses the doubts that many people have about the report, given that it contains so little new information or hard evidence. The article closes with
But this report is unlikely to change the minds of skeptics who, like the president-elect, remember the intelligence agencies’ faulty assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and fear being misled again.
That doesn't change my point, but actually reinforces it; it recognizes that these skeptics do erroneously and illogically infer from the lack of detail that it doesn't exist, and they don't have the sense or patience to wait for the end of the investigation when it will be revealed. Instead they posit that the lack is proof the evidence doesn't exist. This shows they don't understand that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
This demonstrates how there is no amount of evidence or preliminary provision of some information which can change the mind of this type of skeptic. They are ideologically blind and will insist on believing what they wish to believe. You are a good example, and you doggedly persist right here on these pages. We see it by your endless repetition of the same arguments month after month. IIRC, this is called "stonewalling" (or maybe some other term(s) fits better). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The NY Times article doesn't say the skeptics are wrong or illogical. It says they aren't willing to trust the intelligence agencies, precisely because so little evidence has been supplied, and because of the history of the intel agencies (e.g., about Iraqi WMD). The article says nothing about skeptics being "ideologically blind" or insisting on "believing what they wish to believe." You've seriously mischaracterized the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
And, like flat earth skeptics, 9-11 skeptics, and the JFK's alive in Tanzania crowd, there are virtually none of that ilk represented in published discourse. Hence we ignore them. SPECIFICOtalk21:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles that talk about the problems of believing these intelligence-agency claims without evidence. The New York Times article being discussed above is one of them. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article about the JAR that you wanted to exclude is another. A lot of these articles bring up the misrepresentation that occurred in the run-up to the Iraq War as a reason why skepticism exists about current-day US intelligence-agency claims, especially when those claims are made without evidence.
I get that you're trying to push the view that US intelligence agency claims are absolute truth, because in this case they align with your political views, but Misplaced Pages can't take that line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
How very rude of you! I have no views about your American politics. Maybe that's why it's easy for me to edit according to WP neutrality policy. I have no opinions. It's pure process -- like flipping flapjacks. One up, one down, one to go, on to the next. SPECIFICOtalk22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That's funny. Tell me another joke. I'm sure that trying to exclude the Süddeutsche Zeitung as a supposedly fringe source was as part of your commitment to neutrality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the report “does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.” (This appears in a header at the top of each page of the report prefaced by “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment, …”.)
We're getting closer. The real difference in content between the classified and declassified reports should be stated explicitly, so using those words would help. Let's see how this looks:
The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the DECLASSIFIED report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign" contained in the CLASSIFIED REPORT.
We don't know if there is significant evidence in the classified report, so the wording shouldn't give the reader any impression that we're stating such evidence exists. It might exist, but all we have is the word of an unreliable source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is neither fish nor fowl. Irrelevant to this article which draws on the abundance of RS evidence of the Russian attack on US democracy. SPECIFICOtalk20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But muh 17 agencies!!1! I thought that was super important. All the major outlets had story after story for months about the "report from the 17 agencies." Comey, Clinton, Trump, all the major players addressed it. Now all of a sudden it's incidental, insignificant? No one's buying that. Tough pill to swallow for the Hillbots. 196.55.2.2 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Human, it's hard to know what you're driving at with these extended interrogations. Frankly it reminds me of Inspector Clouseau, "so you ate the popsickle but discarded the stick! A-HA!!" Where is this leading? Could you state your point in a sentence or two? Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk00:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifico, given that you inserted a cite to this article, perhaps you’ll relate to that article’s noting that
2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report … found that remarks by administration officials generally reflected the intelligence, but failed to convey “substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” In general, officials strongly suggested that WMD production was ongoing, reflecting “a higher degree of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.
What is "that error"? Diff please? We're not privy to your back story here. Please try to communicate more directly. Nobody seems to understand what you're trying to say. SPECIFICOtalk20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you agree it was an error for Administration officials to strongly suggest that WMD production was ongoing, reflecting a higher degree of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves? Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For sake of discussion, I'll assume your answer is 'yes'. The diff then is that your edits to the article and contributions to the talk page rely on an 'abundance of RS evidence'. That's exactly the problem here, in that it reflects a higher degree of confidence than in the intelligence reports. Humanengr (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Instead of responding with a simple explanation or diff that would further discussion here, you pose cryptic queries and assume some imaginary response? Nobody seems to know or care what you're talking about at this point, so I think this long and magnificent thread is drawing to a close. EOM. SPECIFICOtalk01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, Yes, you do seem unable to address those who question your overreach. E.g., on , you said: "The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed." Are you really that omniscient? As Thucydides411 noted: “That's an assumption. It may be true, or it may not be true. All we know for sure is what's in the unclassified report.” You chose not to respond. Humanengr (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I fail to understand your point. Please take my responses according to the words that are in the responses. IMHO, the question is moot. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked “Is there any more recent in reports published by intelligence agencies?” you responded by linking to an article that did not (unless I missed it) cite intelligence agencies. Humanengr (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't say that there is evidence contained in the classified report (not until we have some reliable sources that have seen it), but we should tell readers that the ODNI says that. This might be a better way of presenting it, as direct words from the report:
The ODNI states in its public report "“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment.... he declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods."
I think it makes sense to include something like that as context, alongside any discussion about the lack of evidence. The NY Times article here quotes that section, and I think many other articles about the lack of evidence acknowledge this as the agencies' excuse. - Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
RRC, That looks good to me. Of course, that is exactly what the fringe sources deny and so I sure hope we do not resume discussing them here 9 months after they've been rejected and discredited. SPECIFICOtalk02:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
As this section is about the "lack of evidence", the lede sentence should lead on that point rather than burying it with couching. As my last version above indicates, I agree the couching from the report should be included, but after the "lack of evidence" is clearly indicated. Humanengr (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises on Thursday from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that he would “push the envelope” to try to make more information public. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Obama had directed officials to “make as much of it public as they possibly can.”
…
Susan Hennessey, a former intelligence agency lawyer who is now the managing editor of the online journal Lawfare, wrote : “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.”
As many editors agreed each of the previous times we addressed this complaint, the JAR is not a very important part of the story and it's only marginally related to the topic of this article. The event itself is the topic, not the unclassified report. SPECIFICOtalk03:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me? The JAR is only marginally related to the topic of the article? You mean the most comprehensive report in which US intelligence agencies have accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 US Presidential election is only marginally related to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?
Humanengr - Oh, yes. I think you're right - this line doesn't have to be the first sentence of the section. I think it'd be better to lead with a general statement summarizing the criticism in the sources, and then also include the quote from the assessment. SPECIFICO - this is about a specific section in the article that summarizes criticism of the lack of evidence in the publicly released US intelligence assessments - not just the JAR. These assessments are an important part of the story (and the article obviously agrees, since the very first words reference them), and many reliable sources carried some mention of their lack of publicly available evidence, which would improve the article if included. Also, Humanengr was talking about the lead of this section - nobody is talking about starting the article with "there's no evidence this happened" or changing the article lead at all. No need to get so defensive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The longstanding consensus has been against this, except for a compromise that we achieved involving a piece by Kevin Poulson. That compromise involved about three sentences in total. Nothing has changed in the meantime that would require a reevaluation. It's surprising to see it suggested that it carries enough weight to warrant its own subsection, and to do so would be to give it much more attention than sources ever did. Also, see WP:CRITS, anyone that hasn't. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, and nothing concrete has been presented, so I think you're kind of jumping the gun here. The goal isn't to add a "criticism" section to the article, it's include mainstream views on the ICA assessment that currently aren't in the article - this would probably be done best via a paragraph added to the existing ICA section, as per the "integrated" guideline on the CRITICISM page you suggested we read.
Additionally, the discussion and compromise you mention (about Kevin Poulson) was about a December 2016 analysis released by the Department of Homeland Security specifically about hacking. What we're proposing is something about January 2017 assessment released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They're completely separate things - separate documents written by separate organizations on separate subjects. I think you shouldn't just blindly oppose something when you clearly don't even know what it is. Regarding the sources, in the days after the ICA was released, several major newspapers devoted significant sections to discussing its complete lack of evidence, and many major newspapers that covered the document mentioned its lack of evidence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding, from this section and the section above it, is that you want to add a section about limitations in the report. That's not appropriate weight. You're right that nothing concrete has been presented, other than your intent to dedicate an entire section to this. It doesn't merit a whole paragraph either. Geogene (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. So if I had initially said "add a sentence" then that would change your mind? Or "add 3 words"? How long is a sentence or a section or a paragraph? There is nothing concrete right now. If I thought you were opposed to this on general principle, then that would make sense, but you seem to have been very confused as to what the topic of this proposal even was until 15 minutes ago, so it's strange that you have such a strong opinion about it.Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not nice to tell people they're confused unless you're sure that that's the case. Here's a diff to help your memory . It's not an old diff at all. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:Weight is one of the arguments I've just floated here, and as far as that goes, a few words is a completely different request from a standalone subsection, or 1/3 of article, etc. I'm not pre-agreeing to anything, but it is one factor. Geogene (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
RR, we've had extensive discussions of this and rejected UNDUE weight to these dissections of the unclassified report. None of the sources you listed is of current interest. They are from 9 months ago when much less corroborating public information was available. The intelligence reports are not of lasting significance. A couple of years hence, the article will not start with the intelligence report. It will more likely start with facts established in US court or congressional proceedings. SPECIFICOtalk23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Geogene - You're right. I completely forgot I had mentioned it, and when I read your "oppose" comment, I thought that you believed that the entirety this section was on something unrelated. I got upset, and I overreacted. I essentially called you stupid when I know that isn't the case, and I apologize.
SPECIFICO, the ICA is still the same and the Intelligence Community has not released any public documents since then. Right now, the ICA plays a major role in this article - it's in the first sentence, it's at the center of the public American accusation of Russian interference, and it's brought up over and over again. I just want to add more information about it. You're right - hopefully there will be significantly better sources for this article down the line, and when that time comes it can be completely reorganized top to bottom. But right now most of the sources are news stories, released within a few days of the events they covered. January reviews of a document released on January are still just as relevant as the majority of the sources used in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Red Rock Canyon: You're of course right that contemporaneous reactions to the intelligence reports are still relevant to this article. There was obviously more coverage of those reports in the weeks after they were published than now, so most articles discussing them at length were published soon after the intel reports came out. "But they're 9 months old!" is just a last-resort argument when no other argument for excluding reliable sources is handy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should be discussing the limitations of the evidence for the claim that I'm not notable enough for a WP article about the enormous size of my genitalia. I mean, is there any evidence that I'm not packing more heat down there than Mount Vesuvius? It's disgraceful for WP to implicitly take the position that my one eyed trouser snake is of normal proportions without the slightest shred of evidence. Alternatively, one could argue that since there are no RSes advancing the claim that I'm basically a human tripod, it doesn't bear mentioning. But that would be left-wing, anti-masculine, anti-MjolnirPants POV pushing at it's finest. WP needs an article on my slappy happy pappy nappy if it is to maintain a neutral POV.
P.S. Yes, that was satirical. I'm not seriously suggesting that there's a redwood in my pants (I mean, there is, but I ain't about to whip it out on video or anything). But the notion that we need to second-guess what the RSes aren't saying in order to be neutral is as unbelievably ridiculous as the argument in the first paragraph of this comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.00:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Being vulgar to make apoint, and those being Puritanical about said vulgarity, is distracting from the topic. Take this elsewhere, please. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Personally, I think you need to knock it of with the gratuitous vulgarity. This is an encyclopedia, not a locker room. Marteau (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Support – RedRockCanyon correctly points out that secondary-source coverage of the January IC report deplored the lack of evidence and the cloak of "we can't reveal anything without compromising sources and methods". Nothing new has been revealed on the hacking attempts since that time, only peripheric stories on Russian propaganda, therefore the contemporary sources are still valid. We should be able to convey this state of affairs in a couple sentences. — JFG02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not constructive to use the language of tabloid cable TV thugs like "deplored" "under the cloak" etc. This is all nonsense misrepresentation of the sources and context. It's undue weight and synth and nothing's changed since it was rejected 9, 7, 6, 4, and 2 months ago. SPECIFICOtalk03:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, there was never a consensus; editors who participated in previous debates along those lines were split pretty much 50/50. You've just made some of the most vocal calls to exclude this information, often invoking nonexistent consensus or calling into question very reputable sources with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. To uphold neutrality and balance, it's high time to convey in our article what multiple RS agreed upon. — JFG11:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No more personal remarks Mr. JFG. Various RfC's demonstrated that "never a consensus" and "nonexistent consensus" are false. Jockeying for this POV nonsense (that gets thumped in every replay of the discussion) achieves what, exactly? SPECIFICOtalk17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Including relevant information widely reported by reliable sources isn't POV. Do you have any arguments other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? The only way inclusion of this mainstream view gets "thumped" is by you and others repeatedly reverting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh. You must have overlooked my previous comment. "No more personal remarks". Since all the RfCs and other discussions here have rejected your POV, maybe you need a new approach. Wait a couple of months and mount another RfC. That would be sensible. Maybe your ship will come in. SPECIFICOtalk18:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you're the last one to call for civility. We all know your history here. Give it a break. You've put a lot of effort into keeping the mainstream view presented in reliable sources of the intelligence reports out of this article. Drop the stick and move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: There's some text proposed by Humanengr at the top of the section but it's mostly a long quote from The New York Times. I think we should rather keep that as a citation and write some paraphrase expressing clearly how this source and others have evaluated the missing elements from the IC report(s). What struck me at the time was that each new report was supposed to bring more damning information, and yet after reading them there was not much new. That happened with the escalation of reports from October, December (twice) and January, then we seemed to enter a long period of stasis, from which nothing new emerged. Finally, in the last couple months, we are being treated to quasi-daily revelations of Mueller's progress: interesting stuff but straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports. — JFG19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports -- But not straying from the topic of this article. So no reason to go into undue detail about the declassified intelligence reports. SPECIFICOtalk22:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Support. The lack of publicly available evidence was also noted by severalotherRS which are not "pro-Kremlin" or "Putin apologists". Criticism of this "trust us" position is widespread enough to be presented in the article. --S. Roix (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The substance of the material may have some merit, but the way it's written is problematic. There is too much reliance on quotes, especially elliptical quotes which tend to be misleading.- MrX12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The 1/6/2017 NY Times article paras 1-4 present the allegations (without evidence); paras 5-8, Putin’s motivation; paras 9-16 and 18-19, the lack of evidence in the report; para 17 support for allegation; para 20 re years-old tactics; para 21 re Trump, skeptics, and past faulty assessments by intelligence agencies. Humanengr (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hyperbole doesn't help. If there's newer reporting that says the declassified January 6th intelligence report contains significant evidence, then we might consider the January 6th NY Times article to be out-of-date. If there isn't, then carping about how January 2017 is ancient times is just ridiculous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I support inclusion of the mainstream view that the declassified January 6th ODNI report did not contain hard evidence to support its claims. That's something that many reliable sources, including the NY Times, have reported on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The first news of Russian interference in the US election was first published on June 15, 2016 in the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age in a story by Chris Zappone entitled Russia's information war meets the US election.
The article revealed "how Russia is attempting to support Trump through social media, by helping galvanise and motivate extremists who in turn support the controversial Republican candidate. A network of Russian-backed anti-Western websites are linked with American white supremacist, sovereign citizen, and conspiracy theory sites. Activists connected to those sites support the Trump campaign, often parroting Moscow's criticism of the US, NATO and the general ills of Western society."
The article discussed:
The role of social media to try to shape outcome of the election.
The effort to "increase acrimony" within Western democracy and distort domestic political issues.
The institutional blind-spot in the US to defend against this kind of information attack. "there are no authorities charged with rebutting a coordinated effort by Russia to sway Western domestic public opinion. Russia's information war defies simple categorisation as a domestic, international, diplomatic or military problem for Western countries. "
The "content feedback loop" on the internet and social media between Trump's backers, the alt-right, white supremacists and Russian outlets.
How the "US is just another country in which Russia is building ties with fringe groups in an effort to sway the domestic political discussion and gain leverage"
Looks ahead to the challenge for democratic nations: "If a Trump battalion of meme-armed supporters, some of whom are singing from a Russian hymnsheet, simply drown out Hillary Clinton online to the point she can't communicate with the broad masses, it may be a real worry - not just for Clinton, but for the outlook for democracy circa 2016."
A follow up article dated July 26, 2016 "DNC leak: Russia better at information war now than during Cold War" discussed the overall influence strategy being employed by Russia while the 2016 election was under way.
"The goal of distributing internal DNC emails is not only to create disorder within the party, as has happened after WikiLeaks published embarrassing internal documents that led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The emails and other information can be used to shape broader views of the US political system among American voters and in the wider world, as a form of information war waged by Russia towards the West."
It also stresses foreign interference via social media:
"In a globalised, wired world, some of the loudest voices calling for protest in the US...need not be in those countries. WikiLeaks, a global network, has tweeted right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter (tweet later deleted) and messages stressing disorder at the convention."
The article discusses the broader strategy of sowing "discord in Western publics, as Russia takes a more aggressive geopolitical stance."
A follow-up article Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda also on Sydney Morning Herald/The Age on August 9, 2016 observed the connection between Trump's online campaign and Russian information war strategy.
"The characteristics of the Trump campaign's media push - its relentlessness, its volume, the cacophony of voices - share traits of a 21st-century propaganda technique pioneered, if not perfected, by Russia."
"It's clear that the way information is used by the Trump campaign is not meant to be fact-checked, weighed against earlier statements, or even to create the building blocks of a political policy discussion. Rather, it's designed to go past the public's heads and directly to their hearts."
The story was republished on Fairfax Media on October 13.
Melbedit (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That shows that others had drawn the conclusion before Clinton's loss. But you would need secondary sources that mention mention it. Your first source btw is "analysis" not actual news reporting. TFD (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The linked sources appear to cite plenty of third parties and evidence. It's not a foodie fashion blog. "Analysis" of news is not like "Opinion" I like biscuits and jam. SPECIFICOtalk12:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has subpoenaed the co-founder of a Washington opposition research firm that produced an unsubstantiated dossier on President Donald Trump in the panel's probe into alleged Russian meddling, CNN reported Tuesday.
And even if the U.S. had qualified, tense relations between Washington and Moscow, including continued U.S. probes into alleged Russian meddling in last year's election, may also have put a dampener on ratings.
(CNN)The chairman of the House intelligence committee has issued subpoenas to the partners who run Fusion GPS, the research firm that produced the dossier of memos on alleged Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign, according to sources briefed on the matter.
Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta
by TOM WINTER and JULIA AINSLEY
WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.
The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.Neuwert (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Neuwert (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice try, but the possible involvement of others in other dealings does not negate the wealth of entanglement and collusion between Trump associates and Russia. This isn't a tit-for-tat or either-or situation. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, all. this means is we can make it part of their Wikiprojects too, assuming of course this is all linked to RUSSIAN interference (in the 2016 election).Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, any firm worth its salt is gonna ask courts to stop Congress from looking at its records. They could be selling rosaries to nuns in paradise, and they'd still do this. Volunteer Marek 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No it is about some unnamed sources making an unofficial claim that they are "the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller", note not "part of the Russian investigation". So the implication is that it is a separate investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not subscribe so cannot confirm, but other reports on this seem to be talking about Mercury Public Affairs and SGR LLC for answers and records pertaining to Michael Flynn, can you provide the quote where it talks about Podesta.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You can do it with your own eyes. I know it's hard to realise that the collusion story can be just wishful thinking.Neuwert (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The Podesta being talked about is Tony Podesta, not his brother, John Podesta. Aside from the fact that this seems to have come to Mueller's attention through his investigation of Manafort, this seems to have nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Geogene (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Rather then posting third party commentary and links how about explaining how any of this makes the 2016 election Russian interference not about Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I wish the reliable source noticeboard was better organized rather than a lump of all old discussions, like, there should just be a "Washington Times" section for easy and quick reference. But anyway, if one searches in those archives, there is one, two, three. The W. Times is not quite on the Breitbart or Newsmax level of atrociousness, but appears to be frequently called out for it's extreme rightward slant and poor fact-checking, not to mention the Moonies (glad to see that's a redirect here) ownership. ValarianB (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It’s RS for anything not involving facts.:) Seriously, the reason RSN appears disorganized is almost nothing is ever called flat out non-RS for everything. Context matters. But, WT is considered non-RS when it’s brought up. If something is notable enough for inclusion, there’s a better source. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What we have in terms of reality about russian interference? A fake dossier paid by Trump's enemies, including the DNC and Clinton?Neuwert (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do not remove material from talk pages (once it has been replied to), many have replied to that and their points now may take on a different meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole thing could be hatted, though. This discussion is a sad waste of time. Even if the Pee Pee Papers were completely debunked, that's only one of many separate allegations of Russian interference in the election. Same thing with Russia's ad buys on Facebook. Even if they were completely neutral (and they weren't), you still have Russia's hacking of Podesta and the DNC's emails. The subject of this article is not something that is going to go away, no matter how much some editors wish that it would. They want this article to affirm their worldviews, but it's obvious that those views are so far from mainstream that we are never going to be able to accommodate them. We can't do anything about it, but letting them post here is just giving them a microphone to spread their conspiracy theories, which is effectively the opposite of disseminating knowledge. What some of us mainstream editors could do is to stop encouraging them. Geogene (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why obvious trolling by SPA's should be hatted or archived on sight and editors should not enable this kind of disruption by unduly engaging or providing a platform for non-article-improvement related soapboxes. This whole stupid thread could have been avoided if it were not reinstated after I archived the initial rejection of the claims. SPECIFICOtalk02:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, You said: “… could be hatted …; … so far from mainstream; … letting them post here”. Is that what you really mean to say? Please reconsider. Did we grow up in the same country? Did we not protest the same wars? Did the MIC go away? Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017, House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology
The article needs mention of the deliberations of the subcomittee; Foreign Agent Registration Act, Voice of America, and other essential comparitive arguements of the topic were heard. First hearing is today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.43.217 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
Is the RS encyclopedic material regarding the Russian ad buys on social media being unbiased and designed to create general upheaval just invisible?
Included: academic study on the social media buys, facebook denials, facebook admissions but nothing about the facebook admission that the actual ads were unbiased? Just must not be encyclopedic?
Why is this article perpetually ignoring any and all RS encyclopedic material that contradicts the left wing cabal fake narrative?
You should avoid bad faith comments if you want anyone to cooperate with you. One reason the new material is not included is that it was literally released today. They're explaining it on CNN as I type. This article does say by the way that Democrats paid for the report. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument. There are any facts that has been ignored a long time in this article. That seems this is a bias article.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to "perpetually ignore" something that just came out. Also note that the involvement of the Clinton campaign in paying for the research to compose the dossier doesn't in any way disprove its content. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
So, why don't you edit that article with this fact. I saw that you edited that today, but forgot to creat a new title with this fact.Neuwert (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Is one line enough? This is collusion, interference and obstruction with Russia from the DNC. Shouldn't it have it's own article and maybe 23 more like it?
Did you actually read the source? It says nothing about collusion involving Clinton. In fact it says,
"Some of the Twitter accounts also promoted anti-Hillary Clinton stories, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN. The U.S. intelligence community believes one reason Russia meddled in the election was to damage Clinton's chances of winning."
The Russians running the biggest Black Lives Matter Facebook page which has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with internal U.S politics is "nothing to discuss"? Interesting take. As to the edit, how about someone adding it to the Social Media section? 182.239.190.220 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
In September 2017 CNN reported that an internet activist group called Blacktivist was in fact a Russian front designed to try and inflame racial tensions within the USA during the 2016 ellection. They went on to claims that this was "the broader Russian goal of dividing Americans and creating chaos in U.S. politics...".
Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Do you think you could summarize what you think should go into the article? Whose talking points were they, who was at the meeting, who shared the points with the Kremlin, and what relevance does that have to this article? TFD (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
BuzzFeed: "This Russian Campaign Turned Against Trump In The Days After The Election"
Russian ad buys sought to sow political discord did not favor one candidate over another
New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As per above unsigned cmt by Casprings, BBC have reported same (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740), states Manafort is facing charges but "nature of charges is unclear", also says business associate Rick Gates faces charges. Please could article have line added wherever appropriate to reflect new developments? 217.39.75.98 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? O3000 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unsealed and already uploaded on wiki commons. Need to be added.Casprings (talk)|
He didn't meet with Russians but with someone who had met Russians. And Trump never met this adviser. While no doubt this has relevance, you need to explain what that is and source it. TFD (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If nothing else, this demonstrates that the Russians compromised the Trumps and the campaign -- witness the coverage of the matter in this article. SPECIFICOtalk18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This is something to keep an eye on, although it doesn't yet relate to this subject or have anything worth adding to the article. (Actually I see it is there, under "other Trump associates".) But it may prove to be very important in the future, because 1) this was a plea bargain in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and provide information, and 2) one big glaring item in the information about these proposed meetings is that he discussed them with an unnamed "campaign supervisor" - widely believed to have been Manafort. So, as they say, watch this space. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
RS discuss Russian psy-ops. If the Russians have succeeded in fomenting the discussion of the possibility of Russian interference they have been successful. Daily RS discussion of the ins and outs of the investigations, recriminations against everyone from Nunes to HuckabeeSanders, and all the current Fox News Hillary uranium coverage, tell us that they have successfully intruded in US civic processes. Whether the interference extends to various alleged crimes or direct electoral interference is the only point. SPECIFICOtalk23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Need section summarizing publicly available evidence
This very long article is full of opinions and claims to have evidence by various arms of the US government and by cybersecurity firms. The latter are linked to the government through contracts and/or ownership by former military/intelligence operatives. There are also claims by Facebook, but their evidence is also kept secret. According to Reuters "public evidence of Russian meddling, something that has not so far been presented, would be sure to translate into tougher U.S. sanctions against Moscow". Why don't we have a section on publicly available evidence? Because there isn't any? Keith McClary (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The article presents what is contained in the sources cited, no more and no less. Articles aren't written to satisfy your political opinions. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with my politics. My source discusses the implications in case any evidence is made public. I can't see this addressed elsewhere in the article. Keith McClary (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
We could include the Reuters quote: “public evidence of Russian meddling...has not so far been presented....”. Plus any reports that the evidence exists but is non-public. Does “presented” mean presented in court or presented anywhere? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it's undue weight, it's not clear that Reuters isn't talking about the Manafort/Gates indictments specifically. Plus, several new or low edit count accounts have been pushing for this, and it's disruptive to keep posting the same damn thing over and over again after it gets dismissed the first time. The Keith McClary account posted the same political arguments here on 19 December, that was dismissed. Continuing to come here to make the same complaint is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that is disruption. I have now posted DS alerts on that user's talk page. If this sort of soapboxing continues, then some combination of SPI and AE will be in order. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2016? Are you kidding me? Consensus can change, and he’s presented a brand new Reuters article. I’m not saying I support any article edits at this point, but you seem to be overdoing it with the gag orders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes I understand we can include the quote, how and where, randomly insert it? |It will need context, so I am asking what is the suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The Reuters article says that public evidence of Russian meddling has not so far been presented. Should that statement be in the article, e.g. as the last sentence of the lead? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It's a general statement that sums up the situation regarding public evidence and would have good context as it would be in a paragraph about investigations underway. Here's a possible sentence for the end of the lead.
As of October 31, 2017, public evidence of Russian meddling has not been presented.
Undue weight for one little line in one Reuters piece, considering the thousands of news articles that have been written about this. Further, the last sentence of the lead is one of the most conspicuous parts of an article. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The lede section acts as a concise overview of the topic for the reader. The lack of public evidence is a notable fact that aids the understanding, therefore it should be (briefly) mentioned there. — JFG23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead is a concise summary of the body. Not everything in the body merits mention in the lead. If this is only source, then it doesn't merit mention in the body. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Read tomorrow's newspaper. Congressional testimony. Social media ads. No evidence? Editor time is scarce and valuable. It's time to drop this and work on article improvement. This complaint didn't make sense even before the election. "Russia if you're listening...Clinton emails..." SPECIFICOtalk23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
See? Remarks that like just show what a waste of time these stupid threads are. I hatted this, it should have been left that way. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This thread is stupid. It started out as a transparent and partisan NOTFORUM screed identical to others we get on a monthly basis. Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist. This is not productive behavior. The "request" that we create a subsection about the lack of evidence--was not actionable per NPOV guidelines and at best was borderline trolling. Just like that user's last visit here contained a "request" that we move the article to "lack of evidence of Russian meddling". This should not have been unhatted. That was poor judgement, and I for one do not appreciate that. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk threads are often stupid, but that’s not the threshold for making them disappear. As many commenters have said here, they find the Reuters quote interesting and worth finding out more about. You tried to shut it all down not just by hatting, but by hatting in such a way that the tiny discussion that already occurred became invisible. Please don’t do stuff like that again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
If think that it's warranted, then I will do so. This was warranted. By that, what I mean in this instance is that it was repetitive, partisan, inactionable, and NOTFORUM. Even if you like the Reuters piece, the delivery was terrible. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading. It is probably referring to no direct evidence rather than no evidence of any kind, which includes circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may involve classified information about intelligence gathering that wouldn't be available to the public. So if the statement appears in the article, it may need to have that context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed section is not needed and certainly not warranted based on on a couple of sentences in a single Reuter's article. Find a dozen or so strong sources that discuss the importance of public evidence and then we will have a basis for a meaningful content discussion.- MrX01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As others have said, the lead is a summery of our article (it is not there for emphacise), so until someone can provide some kind of text for the main body disusing this it cannot go in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", the article says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless articles are specifically discussing a lack of public evidence, then we can't use it because it's editorializing/OR. And again, since we can't use this, this post by Bob K31416 is another example of how Misplaced Pages talk pages are being hijacked to spread conspiracy theories without benefiting the article itself. Not only is this NOTFORUM, is the antithesis of the project's stated goal of disseminating knowledge, and this is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Let me reiterate: it was a mistake to unhat this thread. I hope that mistake isn't repeated in the future. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
.svg)
Not done for now: The Colin Powell information is cited in the next sentence and the Washington Times is not a RS for political coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - 
