Misplaced Pages

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:19, 15 December 2016 editTheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,391 edits →Craig Murray← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:56, 2 January 2025 edit undoCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,552 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 74.124.173.248 (talk) to last revision by CzelloTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{2016 US Election AE}} {{Not a forum}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|
{{FailedGA|19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=2}}
{{WikiProject Computer Security|class=start|importance=High|computing-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Crime|class=stub|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=stub|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Computer Security|importance=High |computing-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=stub|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Espionage|class=stub|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProject Hillary Clinton|class=stub|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Espionage|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject European history|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Internet|class=stub|importance=low}} {{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=stub|importance=low}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=stub|importance=mid|Science=yes|Technology=y|Intel=y}} {{WikiProject Internet|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=stub|importance=|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Journalism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=Start|importance=Mid|pol=|hist=}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Science=y|Technology=y|Intel=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=stub|importance=High|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Top|USPE=|USPE-importance=}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|pol=y|hist=y}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Top |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=High |US-history=yes |US-history-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents|importance=high|trump=yes|trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}
}}
{{Press
|subject=article
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/These-were-the-most-edited-Misplaced Pages-pages-of-2016-10807020.php
|accessdate=December 22, 2016
|org=]
|title=These were the most edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016
|author=Alyssa Pereira
|date=December 21, 2016
|quote=The 2016 Presidential election sure brought the world a lot of stress. It also brought the world a lot of misinformation. That could be one reason why so many of the most edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 were politically related. ... ] (641)

|url2=https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-the-15-most-controversial-wikipedia-pages-of-2017-1.5730022
|accessdate2=May 20, 2018
|org2=]
|title2=How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Misplaced Pages Articles Paint a Dark Picture
|author2=Omer Benjakob
|date2=10 January 2017
|quote2=Media outlets around the world recently compiled their annual stories on the most popular Misplaced Pages articles of the year. ... ]
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 1 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Annual readership}}
__TOC__


== Why does Misplaced Pages label the 2020 election theft conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, but not the 2016 Collusion? ==
== FBI and CIA give differing accounts ==

*{{citation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html|work=]|accessdate=December 11, 2016|date=December 10, 2016|title=FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks|author=Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous|quote=The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior. 'The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court'” one of the officials said. 'The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn’t mean they can prove it in court.'}}

This article explains some of the cultural differences between the FBI and CIA.

They may have similar information, just different standards.

FBI must prove its conclusions in a court of law.

CIA just thinks about what it can state with "high confidence" and deliver as an analysis to the President. ] (]) 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

== Rex Tillerson ==

If ] is widely being reported as Trump's choice for the . If that does occur, this article should provide a quick summation of his links to Russia and a link to his page.] (]) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:Yeah sure of course if secondary sources start talking about that in depth, which I imagine they would. Sources are also reporting on intelligence analysis about whether in the ] emails the Russian government hacked and chose not to leak as they did with the D.N.C. -- the Russian government now has leverage over Trump. ] (]) 05:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::Sagecandor, Misplaced Pages is not a Forum, please refrain from posting conspiracy theories on the talk pages of the articles.--] (]) 15:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Please don't assume bad faith. I specifically noted secondary sources are discussing this. ] (]) 17:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

== "Skepticism" or "denial"? ==

With regard to I understand that there are references specifically referring to Russia's "denial," but "skepticism" is arguably a better and more neutral term for the section in question, because it covers much more than Russia's official line. Moreover, "denial" is often used as a pejorative term to denigrate individuals that refuse to accept facts despite overwhelming evidence (] being the classic example). Given that the CIA leaked these allegations to the press before the inquiry ordered by Obama had even begun, and no hard evidence is currently available, it would be desirable to avoid the implication that ] et al. are "deniers."] (]) 12:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:One is not 'skeptical' about ones participation or non-participation in an action. Being skeptical implies doubt without absolute certainty. Presumably, one knows with certainty whether or not they have done a certain thing, and to say they are 'skeptical' about their participation would be incorrect. That they are 'denying' involvement is the better and accurate term. ] (]) 12:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::I agree. Denial is undeniably the correct word to use. - ]] 13:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, sure. "Denial" means that a person or organization tells assertively: "I did not do it". Skepticism means "I do not know". But I have another related question. It tells: "The RNC has denied any intrusion into its servers". ??? Do they ''still'' deny it? ] (]) 16:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|My very best wishes}} Yes, they do, having consulted with the FBI on December 9. See (Note that ''ABC'', like the ''NYT'', corroborated Priebus's account: "''One person with direct knowledge tells ABC News there is no doubt senior GOP officials were hacked, but that there is no evidence the RNC as an organization was seriously compromised.''" Why the CIA is so much more confident than the FBI remains a mystery.)] (]) 02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::This article talk page is not the place to speculate or offer OR as to the mysteries of the subject. If you do not understand the distinction between the domains of the CIA and the FBI, please re-read the mainstream sources on this matter. ]] 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Russian statements, ] states, "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." The Russian government is not a living person, but the verb "deny" may imply culpability. So, "Russian government response" or something like that is fine, and avoids the editorial suggestion that they are "guilty."

More importantly however the majority of this section currently deals with other voices that are ''skeptical'' of the allegations made by U.S. officials. "Denial," even beyond the POV issue raised above, doesn't describe them, and therefore mischaracterizes the majority of the section. It should be renamed. -] (]) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

:How about "dispute"?] (]) 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply to|TheTimesAreAChanging}} I actually think that Russian government and intelligence statements deserve their own section, "Response by Russia," and that other skepticism or controversy should be in its own section. -] (]) 23:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

== Shouldn't this be "alleged involvement"? ==

Since no evidence was provided for this particular conspiracy theory ? I also note that the article is highly biased towards one side here, without any criticism of lack of evidence to claims by supporters of this theory in the article.--] (]) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
: The sources are clearly cited and represented. There is evidence to support the statements and that is given.] (]) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::It's not a theory; it's a conclusion. The CIA is not going to provide evidence to the general public. If you can find reliable sources that present another "side" (other than team Trump's apparently uninformed criticism of the government that he's about to lead), then feel free to add that content to the article.- ]] 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::It is an allegation made by the Washington Post based on an anonymous Obama administration official saying that was what the CIA told them in a briefing. That hardly makes it an objective fact. ] (]) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Actually, it's a conclusion made by government officials ''reported'' by ''The Washington Post''. It's right there in the lede of the the highly-cited in case you would like to read it.- ]] 17:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::]. ] (]) 17:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

::::::From ]: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although '''alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.'''"
::::::This this case, US officials have alleged or accused the Russian government of interference in the election. "Wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." This is the context that the words ''alleged'' and ''accused'' were created for. -] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'd agree that applies. And of course something being a "conclusion" doesn't prevent it also being an "allegation". It depends who's doing the concluding and what they're saying. The CIA is not a court of law. Nor indeed a body without its own agenda and own history of, let us say, interesting activities and propagation of outright falsehoods. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::There is no (U.S. recognized) court of law that adjudicates whether one sovereign power attempted to influence another sovereign power's presidential election. The CIA is tasked with figuring out whether it happened, and Congress and the President are tasked with determining what to do with that information.- ]] 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::*.
::::::::*. These statements are quite clear. And notable for their authors in each and the joint authorship on each. To say, at the very least, "involvement" or "influence", is backed up by such conclusions from the ] authors. ] (]) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|MrX|Sagecandor|N-HH}} The CIA has many tasks, among them the overthrow of many governments in the last 65 years, and the propagation of disinformation to cover up these actions (as many CIA agents have later testified). The CIA is not a news organization or an encyclopedia, it's a clandestine intelligence service, and that's how we should approach it when noting any public statements it produces.

Furthermore, the existence or lack of existence of a neutral body to adjudicate allegations of election tampering from Russia cannot lead us to proceed from the wildly speculative assumption that any accusation should be considered true unless proven otherwise. -] (]) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:Which is why we go by reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
* "" If that is what they do, it is notable that the CIA told both the White House and Congress that Russia tried to influence the US election. They would be the agency responsible for knowing that information and providing that information to policy makers. The fact that they did so and it was reported by ] is extremely notable.] (]) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
**What does this have to do with Sagecandor's linking to official U.S. statements as proof that Russian involvement is known, and not alleged? -] (]) 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
***The article attributes the conclusion to the CIA, as it should. Readers have to decide on their own whether this is part of a disinformation campaign by the CIA, or if the CIA have actually found evidence implicating the Russian government in election tampering. If we use the best sources{{emdash}}those with a reputation for fact checking and objectivity{{emdash}}then our job is easy: present readers with the best information available, from a neutral point of view.- ]] 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
****{{reply to|MrX}} would you support renaming this article to "CIA conclusion of Russian influence on the 2016 US presidential election? -] (]) 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*****No. Not just the CIA. Not sure why people are saying it was just the CIA. . ] (]) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
******{{U|Darouet}}, I would not support that title. It lacks concision, and sources give various attributions including the CIA, NSA, the intelligence community, and American intelligence agencies.- ]] 02:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
{{reply to|Sagecandor|MrX}} The title of this article and your comments here all strongly imply these allegations are not merely allegations, but that Russia has interfered in the U.S. election, and we need to relate that fact. This is not known as a fact. By insisting on the current title, "Russian influence," you are seriously misleading readers. There has been enough discussion about this that it's not longer appropriate to assume you don't know the implications of the title of the article. -] (]) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:I was fine with the prior title, "Russian involvement". Either is fine. ] (]) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::I'm not seeing much doubt expressed by sources that Russia at least attempted, and were probably effective in influencing the election. It's not reasonable to demote the factual assertions made by our sources to "allegations or theories" in the title (see ]) to cast doubt on this. A simple Google search shows the widespread use of the word "influence" by sources, far more so than "involvement".- ]] 14:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== The Post ascribes no motive for the Russians withholding content from the RNC hack ==

Article currently says: "On December 9, U.S. intelligence concluded that the Russian government was involved in hacking servers of the Republican National Committee (RNC) – but said they did not release the content of the hack in a desire to tilt the election in favor of the Republican party's candidate" and cites http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0

The Post says no such thing. In fact, regarding the RNC hacks, they explicitly say "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.". The Post says NOTHING about the Russians withholding RNC data to "favor the republican".

The Post DOES say the Russians hacked in order to "promote Donald Trump" but considering the context, and the explicit mention of the RNC hacks later in the article, this almost certainly pertains to the DNC hacks, not the RNC hacks.

I'm going to go ahead and remove any attribution of motive pertaining to the RNC hacks, because the Post says motive is "far from clear". ] (]) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:Hold on a second. What "Post" are you talking about? If it's an article in a reliable source, please link to it, so that we know what you're referring to. Thanks.- ]] 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::Whoops, sorry. The NY Times, as per the cite directly above. ] (]) 19:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::OK, that makes more sense. Perhaps the article text is just written awkwardly, but here are the two paragraphs in the NYT that, by my reading, support that Russia tried to promote Trump (in part) because they did not release information hacked from the RNC:
::::{{talkquote|"American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that '''Russia acted''' covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign '''to''' harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and '''promote Donald J. Trump''', according to senior administration officials.<br><br>They based that conclusion, '''in part''', on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the '''Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems''' in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, '''but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.'''"|source=''''}}
:::Do you disagree?- ]] 19:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::The lines you cite could certainly be interpreted to ascribe motive to the Russian's withholding the RNC leaks. But I think what we have here is ambiguous (perhaps even sloppy) writing. Reporters and their editors are not perfect. And I think the lines about the RNC leaks later in the article trumps that in that it directly and unambiguously discusses the RNC leaks: "It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote." That would seem to directly contradict the lead sentences you've quoted. The "far from clear" line is unambiguous in that it directly and solely pertains to the RNC leaks, and that it ascribes confusion as to the Russian motivations behind not leaking it. Given that, I don't think we can say the motive was unambiguously to "aid republicans" because the article also says the motive is "far from clear". ] (]) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::The article does seem to contradict itself, but I do think that the first two paragraphs are also unambiguous. I would like to hear how other editors interpret this.- ]] 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

== Notice of ongoing discussion at ] ==

A discussion is ongoing at ] on whether that navbox should include a link to this article. Editors are invited to participate. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

== Glenn Greenwald ==

Agree his personal opinion can be in the article.

But let's keep these in the section, Media commentary. ] (]) 17:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

:Please explain why you believe that this self-published opinion is noteworthy encyclopedic content. Do you believe that he is among the best informed and most respected mainstream experts on this matter? I do not. ]] 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::I was merely trying to suggest a compromise way forward here. {{u|JFG}} "thanked" me for the edit. Placing it in "Media commentary" notes it is personal opinion, which helps keep presentation of it on Misplaced Pages as ]. As to whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion, we can have a discussion here on the talk page about that. ] (]) 18:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::] is a notable journalist, so of course he can comment on the journalistic practices of other outlets. It's like arguing that Trump's opinion shouldn't be included because he's not cybersecurity expert. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 18:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't think that Greenwald's opinion should be included unless other reliable sources have cited it, or it is shown to be representative of a wider viewpoint, per ].- ]] 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::That is a good point, {{u|MrX}}. ] (]) 18:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Here are two that cite Greenwald's article. According to your self-professed standards, {{u|MrX}}, this should be enough to warrant inclusion in the article. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 20:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

:If Greenwald is to be included, I don't think he can be the ''only'' pundit included. If he's the only one, then I say it's certainly undue. If he's one of 10 or 12, then he's OK. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

::There's no reason not to include other pundits, but since the Snowden document leaks Greenwald has been ''the'' journalist on this issue: his voice carries more weight than plenty of politicians. -] (]) 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

:::I would agree that he's certainly a loud and prominent voice on such issues, but would disagree that his voice necessarily carries more weight than others. Greenwald writes from a quite polemical perspective (hence the heightened need to balance him out), and in terms of being an investigative reporting (separate from his commentary), there's no reason to think that his sources or insights are better than anyone else. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I agree including his comments is fine. There's no reason not to include some commentary, including sceptical commentary, and there's no good reason to discount Greenwald, who is a notable commentator whether you like him and what he says or not, and whether he is thought polemical or not. Otherwise we just have some fairly contentious allegations presented as if they were uncontroversial and inarguable fact. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::If we're opening the door to commentary and speculation, we should include Harry Reid's view that about Russia trying to influence the election.- ]] 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}This is an encyclopedia. We should not just list the opinions of the first journalists who state an opinion. Especially self-published. Trump's view can be stated because he is directly involved in various aspects of the matter, including his exhortation to the Russians that may have resulted in this crime. ]] 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:I redacted a blatant ] violation above. SPECIFICO—and all editors—should be reminded that BLP applies to talk pages, and that talk pages are '''not a forum''' to promote unsourced personal theories about living people. Regards,] (]) 04:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::, , , , etc. etc. etc. It's not a BLP violation and you really need to leave other people's comments alone. Also, while we're on the topic, this should be included in the article for background.] (]) 04:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Volunteer Marek}} Leaving aside the sheer implausibility that Russia would order a major covert operation entailing likely U.S. retaliation simply because they thought Trump told them to do so, you're seriously going to argue that the release of 19,252 DNC emails on July 22, 2016, may have been inspired by a joke Trump made on July 27—rather than the reverse? Which of your sources support that conclusion? Is this not something you would purge immediately as "''OR''" if it pertained to your favored candidate?] (]) 05:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::''"Leaving aside the sheer implausibility that... "''. Sight. I'm sure you're aware of ] so why do this? I don't really care about your, or anyone else's, theories and speculations. It's all about the sources.] (]) 06:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|Volunteer Marek}} Let's try again: Which of your sources claims that the release of 19,252 DNC emails on July 22, 2016 may have been inspired by a joke Trump made on July 27—rather than the reverse?] (]) 06:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Let the record reflect that Volunteer Marek is unable to produce any sources to support his ], even as he accuses ''everyone else'' of OR.] (]) 07:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
----

I share SPECIFICO's wariness to including instantaneous punditry here. But as long as we're including Greenwald, he can't stand alone, because that is the epitome of ]. I've two op-eds: one from Russia expert and academic ] and the other from historian ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:I meant to say that Greenwald's view should not be in the article. It is ]. ]] 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:: Your disapproval of Greenwald's stance does not make it less notable. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Inclusion of Greenwald should not be that big a deal. He's notable and his publication is notable. Best way to address it is by having it in "Media commentary" section so readers know it's his personal views, which is fine, and adding balance to that section by expanding that section with multiple other perspectives, which Neutrality helpfully did. ] (]) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

::::That would be fine. If Greenwald has done any ''reporting'' (and he frequently does), his articles can of course be used elsewhere on this page. -] (]) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JFG}} Your response to me above is a straw man (I have stated no opinion as to this writer's view) and does not address the editing issue we have come here to discuss. Please ensure that you do not misrepresent other editors views in the future. My statements here have been confined to the fact that Mr. Greenwald is not a qualified expert on foreign intelligence matters and that -- of all the writers whose opinions we might ultimately include in this article -- no editor has stated why Mr. Greenwald's self-published opinion should be at the top of the list. Please review ]. ]] 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{re|SPECIFICO}} I was taking issue with your off-hand dismissal of Mr. Greenwald as an unimportant voice in these matters, showing if not your disagreement, at least your disrespect. In your own words, I believe he is much closer to a "most respected mainstream expert" than a "first journalist who states an opinion"… But we're drifting off-topic. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} <small>Why the fuck does this page have a new title every couple hours?</small> — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|JFG}}} How much clearer do I need to make this. Your statement was personal disparagement, straw man argumentation, and disruptive. I have no opinion about Mr. Greenwald's opinion. There was nothing "off-hand" about my view. I didn't say he's not important. I have shown him no disrespect. His view was not sourced to a secondary source. As you well know, it's possible for a writer to be both the first to write X ''and'' to be the first one to self-publish X. Please stay on topic. You could contribute to this thread by responding to the substance of my objection, now stated in several places on this page. ]] 01:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Dear {{u|SPECIFICO}}, I had absolutely no intent to disparage you, I was addressing your apparent opinion of Mr. Greenwald's credibility or lack thereof about this page's subject matter. The substance of your objection is "I don't think Mr. Greenwald's opinion deserves to be quoted here" and the substance of mine is "I think it does." We happen to disagree, that's what talk pages are for. I do respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. End of story. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald, writing in the Intercept is a ]. There's no reason to include it unless other sources comment on it extensively.] (]) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:And the SPS policy says: {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.}} Greenwald is indeed an established expert on the subject matter of government surveillance, influence peddling, information leaks and propaganda; his work has been previously published by "reliable third-party publications" called ], ] and ]. The fact that he now self-publishes (with financial support from noted philanthropist ]) does not in any way diminish his credibility. Ergo, SPS supports Misplaced Pages quoting him here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:'''The ] is an online publication launched in February 2014 by First Look Media, the news organization created and funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The editors are Betsy Reed, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill.''' It is plainly ludicrous to argue that Greenwald's commentary is some kind of self-published blog post by a non-expert. Greenwald is obviously not saying Russia was not involved in the hack, he is criticizing the media whose standards of "evidence" have not changed since the colossal citogenesis around WMD "intelligence" in the runup to the Iraq war. The important circumstancial ''evidence'' in favor of of Russian involvement was by ''Ars Technica''. Note how they ''don't'' list "CIA strongly suspects" as "evidence", in contrast to the lazy parroting of official sources that has virtually dominated media coverage in the US. But also note how in conclusion Ars argues: {{tq|"WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed."}}. This call to produce direct evidence has been echoed exactly by a lead in the Intercept. Snowden made the very early on. Of course, within the standard propaganda framework, calling for evidence and accountability in response to allegations of a vast conspiracy by the ''designated enemy'' is ] for an illustration)]: such a rash demand only serves to unmask you as yet another member of that same . ] (]) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::Mr./Ms. Gucci-- You are entitled to your belief that mainstream sources are "propaganda" and you're entitled to your rejection of official US intelligence findings. However you are not entitled to deviate from WP policy of representing mainstream well-sourced content here and you are further prohibited from using this page as a ] for your personal opinions. ]] 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::The ''last sentence'' may be soapboxing, but it's certainly not a fringe opinion or mine only. I try to pick softer targets next time, like decrying Putin's vast "propaganda machine" and its Trumpite lackeys. The rest of your objections are nonsense. There are no "official intelligence" findings for me or anyone else to reject. Nor do I reject the circumstantial evidence from security firms and political observers that points to Putin's regime as the source of the hack. I do reject presenting circumstantial evidence or "officials say (without evidence)" (only American ones, naturally) as largely-proven fact. ] (]) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== Failure to attribute assertions to sources ==

Intelligence agencies are massive and complex institutions, and what they "conclude" can be ambiguous even decades after events have occurred. These statements in the Washington Post and NPR:

''"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter."''

and

''"The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR."''

show that '''U.S. officials have told news organizations that''' the CIA has concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help Trump. That is what these sources say. We do not know, from these sources, what the CIA has concluded.

All assertions in this article should be properly attributed. Media organizations are not always neutral, and do not always use neutral language, etc., but at a bare minimum we need to be as cautious as they are. This is an encyclopedia. -] (]) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:They are attributed to the government officials. Are you suggesting that we have to attribute a reliable sources asserted facts to the reliable source, beyond a footnote citation?- ]] 19:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

::U.S. officials are not neutral and reliable sources, they are U.S. officials, the same way that Russian officials are not neutral and reliable sources. The "fact" that we need to reproduce here is that anonymous officials have said that intelligence they've seen shows the CIA has reached a conclusion. The "fact" is ''not'' that the CIA has reached that conclusion. -] (]) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

::: It has been reported, as fact, that the CIA reached a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is ''correct'' is another matter altogether. While some sources say "...according the U.S. officials," etc., many others do not include any such hedging, merely stating that "the CIA concluded X":
::::: "Russia aimed to help Trump through hacking, CIA finds" (headline)
::::: "The CIA has concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump."
::::: "the Washington Post reported that the CIA had concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government had authorized the hacking"
:::So I guess we ''could'' include a statement along the lines of "the CIA said X, according to senior U.S. officials, members of Congress, etc." But when a large number of ''very'' respected and reliable sources merely say "the CIA said X" as a factual statement &mdash; and where nobody has questioned the fact that they did, in fact, come to a conclusion &mdash; I am comfortable following the reliable sources here. Again, I stress that the statement "they came to a conclusion" is very different from saying "the conclusion is correct." ]<sup>]</sup> 20:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Observation: 1) headline with agent sliced from content by MOS:telegraphic (stop) 2) the quotes in 'high confidence' are pretty snarky don't you think? 3) The LA times article says that someone else said that someone had concluded, all in the house that Stilson built. ''Each of these citation ]s in their own way''. ] (]) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::{{u|SashiRolls}} is dead on.

:::::PBS: {{tq|''"these actors who obtained this material and delivered it to WikiLeaks were described to us as being one step removed from Russian intelligence services as known entities... known affiliations with those Russian intelligence services, but nevertheless not necessarily specifically part of those services... Director Comey, notably, did not sign off — at least publicly — on the letter that the director of national intelligence and director of homeland security issued in late October, accusing Russia..."''}}

:::::LA Times: {{tq|''"U.S. agencies believe they have identified who in the Russian government was involved in ordering operations to disrupt the U.S. election and how they were orchestrated. They are reluctant to make the information public because that could compromise how the intelligence was gathered, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "''}}

:::::The ''U.S. News'' story doesn't cite sources for its statements, but the article gives zero indication it has done independent reporting, and is clearly referring to news item reported everywhere else in the media: that anonymous U.S. officials have described a CIA briefing. -] (]) 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Did ] have anything to say regarding the aforementioned reports?
:::::::: "Russia aimed to help Trump through hacking, CIA finds" (headline)
:::::::: "The CIA has concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump."
:::::::: "the Washington Post reported that the CIA had concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government had authorized the hacking"
::::::--] (]) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I have made a post here, ], because I think this is a very serious issue. -] (]) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC) {{ping|Neutrality|Casprings|Sagecandor|MrX}} -] (]) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say "CIA said X". That's all there is to it. Any kind of spin on that is just ]. That's it.] (]) 15:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Nope. They say, "According to U.S. officials, the CIA said X." Removing attributions is just ], and bad, if not stupid scholarship. -] (]) 16:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Quite agree. Regards ] (]) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== Merger proposal ==

:''] to be merged ---> into ]''

I propose that ] be merged into ]. I think that the content in the cyber attack article provides additional detail and can easily fit within the article on Russian influence. If there is too much content, I would suggest that the cyber attack article becomes a sub article of the Russian influence article. ] (]) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

*I ''' strongly support a reverse merge''', or per {{u|FallingGravity}}, a merge into something like ''']'''. The ] are the major incident involved, and this whole article, I think unintentially (I do not doubt the good intentions of its creators), becomes a massive POV fork. -] (]) 20:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*<s>Support. ] is the wider topic. Very good idea. ] should be merged ---> into ]. ] (]) 20:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)</s> Changed to oppose below. ] (]) 23:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. What about ], ], and ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:* Maybe a set of sub articles is a better solution to organize the information? Lots of content and this can be the umbrella?] (]) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::*Definitely though ] should be merged into ]. ] (]) 20:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Neutrality|Casprings|Sagecandor}} I've long thought these articles should be combined into one comprehensive article. They don't make a lot of sense on their own. -] (]) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Don't forget ], though I'm not sure how all these articles would mesh. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 21:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I was thinking the same thing, but we will probably have to condense material. Also support ], and ] if the 'Contents' section of the latter is significantly reduced. I think ] should remain an independent article.- ]] 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:Agree with {{u|MrX}} about merging all these into here at ] and condensing some of the other ones. We don't need to discuss all the "content" of the leaks, etc. Agree with {{u|MrX}} that ] should remain its own article. The rest can all get merged into ]. ] (]) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per above. Logistics will be a little tricky, but these definitely should be addressed together. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Against''', Russian influence is alleged, not proven, keep the "cyber attack" myth as a smokescreen for insider whistleblowing separate.] (]) 20:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**. ] (]) 20:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
** ] (]) 20:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**. ] (]) 21:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
***{{U|Keith-264}} - A self-published blog has no place in serious discussion about merging content.- ]] 21:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
***It's as credible as a CIA document these days.] (]) 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
****{{reply to|Sagecandor|MrX|Keith-264}} I don't think anyone - the American or Russian governments, Wikileaks or Guccifer, etc. would contest that the Democrats were hacked, i.e. subject to a cyber attack. Acknowledging that doesn't imply Russian government responsibility. Joint statements by U.S. senators on the other hand, while important to report, tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of their statements, any more than political statements by politicians in literally any other country. -] (]) 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*****But this joint statement does: . ] (]) 23:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
******{{reply to|Sagecandor}} Can you explain what you mean? -] (]) 23:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*******I mean it means this is an appropriate title for this article to discuss the widely covered topic. ] (]) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
********No, my question is, in what way does the existence of the joint statement validate an article title that presumes something which is unknown? Are you saying that the is as good as God's truth as far as[REDACTED] sources are concerned? Would you say the same of a Russian national security document and its conclusions? -] (]) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*********If such a hypothetical fictitious Russian national security document were as widely reported on from reliable secondary sources as this topic, then it too could have its own Misplaced Pages article. But now we're getting into hypotheticals. ] (]) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
**********You answered the very last question I asked, which was practically an aside, and have now failed to answer whether you think statements made by US intelligence agencies should be treated as fact a half dozen times. Since you refuse to answer the question, it's fair to assume you do. Editing with that attitude is highly disruptive to this project. -] (]) 01:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
***********You misrepresent what I said. The fact that they concluded as such, is notable and should be the topic of an article. Not saying it is inherently true. Just that it has gotten wide coverage in reliable sources. ] (]) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''', but merge to something like ]. This would also include merging the ] article. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 21:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**{{reply to|FallingGravity}} I would encourage you to propose this name change. The current title is an egregious example of ] and your simple suggestion would solve the problem. -] (]) 01:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
***It's kind of hard here because this is a merger discussion. I guess we could make this a ] and vote on what should happen to this article, whether merge, rename, or stay the same. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 03:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
**Should keep it at this present title here, as references in all the articles point to same source of the cyberattacks. ] (]) 21:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**:I think we should err on the side of caution because the Russian government hasn't confessed to pulling off the attacks. Generally we try not to imply guilt in an article's title per ]. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
***:{{tq|There is no (U.S. recognized) court of law that adjudicates whether one sovereign power attempted to influence another sovereign power's presidential election.}} From {{u|MrX}}, above at . ] (]) 21:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
****That may be an even better reason to be cautious, especially since none of this is proven, demonstrated, etc., and remains highly contentious. -] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

* '''Support reverse merge''' – This page and the DNC page share a lot of contents, so merging makes sense. However, blaming the DNC leaks on Russia in the article title strikes me as a gross violation of ] and ]. The proper article title would be something like "]", it would merge the DNC / Podesta / Guccifer 2 articles and it would have a section on potential sources of such leaks, be they Russia, random hackers or disgruntled campaign members. It would also have a section on the effective or supposed influence that such leaks had on the election. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**I would oppose a reverse merge, as all the articles have referenced information pointing to a common cyberattack source. ] (]) 22:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
** Would not support a reverse merge. This article provides the historical important fact that the Russian government (or at least US intel believes) directed efforts to elect Trump.] (]) 22:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
**Also oppose a reverse merge. Russia is indeed the culprit according to the government agencies charged with determining that.- ]] 22:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
** I add my voice to the chorus opposing a reverse merge for the reasons identified by the three editors above. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
*** Fine, I won't insist. Amazing how you all take for granted what some CIA operative leaks to the Washington Post… Every nation has their own propaganda efforts! — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
****NOT just the CIA, per . ] (]) 06:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*'''Against''' - I think the DNC cyberattack has a different scope to this article. The scope of this article is much wider - it includes things other than hacking. Additionally, the DNC page includes the contents of them, while this page would only be concerned with the Russian involvement. ] <small>]</small> 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

* '''Support Reverse Merge''' as it's the large alleged event. ] (]) 10:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support Reverse Merge''' per ]. ] (]) 15:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''' merging ] into ]. Oppose reverse merge (whaaaa???) Oppose merging the Fake News article into this one.] (]) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

<s>*'''Oppose'''</s> (again), what's emerged on this thread is that this is a classic example of the ] of assertions being parrotted and the parrotting being taken as evidence of notability. The exposure of DNC-Clinton Foundation corruption was an inside job because Craig Murray's assertion has the same standing of the CIA assertions. ] (]) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Keith, please try to stick to the topic, refrain from off-topic rambling, and avoid calling other editors propagandists. And you already put your ] above, commenting again further down, with a second bolded "oppose," makes it seem as if you're trying to "double vote." ]<sup>]</sup> 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:Oh I do apologise but it's getting harder to take this thread seriously. Thanks for the AGF and the sneer but I suggest that my comment was the most on-topic (sic) since the thread began. If you were paying attention, you would have realised that I was describing the process by which the CIA "revelations" are legitimised by the corporate media, rather than laughed off the front page with questions like "Evidence please?" I have no views about the other contributors, only the calibre of the comments (except for your unpleasant insinuation, that is). I didn't know that this was a vote and I don't care; I thought it was an expression of opinion and I had something to add. Regards ] (]) 17:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – Given the different proposals on merging and renaming (the article started as "Russian involvement", then "Russian influence", and now "Russian intervention"), it's probably best to set up an ] to vote on and discuss the different suggestions. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. ] is a legitimate <u>sub-page</u> of ]. The latter is a much bigger subject which includes propaganda efforts through RT TV and a lot of other things. This page is already too big. One does not need to dump everything into one page. This is simply to improve readability. ] (]) 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' These discussions on basically breaking news are rarely a good idea. There's no reason this can't be revisited after the dust has settled and we have more than personal opinion and allegations to work with. ] 20:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Clearly it's not clear which article should be merged into which other, if any. I support Timothy above and say we wait until the evidence is in. --] (]) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Another suggested merger: ] be merged into ] - ]. The main page ] can be linked in the cyber attacks subsection of that article. ] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for the time present. Let's wait for the results of the review ordered by President Obama. ] (]) 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Merging it would only be appropriate if the DNC attacks were solely the responsibility of the Russians, when that is still an allegation and is still very much up in the air. Merging it would be saying that, according to Misplaced Pages, that was all a Russian thing, and we cannot say that at this point. ] (]) 08:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose until dust settles''' per ] and ]. Depending on the outcome, a merger may be entirely appropriate, until all of the facts ore know it appears to be an endorsement of one side violating ] - ] (]) 22:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', multiple ongoing investigations by public sector and by fourth branch of government means all related articles will likely get expanded. ] (]) 23:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The scope of the DNC cyber attacks article is different from this article. This article has a much broader sweep with other added elements. There are a number of related articles besides these two, and each is topic specific. Keeping these seperate may be the best way to deliver the torrent of information coming forth from the media. And it is best to wait for the dust to settle to see what is worth keeping in these articles. ] (]) 08:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This article is a large enough topic, 70k, without adding something else to it, especially since the other article is 35k long. --] (]) 15:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the scope of this article is the ''alleged'' involvement by Russia in the US elections in general, whereas the DNC hacks is more about the release of unsavoury information from the DNC's internal documents. ](])<sup><nowiki>(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})</nowiki></sup> 02:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Opening Sentence ==

The opening paragraph of ''The Washington Post'' story says:

<div style="padding:5px; border:1px dotted #006; margin:5px; color:#000; background-color:#eef">
'''The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.'''

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
</div>

Yes, there is a quote below it that states it is from "a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. Senators" However, that is one source within the story. Its pretty clear from the opening statement what is being reported and there are multiple means for a reporter to fact check. ] (]) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
:Agreed. ] (]) 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

==Opening sentence 2 ==

"Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election."

... is the latest iteration of the first sentence of this article.

That sentence completely misrepresents what the source says.

"In fact, in early October, the director of national intelligence, representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said they were confident that the Russian government had directed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and a top Clinton adviser."

"Seventeen agencies" absolutely did NOT "conclude". The ''Director of National Intelligence'', and the ''Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security'' (who represent 17 agencies) came to that conclusion. Because they represent 17 agencies, you can't say that 17 agencies came to that conclusion.

This re-phrasing is highly misleading and illogical. It would have us believe that, for example, the Department of Energy (one of those 17 agencies) independently came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the election. Or that the DEA did so, as well.

I would revert, but I already have one for today. But this edit is highly misleading, outrageous, misrepresents the source, and is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:. ] (]) 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, that edit was an exaggeration. However, it was not only the CIA that concluded that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. To varying degrees that determination came from the CIA, NSA, DHS, DOJ, FBI, the White House, U.S. Senators, the House Intelligence Committee, the "Intelligence Community", and "American Intelligence".- ]] 02:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== Merge tag changes during ongoing discussion ==

{{u|Darouet}}, please do NOT change merge tags during the ongoing discussion, as you did at and .

This is disruptive.

Several are already against this, already stated, above, including {{u|Casprings}}, {{u|Neutrality}}, and {{u|MrX}}.

Let the original discussion play its course please.

Thank you ! ] (]) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Thank you {{u|Sagecandor}}: that was my mistake. I appreciate your correcting it quickly. -] (]) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you, please be more careful. ] (]) 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

==Request for Comment on weight at other pages ==

I have started a request for comment on what the ] of the information contained in ] in articles and templates that relate to ]. The ] is located ].] (]) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== Adding new info directly to the lead ==

Please, all, stop adding new info directly into the lead.

Instead, add it to the article body text, and then ''summarize'' it back up top in the lead.

This way, hopefully, the ] will be a summary, not an article in its own right LOL.

Thanks ! ] (]) 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:Please, stop adding new stuff to the intro without first adding it to article body. ] (]) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

==Cut lede to first paragraph only==
The first paragraph, as it currently stands, contains a concise summary of the article. I recommend we cull the last three paragraphs. ] (]) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as nom ] (]) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*The lead needs to be shortened, and there is some redundant content, but I would '''oppose''' simply removing entire paragraphs. It could probably be reduced to about three concise paragraphs and still summarize all of the major points.- ]] 14:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::I'd suggest one brief paragraph on claims (first), one brief paragraph on counter-claims, and one brief paragraph on the sideline spectacle of all this (e.g. the Russian spokeswoman claiming "the Jews" were responsible and Harry Reid saying there was a FBI "coverup", etc.). ] (]) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per MrX. Shortening, yes; wholesale axing, no. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' especially at this early date.] (]) 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', violates our Misplaced Pages guidelines of ]. ] (]) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== Do the following people/things need to be mentioned in the lead/article? ==

Re the following items that I've just taken out of the lead.

* Fact that Glenn Greenwald "disputed" report – I would '''exclude'''. Greenwald has no personal stake in this, nor direct involvement. Maybe his inclusion in the ''article'' is fine, but not the lead.
* Reid’s reaction (assertion of FBI cover-up) – I am '''inclined to exclude'''. This seems like a reaction that can be best dealt with in the body. Maybe in the lead we could have a generic statement about criticism of the FBI's approach from a variety of figures, but probably not Reid in particular. Note that senators other than Reid are more likely to have important things to say/do on this (McCain or Graham, for example, or whoever is leading the probably investigation in the next Congress.
* Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman’s anti-Semitic statement on Russian television – I would '''exclude''' because (i) it’s not an official statement and (ii) it’s not directly related to their involvement/denial of involvement. We should briefly mention the Russian government’s (official) denial of involvement in the lead, but the spokeswoman’s statement doesn’t belong.

--]<sup>]</sup> 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:One by one:
:1 Yes - the Washington Post also has no personal stake but we cite their reports. We can't use the lede to construct a paradigm of guilt when there are RS voices that question that :premise. Frankly, how we have it written now - where the whole first paragraph is a parade of horribles that starts citing pronouncements of official state authorities, is extremely :NPOV and non-encyclopedic and reads like a press release from the ODNI Public Affairs Office. But, more ideally, the first paragraph should be something like this:
{{cquote|''United States intelligence agencies have accused the Russian Federation of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a claim Russia denies. The CIA has suggested the alleged interference was done to help the presidential ambitions of then-candidate Donald Trump, though the FBI has disputed this conclusion. The claims and counter-claims have generated intense public discussion by media and political commentators with some, like Michael McFaul and Robert S. McElvaine, decrying the alleged Russian interference while others, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald, have questioned whether any interference actually occurred.''}}
:2 Fine with excluding.
:3 I moved this to a "conspiracy theories" section. But we do need to include, it's important to include elements of the carnival side of news if it's widely reported in RS.
:] (]) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

::Re Greenwald - the ''Washington Post'' is news reporting. Greenwald is commentary. It's apples & oranges.
::Re the Russian foreign ministry spokesman's antisemitic statement - I've dropped this from the article altogether, for the time being, because none of the sources tie it in any way to Russian interference/influence on the election. It's arguable that outrageous statements of this kind were designed to distract from Russia's role (I agree that this is "carnival" style maneuvering) -- but we can't conclude or suggest that on our own (]). Is there some source that connects the statement to Russian influence/interference? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Wrong, The Intercept is news analysis, not commentary. Oranges and Tangerines. But I'm fine dropping if we rewrite the first paragraph so it doesn't sound like a press release from Langley. No issue if we want to exclude the Russian spox CT. ] (]) 15:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::: Whether we characterize it as news analysis or commentary, it's not original reporting. And I do not think that the first paragraph "sounds like a press release from Langley." It largely reflects that the ''Washington Post'' and others have reported. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::: #1 - LOL, it reads exactly like a press release. Every claim by the Valiant Defenders of Ol' Glory and Apple Pie (in this case, the wonderful people behind Salvador Allende and the Shah) is slapped up-front to set the narrative, classic churnalism style, while all denials and counter-claims are omittted or buried in one-sentence asides in subsequent paragraphs. The WaPo was covering what they'd had reported to them during a moment in time, which is fine - an encyclopedia needs to frame a larger picture that isn't tied to a flash moment in time. It's not a question of sources, we have them, it's a question of how do we prioritize them. My suggested opening paragraph is neutral and even. I mean seriously this ... ''"so and so, official representative of X-number of official agencies of the U.S. government intelligence apparatus, issued a formal ..."'' reads like a fucking boilerplate you'd pull off PRNewswire!
::::: #2 - if we strip everything except original reporting then we're stripping everything except the WaPo because every subsequent story was a precis of the original WaPo report. Do we wanna go down that road? ] (]) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::: #1 - It seems you're coming at this from a certain perspective, which is fine - but Allende etc. are really irrelevant here. We "prioritize" sources to reflect what's out there in terms of emphasis, breadth, depth of coverage. The ''Washington Post'', etc., are reliable sources, irrespective of whatever beef we may have with their reporting. Our job is to report what the reliable sources say, and if they say "The CIA concluded this..." or "the FBI concluded that..." then that's what we put in. If we were going ''beyond'' the sources (i.e., writing "the CIA's conclusions are true" or "the FBI's skepticism is justified") then I would be alarmed. But the article does decently well in not doing this.
:::::: #2 - Generally, I do favor citing original reporting when possible, rather than rehashes from news aggregators or the like (, from the ''Hill'', cited and I believe quoted in the article right now, is a pure rehash of ''WaPo'' that could be cut). I also note that it's inaccurate to say that "every subsequent story was a precis of the original WaPo report" - original reporting has also been done by the NY Times () and CNN (), both quoting their own sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Neutrality. I'd exclude Greenwald unless somehow it becomes prominent, as there's nothing that distinguishes him in this particular case from scores of other pundits. I'd keep Reid in the text not in the lede. The Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman comment I would also keep but not in the lede.] (]) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

{{ec}} (The bloody page name changed in mid edit!) All of these names should remain out of the lead, per {{U|Neutrality}}. Opinions, commentary, and speculation by individuals does not rise to level of importance to justify including in the lead. I would support omitting them entirely from the article, but I don;t feel as strongly about it. Comparing the Washington Post's article with any of the commentary is like comparing elephants to Barbie dolls. - ]] 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

* For whomever cares, the lead is currently fairly solidly out of compliance with ]. ] 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
**Been trying to work on that, {{u|Timothyjosephwood}}, but people keep ''expanding the lead without first adding to the body''. ] (]) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
***It looks like it's been trimmed recently, and the results aren't bad. -] (]) 20:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
****{{Ping|Darouet}}Thank you ! That sounded an awful lot like high praise ! Much obliged ! ] (]) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

::::*Incidentally, why is an editor with unilaterally moving this page twice in the same day? ] 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Because this is "American politics post-1925" where the sockpuppet have sockpuppets? ] (]) 04:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== Too many citations ==

Can we please try to limit it to no more than three citations per statement, at least in the intro? ] (]) 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== FBI position on Russian motives and involvement ==

Right now we state that the FBI believes Russia interfered in the US election, based on this quote from the ''Washington Post'': {{tq|''"The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official."''}}. We have other sources that cite the WashPo article: . FBI officials may be convinced that the Russians are behind the breaches, and perhaps we can find older articles verifying this? But the statement of a single anonymous U.S. official on the matter should not be sufficient for us here to reproduce the statement's content as truth, instead of attributing it. -] (]) 20:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

::I've out of an abundance of caution and out of deference to you.
::The current state of play as to responsibility (leaving aside motive) seems to be that the FBI did conclude that the Russians were responsible, and accepted the U.S. government's official statement that the Russians were responsible, but the FBI as an agency did not specifically and publicly say it. ("As for the hacking, a senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News that there was no disagreement over Russia's culpability. The concern, that official said, was about 'naming and shaming' the Russians."); ("FBI Director James B. Comey advised against the Obama administration publicly accusing Russia of hacking political organizations on the grounds that it would make the administration appear unduly partisan too close to the Nov. 8 election, according to officials familiar with the deliberations. But he supported the administration’s formal denunciation last month as long as it did not have the FBI’s name on it, they said."); ("The FBI, however — while agreeing that the hacking campaign originated in Russia — has been reluctant to align itself with the CIA and assign a motive to the cyberattacks.") ]<sup>]</sup> 20:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

== Chronological order ==

Let's please use chronological order for the intro.

Please stop adding new info to the intro.

Thank you ! ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{user|Will to Truth}} edits and seem a bit over-the-top direction. We should just state the facts in chronological order in the intro. ] (]) 20:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Extra wording in intro not needed here. This is a summary. ] (]) 20:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:::Can you stop? what is wrong with you? The lead does not need to be in "chronological order". In any article of any kidn, you state the most important conclusion first, then get into the details of chronology. Your idea is unsupportable, and perhaps you should stop editing this article. ] (]) 20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Nothing is wrong with me, thank you very much. ] (]) 20:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest we get rid of recent edits by {{user|Will to Truth}} as they violate ], introducing new info directly to intro without first being in article body text. They also seem to violate ]. ] (]) 20:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:Response I got at the user's talk page: . ] (]) 20:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::Now Check User blocked. ] 20:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::By the way, if anyone hasn't enabled strike through for blocked accounts in their settings, it's super useful if you hang around contentious articles that get a lot of vandalism. ] 01:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I agree, it's very useful.- ]] 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== NYTimes summary ==

This "what we know so far" just published by the New York Times might be a useful source of citations and statements for this article.--] (]) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:It is a column and therefore not a reliable source, per ] Furthermore, one of the comments appears to be inaccurate: "Russian state media outlets have favored Mr. Trump and opposed Mrs. Clinton, but their reach in the United States is limited." Thom Hartmann and Ed Schulz backed Clinton. Larry King didn't seem to be pro-Trump and Lee Camp appeared to favor the Greens. I don't recall anyone backing Trump. ] (]) 04:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::There's no such policy that says a column in a reliable source is not a reliable source. You disagree with the writer's general statement that "Russian state media outlets have favored Mr. Trump and opposed Mrs. Clinton", but offer no counter-evidence in the form of a reliable source that says otherwise.- ]] 14:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::The policy, which I just provided a link to is ]. (If you want to go to the linked article, move your cursor over the highlighted term and right-click on your mouse.) It says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I just named 4 ''RT'' presenters who did not support Trump, can you name any who did? ] (]) 07:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Oh you said "column", but you meant "editorial, commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". The column contains assertions of fact, not opinions or views. A person, even four persons, is not the same as a "state media outlet". - ]] 15:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::That an opinion piece, including columns, contains "facts" does not make it reliable for those "facts." The policy says, "rarely reliable for statements of fact." All opinion pieces btw contain "facts." Your argument about ''RT'' support of Trump is that even though four moderators did not support Trump, and you cannot name any who did, we must assume that ''RT'' supported Trump because a source that fails reliability says so. That is circular reasoning. ] (]) 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:There is no doubt whatsoever that the "" piece in the ''New York Times'' is a reliable source. The work is a ''news'' column (not an opinion column). It's a work of ], by Max Fisher, part of his column : "exploring the ideas and context behind major world events." ]<sup>]</sup> 20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you {{u|Neutrality}}. I have no idea how someone could possibly think that's an opinion column. - ]] 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::IOW it is analysis and therefore not reliable per policy. Note the column is called "The Interpreter." Interpretation is another word for analysis. Note too the titles of some of the articles: "Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy's Institutions" or "North Korea, Far From Crazy, Is All Too Rational." Your approach is: "What we believe is a fact, what you believe is an opinion, what they believe is a conspiracy theory." ] (]) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:::It's explanatory journalism. It appears under the "news" section (specifically, "World") and not the "opinion" section. The article titles you quote are ''news'' pieces that discuss the views of political scientists ("Why scholars believe North Korea is rational"; "Political scientists who study troubled democracies abroad ...]"). Frankly, this is not even a close call. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I asked about it at RSN. BTW the articles do not report any news, they rely on news already reported and summarize and analyze it. ] (]) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

==Article title changed to "Alleged" interference==
US officials and agencies have alleged that Russia intervened in the US election, and this is a known and accepted fact. Russia denies these allegations and whether they are true remains contested. Per ], I've moved the page to '''Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia''', because the previous title was an egregious ] violation. -] (]) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== Requested move 13 December 2016 ==

{{requested move/dated|Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign}}

] → {{no redirect|Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign}} – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote."<ref>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/election</ref> The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. ] (]) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Why is the current title even what it is right now? It was moved by Sagecandor without any discussion I can find, and no move request. It's also a ] because declares Russia's guilt, which has been stated by US officials and agencies, but is not known. Concision is the worst excuse for falsehood I've ever seen someone make for an article title. -] (]) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to "alleged," to remove the most glaring problem facing the article at present. -] (]) 05:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::The original title was "Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election". Which I'm fine with. But here's the part which I'm not fine with. You criticize Sagecandor for making a fairly innocous move to "interference" instead of "involvement" because it was done "without any discussion" but then you jump in and you yourself make a '''controversial''' move, in midst of an RfC, '''without any discussion''', by adding the word "alleged", based on nothing but your own personal idiosyncratic ] and ]? How does that work?
:::And there's no "falsehood" here, just your imagination.] (]) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::If you want to invoke my imagination, do you think that Russian interference in this election is known as an encyclopedic fact, or that the allegation is the fact? -] (]) 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::According to the sources, it is. The Russian interference. And please don't try to get all epistemological on me and try to pretend that "we can never know for sure" is a good argument. Nixon tried to cover up Watergate. Is that an encyclopedic fact or is just the allegation that he did so an encyclopedic fact?] (]) 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::I have no idea who renamed the page, but I am just fine with adding "alleged". I do suggest that we change "United States election" to "US presidential campaign". Russia isn't accused of rigging the vote, but of producing propaganda and hacking emails. ] (]) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::No. "Alleged" is classic ] and not supported by sources.] (]) 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::"Alleged" is ''not'' a ] word when it is used to describe an allegation. You write about this topic as if US statements are not statements, but facts, which is totally unacceptable. -] (]) 06:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::When the sources don't call it "alleged", it's WEASEL. And POV.] (]) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*<s>Oppose. Title is short and succinct and to the point. First sentence of article makes it quite clear. ] (]) 03:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)</s> Changed to support, below. ] (]) 23:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. The current wording is awkwardly formed and inadequately conveys the nature of the event in question.] <small>]</small> 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign". Other proposals need to be made in separate RfCs or this will spin out of control.] (]) 07:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''', your suggested title works for now, but why not put the election year after the election as in '']'', so a better title would be "'''Russian interference in the United States presidential campaign, 2016'''".
*'''Support''' - It's clear, concise, as precise as it can be, and compliant with ]. No one should move the title until and unless a consensus arise from this discussion. - ]] 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. "Interference" is a POV term. (E.g., they may have hacked emails, etc., but we do not know that Russians interfered with the election/voting process per se.) I recommend changing it to "involvement". – ] (]) 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)14:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Snow Support''' I infer from the current title that Russia somehow hacked the election process itself (ie they hacked the voting machines). The proposed title is correct and succinct. ] (]) 15:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' either "]" or "]" - to make it explicitly clear that the topic at issue is the campaign and not, directly, the actual balloting. I oppose "involvement" instead of "interference" and also oppose adding "alleged" or other such words; both suggested changes are needless and add unnecessary vagueness. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' any title of the type "Russian interference in the campaign", with little concern over where we put the year. This describes the subject succinctly and accurately without hiding key information about the subject. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 17:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but remove word "presidential" as it also affected other elections including multiple Congressional races, per . ] (]) 23:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
**Alright, but it doesn't say anywhere in the article regarding the congressional races, see if you can implement it in the article. <code>&sim;&sim;&sim;&sim; ]<sup>]</sup></code> 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
***Agreed, but just not sure where to fit it into the article yet. ] (]) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
****Article title should just have word "election" in it and NOT have word "presidential" in it, per: '']'' source: {{citation|title=Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking|accessdate=December 14, 2016|work=]|date=December 13, 2016|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html|author=Eric Lipton and Scott Shane}} ] (]) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Article should NOT have word "presidential" in title, just "election", as affected multiple races''': This is as per multiple sources: "Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races":
**{{citation|title=Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races, and the GOP played along|work=]|url=http://theweek.com/speedreads/667293/russia-targeted-democrats-competitive-house-races-gop-played-along|date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016}}
**{{citation|url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/14/hacked-material-found-its-way-into-house-races/95420664/|accessdate=December 15, 2016|work=]|title=Hacked material found its way into House races|author=Jason Stein and Mary Spicuzza |date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016}}
**{{citation|url=http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/gop-super-pac-linked-to-paul-ryan-used-illegally-hacked-material-against-democratic-house-candidates-report/|work=]|date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016|title=GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report|first=Sophia|last=Tesfaye}}
:Not just "presidential" election in 2016. Multiple elections. Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title. ] (]) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

===Comments===

*'''Comment''' - can people please stop moving the title of this page to whatever shit happens to pop into their heads at some given moment while this RfC is ongoing? It's disruptive.] (]) 06:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Volunteer Marek}} the page was moved only a few hours ago to its present title, without discussion of any kind. It is a highly partisan title, and the previous version has also been criticized for the same reason: it declares something that is alleged to have occurred. It's a totally indefensible title and if we're going to propose a move, we should at least start from a place that isn't such a ] vio. -] (]) 06:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::It was moved from "involvement" to "interference". Had you undid that move that'd be one thing. But you actually are using the whole "moved only a few hours ago" as a flimsy excuse to force through your own preferred POV title with the word "alleged" in it. We are starting with a neutral title right now. YOUR title is POV as it is utterly unsupported by sources and involves nothing but your own original research. And lacks consensus.] (]) 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::] isn't an excuse, it's policy, and there is nothing in the entire article, or all the sources we cite, which make US allegations a fact, and not allegations. -] (]) 06:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and it is YOUR title that violates POVTITLE as it is based on nothing but your own original research.] (]) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The current name looks pretty ambiguous as there were also elections for ], ] and ] in the same year, and the article only specifies it for ]. And also, . <code>&sim;&sim;&sim;&sim; ]<sup>]</sup></code> 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Alright, at this situation, I've narrowed it down to <s>four</s> two titles, <s>two for whether or not it was ''confirmed'' that Russia interfered,</s> and two for whether or not Russia interfered in only the Presidential Election or if they interfered in any other ones. {{abbr|IMO|in my oppinion}} the one in bold is the most likely candidate.
**No. Sources don't say "alleged". That's straight up POV and OR.] (]) 07:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
***Alright, I narrowed the suggestions down to 2, since that it's too early to confirm if Russia ''did'' interfere, we should just wait and see, this article was only created three days ago.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! .
! .
|-
| ''']'''
| Russian interference in the United States presidential election, 2016
|-
| ''']'''
| '''Russian interference in the United States elections, 2016'''
|}

<code>&sim;&sim;&sim;&sim; ]<sup>]</sup></code> 06:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

** I still believe the best proposal has been {{u|FallingGravity}}'s: '''Cyber attacks and the 2016 United States presidential election.''' That is neutral, succinct, doesn't presume anything, and can hold all the info in this article. -] (]) 06:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::That's a horrible suggestion because it leaves out important info. Who carried out these cyber attacks? Fiji? Come on! That's not even trying to hide the POV.] (]) 07:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Saying that the article's title ''needs'' to point out ] is like having the article "]" (à la '']'') titled "]" because he was found guilty in a court of law. However, in this case there is no court decision, just conclusions from US intelligence agencies. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::It's actually not like that at all. For one thing, people who are looking for a murder victim's article are unlikely to search by "Adnan Syed". Here, it's pretty clear that people will be typing in R, U, S, S, I, A into that search box, along with "US election".] (]) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::'''Oppose''', since that ''... and ...'' usually denotes that we are comparing something such as ] and ], and also using ''interference'' rather than ''cyberattack'' helps with ambiguity, and also, the only upside to the proposed title is that it doesn't state "Russia", as ] stated in , "They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody," ... "It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea." <code>&sim;&sim;&sim;&sim; ]<sup>]</sup></code> 07:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::As the proposer of this title, I strongly debated between the words "and", "in", "during", etc. though I'm still not sure which is best. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 08:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - given the info that is coming out (see and section below), the article title should NOT have "presidential" in it since now it's become clear that non-presidential races were also targeted.] (]) 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' moving to "]" or "]" - to make it clear that the topic at issue is the campaign, not the voting. I prefer the second title. --] (]) 15:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== POVing the first sentence ==

Re . Please stop. This edit is not based on any sources except one editors idiosyncratic opinion. And it makes the sentence factually incorrect since '''allegations''' of Russian interference were NOT first made in October, they were made as far back as March IIRC. The whole importance of what this article is about is that these allegations have now been publicly '''acknowledged''' by the intelligence agencies.] (]) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:Marek, do you understand the difference between {{tq|''"these allegations have now been publicly '''acknowledged''' by the intelligence agencies"''}} (the wording you defend here at talk), and {{tq|''"2016 United States election interference by Russia was first acknowleged publicly by the U.S. government in an October 2016 letter from the U.S. Intelligence Community."''}} (the wording you just wrote into the first sentence of the lead). The first sentence is defensible by sources, the second isn't. Let me know if you don't understand why these two statements are different and if I can help break it down for you. -] (]) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::I'm adding the first quote (yours) into the lead, as it's what we can actually state. -] (]) 06:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:::It's still not good enough. "Acknowledged allegations" means that it "acknowledge that allegations exists". That's not what's going on here. They are '''affirming''' the allegations. Please change that to avoid 1RR.] (]) 06:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::The wording I used in article - which was there until you tried to POV it - is precise. My comment on talk was possibly imprecise, but that's because I naively expected it was easy to understand and it wasn't going to get ]ed.] (]) 06:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::::Is this page under 1RR? That was the wording you yourself said was backed by sources. If you want to change to "affirmed," I believe that's also justified. My computer's about to die so if I can't make the change, I think you're totally justified, and it wouldn't be 1RR. -] (]) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::That's better but there is still no "alleged" in the sources, it's just you adding it up out of the blue.] (]) 07:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::The article needs to reflect what the best sources say, and is not that the Russian interference is "alleged". I believe the word the sources use is "concluded".- ]] 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Concur with Mr. X

== Selective use of quotes ==

Can someone explain why this quote, from a "former British ambassador" to... Uzbekistan (who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons) is ok, but quote from an actual CIA officer is not? And don't even try it with the "BLP vio". It's not. It's a direct, well sourced quote from a notable subject (unlike the Uzbekistani guy quote).] (]) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:The quote from the CIA officer directly states that Trump himself was involved in this. It's a sketchy analogy at best, and definitely a BLP violation to assert that Trump started this "fire." ] (]) 15:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:This quote was re-added today without prior consensus, so I just reverted. This is just a sensationalist quote, possibly humorous but hard to make sense of. Doesn't add value to the article. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:] note:"{{tq|who was removed from office for disciplinary reasons}}". That's not really apparent from a cursory read of ]. It may be ''nominally'' true, like saying "] got shot for being a Nazi agent," but it may not be whole story. Probably best to refrain—per ]—from making these insinuations when debating sources.] (]) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC) <small>(Added indentation- see edit summary) ] (]) 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)</small>
:I put the retired CIA officer's quote in the "Commentary and Reactions - Former CIA officers" section and removed it again per another editor's advice. As for BLP: No, it's not (''In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.'')
:I've also removed the quote of the Assange associate. Not even the journalist quoting him believes what he says, how is that for RS? I suggest we discuss the merits of both quotes. ] (]) 09:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::You are under the premise that the substance of the claims has or has not been "verified", whereas the you deleted simply reports that various claims—including Murray's—exist. For some ''actual'' evidence, see . Saying that Murray was fired for disciplinary reasons (wink, wink) without adding that he was fully exonerated is a BLP vio. ] (]) 12:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I have no problems with Murray’s actions in Uzbekistan, but he’s a public figure - I don’t think mentioning his removal from a - discretionary? - appointment would be a BLP violation. ] (]) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
*RE Murray: His term as ambassador in Uzbekistan does not make him an expert on Russia or cyber - let’s call them - "activities", so the newspapers presumably talked to him because of his association with Assange. As for his opinion in this case, which is it: The official Wikileaks stance "nobody knows who Wikileaks’s sources are" or this (from the ): <blockquote><p>Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”</p><p>“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.</p><p>“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.</p><p>“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”</p></blockquote>
:In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either? (Murray normally isn’t that shy about naming names; he named one of Assange’s Swedish accusers on TV.) ] (]) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC) ] (]) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::{{tq|"In other words, DON’T believe them because they won’t name names but DO believe me because I won’t names, either?"}} Not really. To put it mildly, it is not clear the CIA have any direct evidence, nevermind actual names. Nobody in the CIA or NSA even claims they do. Multiple sources have argued that they should come forward with any evidence they have (if they have it), because to do otherwise is to invite future attacks. There are compelling national security reasons for them to come forward with evidence, and no clear national security reasons for them to drag their feet. Assange and (possibly) Murray are wikileaks insiders who claim to know the source. It is plainly obvious why they won't name that source. Russia would know for a fact too and they've denied it. But we all know the Russians can't be trusted (which is true enough), unlike anonymous CIA sources and US politicians, who are so "credible" that they don't have to argue their case or offer evidence. ] (]) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


===BLP violation===
Hadn’t even noticed this blatant BLP violation. But of course! '''Now''' the Murray quote makes sense: "We know who the source is/are/is ("I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider.") but we’re not saying. <small>Let’s just mention the name of the DNC staffer who was killed during an attempted robbery."</small> Honi soit qui mal y pense. ] (]) 14:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

----

Regarding ] - it's an accurate quote, fully ] to a noteworthy person (Carle), and cited in a reliable source (''The Guardian'' article written by its national security editor). Since we are not making any assertion, since this is carefully attributed, and since it represents a noteworthy perspective, I can see no reason to exclude it. I certainly take issue with the implication that it's somehow "a BLP vio" to accurately reflect what he really said. I would be curious what specific provision of BLP others think applies. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

==Why was "Democratic" taken out?==
Under "Electoral College", . And the description of Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, was also removed. The source clearly describes the elector request as:
"The request represents the latest effort by '''Democratic''' electors to look to the Electoral College as a possible bulwark against a Trump presidency."
] (]) 07:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@] since you made this edit, I would like to know what issues you had with describing these Democratic electors as "Democratic electors" and stating that Christine Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's daughter? ] (]) 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:Sorry, not gonna waste my time on an obvious sock puppet account.] (]) 07:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::You've gone too far. I'm not a sock puppet. Either apologize or I will take this up with admins. ] (]) 07:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== Office of the Director of National Intelligence has NOT endorsed CIA assessment that Moscow intended to help Trump get elected ==


::::{{talkquote|"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump "|source=''''}}

This ODNI is, of course, the famed "Seventeen Agencies" we are constantly hearing reference to.

This goes contrary to much in the article and lead, namely that the allegations the Russians were attempting to elect Trump was a "consensus of multiple intelligence agencies" when it, evidently, is not. We also know the FBI does not buy into that theory either, so there absolutely IS no "consensus".

Yes, there are earlier cites from the NY Times which say this was all about electing Trump. However, this is a rapidly changing event and this article from Reuters just came out yesterday. This is yet another reason for use to stop treating Misplaced Pages like a newspaper.

I would like to remind those of us who have got it fixed into their minds that any Russian hacking must, obviously, be to aid Trump, that prior to the election, the buzz was that the Russians were going to hack the election . Seems to me they may have succeeded in that. ] (]) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:We simply need to update the article as more or different information comes out in the sources. Remember, Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. - ]] 13:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

* The ODNI joined in this later joint statement: Right now we have this as an external link; I'm thinking we should make this reference 1 instead because it is the clear well-considered statement that all the other sources since have discussed indirectly. ] (]) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== There is no evidence in the article that Russia is actually involved, why this isn't called a conspiracy theory? ==
I read the article, and found no facts proving Russian involvement. There are only various opinions, including of the "intelligence community" and the former Ambassador, but no facts. Is there a policy for labeling things "conspiracy theory"? What prevents[REDACTED] from saying this is a conspiracy theory? ] (]) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:Of course there's evidence. Please read a few sources before making such an asinine comment.- ]] 12:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::Please ]. Can you specifically point out a few sources that show the evidence to make it clear for ]? Personally I can't see the evidence either, just statements from officials at the intelligence agencies saying it exists. ] (]) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::If you have sources for particular evidence and facts, please create a separate section titled ''Facts'' or ''Evidence''. Unless such section is present, I would strongly suggest naming this supposed ''election interference by Russia'' a '']''. ] (]) 15:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but we get a lot of drive by editors that blurt out their opinions without reading sources or trying to actually help improve the article. Note that I said there was evidence, not that it was presented in the sources. For example, the article that broke the recent revelations says.
::::{{talkquote|"In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals."|source=''''}}
:::If the specific evidence is released by the government, then I'm sure we will include at least some of it. Until then, we write about the facts that are relayed by our sources.- ]] 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::::Those facts being statements about what sources say they have seen, in this case. -] (]) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:"Conspiracy theory" has been used as a derogatory and vague term, and I prefer to avoid using it 'idiomatically' in any article, including the ones people hold up as textbook cases. If a strong showing of sources using it turns up, sometimes I have to accept it anyway, since we follow the sources, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep their statements at arm's length. It only ''literally'' applies in some contexts like the JFK assassination where you can contrast it with a "lone gunman theory" in a way that is sensible.
:By definition, any mass state action, like coups, destabilizing governments, or interfering with elections, is done by a conspiracy. By referring to some of these as conspiracy theories you'd be trying to say something else, but if that's what you mean to say you should say it explicitly. ] (]) 20:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:In order to label something a conspiracy theory, one needs to show that is how it is normally described in reliable sources. I do not think any would label it one at this point since there is no publicly available evidence to prove or disprove it. ] (]) 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

: A detailed account of the evidence for Russian interference in the US election from a reliable source can be found here: {{cite news|last1=Eric Lipton, Davis E. Sanger and Scott Shane|title=The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0|accessdate=13 December 2016|newspaper=]|date=13 December 2016}}
--] (]) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::It provides no evidence. It says that according to a DNC help desk operator an FBI agent told hin he believed a group called "the Dukes," which he believed worked for the Kremlin, was targeting the DNC. Later one or more staff at the DNC were tricked into providing login information to hackers. This type of hacking is low tech and anyone with a reasonable understanding of the internet would disguise their IP address to hide their identity. ] (]) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Do any ] call it a conspiracy theory ? ] (]) 00:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::Probably someone somewhere does. Who cares? We should not label it as a "conspiracy theory" because it's obvious that ~99.9% of RS don't call it that. But neither is it a fact, at least as far as the hacking stuff goes. ] (]) 00:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Without providing the facts this page is a wall of words documenting who said what. No reasonable person can derive any particular conclusion besides that there is a lot of noise made about the topic for some reason. A pretty useless article IMO. The very existence of the article implies that this is likely true, and then the content actually contradicts it by providing no proof, only a bunch of rumors and hearsay. ] (]) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Actually, I think the issue raised in this section boils down to a semantic issue: the meaning of ''evidence''. I realize that in the world of fake news and fake evidence, the interference by Russia in the 2016 United States election is viewed as a conspiracy created by democrats, intellectual elites, and aliens from outer space, but in Misplaced Pages, we mean by evidence, sources deemed reliable by the community. --] (]) 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

: ] - ']' does associate to something voiced by a tiny fringe whereas this seems more a partisan framing or fable, so the title might have been better to use 'Alleged' or 'Suspected' since the matter is in world dispute and disregarded by many in the US including the future President. ] would indicate that other views should be presented in ] weight of prominence, such as any voiced opinions of alternative explanations, suspicions of base motives for these allegations, and so on. If nothing else, the time line is a bit problematic since the is immediately upon the Podesta leak (too fast) and specifies just one IC member which does not fit well to the general paraphrasing. But the article seems a bit plagued by hyperbolic excessive certainty and exaggeration which is perhaps just reflecting that's how the media runs ... meh. I'll suggest '''just follow the cites''' and check if the article fairly paraphrases the published situation. Surface what the countering opinions are and what weight they are due as appropriate. Cheers ] (]) 05:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::No offense to anyone, but discussing whether the allegation should be labeled a "conspiracy," when the title of the article declares that interference has occurred, is not a productive exercise. -] (]) 05:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== Trump's Linkage to Russia Sub page? ==

Should we develop a subpage that details the linkages to Russia of Trump's business, his campaign, and his upcoming administration? The new secutary of state has deep ties to Russia, Paul Manafort advocated Russian interests in the Ukraine, etc. Numourous secondary sources cite this and it seems to be pretty unique.] (]) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

:Seems like an invitation for ], at least at this point. ] 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

::There are folks making such connections and we can describe these as a polemic, but we'll have to be careful to stick close to sourced material and not let everyone with a thought drop stuff in. I'm not convinced it needs a subpage at this point, and even a sub''section'' might be hard to justify rather than merely a paragraph describing a few refs like that one above. ] (]) 21:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are a multitude of sources discussing this separate topic:

#{{citation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html|work=]|title=Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin|date=June 17, 2016|author=Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/|work=]|date=August 15, 2016|title=Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia|first=Jeff|last=Nesbit|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=https://ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/|date=October 16, 2016|work=]|title=Trump’s Russian connections|author=Michael Stott and Catherine Belton|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/07/trump-and-russia-all-the-mogul-s-men.html|work=]|title=Trump and Russia|first=James|last=Miller|date=November 7, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-russia-connections-foreign-policy-presidential-campaign/|work=]|title=Donald Trump’s Russia connections|first=James|last=Kirchick|date=April 27, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/obama-hits-trump-over-intel-briefings-alleged-russia-connections.html|work=]|title=Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections|date=December 13, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-russia-intelligence-need-to-know-214520|work=]|title=Here’s What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia|date=December 12, 2016|first=Evelyn|last=Farkas|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|title=Trump advisers with Russian ties|work=]|url=http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-advisers-with-russian-ties-830372419990|date=December 11, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-trump-treacherous-ties-russia-531386|work=]|title=Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia|first=Robert|last=Reich|authorlink=Robert Reich|date=December 13, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/presidential-candidate-donald-trumps-russian-ties-are-scaring-nato-allies/|work=]|date=November 4, 2016|title=Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s Russian ties are scaring NATO allies|first=Matthew|last=Rozsa|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|work=]|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/electoral-college-must-no_b_13546244.html|first=Harvey|last=Wasserman|authorlink=Harvey Wasserman|title=Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated|date=December 12, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/donald-trump-alfa-bank/|work=]|title=Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump|date=November 2, 2016|first=Geoffrey|last=Smith|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html|work=]|date=October 31, 2015|first=Franklin|last=Foer|title=Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.salon.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-companys-server-was-connected-to-russian-bank-report/|work=]|title=Donald Trump company’s server was connected to Russian bank|first=Matthew|last=Rozsa|date=November 1, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/trump-organization-server-russia-bank-slate-report|work=]|title=Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank|author=Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs|date=November 1, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|work=]|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-computer-server-russia-alfa-bank/|first=Brian|last=Mastroianni|date=November 1, 2016|title=Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2016/11/10/montini-vladimir-putin-donald-trump/93607332/|title=Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?|first=EJ|last=Montini|date=November 10, 2016|work=]|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|work=]|publisher=]|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36862749|date=July 27, 2016|title=Are there any Trump links to Putin?|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/3137412/security/is-it-real-the-trump-russia-server-connection.html|work=]|title=Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection|first=Roger A.|last=Grimes|date=November 1, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}
#{{citation|publisher=]|title=Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies|date=November 1, 2016|url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-russia-ties-become-the-subject-multiple-controversies|first=Steve|last=Benen|work=]|accessdate=December 14, 2016}}

Here are some sources that are examples. ] (]) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::No,obviously per WP:CHERRY. Why not make an article about Trump's tweets? Or HRC's "connections" to various foreigners? Or the myriad of other partisan junk hashed and rehashed ad nauseam during every election campaign? ] (]) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::: Becauae the Russian government to support Clinton and multiple sources point to the importance of that connection?] (]) 02:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:::: You are using Trump's vague "connections" to Russia to imply that he is doing Putin's bidding. Of course Clinton has no allegations of this kind lobbed against ... none at all. ] (]) 11:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::A lot of these source seem to be speculating and I don't think that makes for a good foundation for a new article. The subject could probably be covered in summary form at ] and ].- ]] 12:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

==Active arbitration remedies==
Please notice that I have put this article under active arbitration remedies, see the top of the page. The most important restrictions are a ''']''' restriction — no editor may make more than one revert per 24 hours — and a '''consensus requirement''', whereby editors must obtain consensus here on talk before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). ] &#124; ] 20:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
:Honestly though, is it absolutely necessary to keep the move protection warning template? When I got here this morning there was a half page of templates at the top of the article, and now we're just creeping back. ] 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::That's not on this page but on the article — do you really see half a page of templates there? As for "keeping" it, ] put it there four hours ago. I suggest you appeal to him/her if you think it's unsightly. I must go, I see people are already querying my "arbitration remedies" on my page. (The real creep, in my personal opinion, are the wikiprojects. Quite pointless templates in 99 cases out of a hundred, thank goodness they've been collapsed.) ] &#124; ] 21:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
:::Well, was getting fairly close. ] 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

{{U|Bishonen}}, or perhaps {{U|MelanieN}}: Would one of you kind and talented admins please add an edit notice to the article so that editors can't claim that they didn't know about the restrictions? Like this: ]. Here's where to put it: ]. Many thanks.- ]] 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:I've now as requested by ]. ] (]) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S. ==

*{{citation|title=The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.|work=]|date=December 13, 2016|accessdate=December 13, 2016|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html|author=Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane}}
*{{citation|date=December 13, 2016|accessdate=December 13, 2016|work=]|url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/27/us/politics/trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html|title=Following the Links From Russian Hackers to the U.S. Election|author=Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane}}

Detailed investigation by '']'', can be used in this article. ] (]) 22:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:: Some really good details. Will be interesting to see how this page evolves as more details come Forth.] (]) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and also ''The New York Times'' reports it wasn't just the Presidential election, there were attempts to influence Congressional races as well. ] (]) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking ==

*{{citation|title=Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking|accessdate=December 14, 2016|work=]|date=December 13, 2016|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html|author=Eric Lipton and Scott Shane}}

Not just "presidential election".

So article title should just say "election" and not "presidential election".

] (]) 03:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== Fixed a cherry-picked, misleading quote from the lead ==

In , I changed the text so that we directly quote from the NYT text, instead of cherry-picking to include only parts that imply strong confidence in the analysis of old intelligence.

Here is the NYT paragraph in full:

{{tq|''"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."''}}

Here is how the article characterized the source prior to my edit:

{{tq|''"This conclusion was based on significant ] before the election."''}}

Here is how the article characterizes the source after my edit:

{{tq|''"This conclusion was based on what "many believe is overwhelming ] — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments," obtained before the election."''}}

I think we should consider including an addendum that the NYT also provided - that the "conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence." This is another qualifier and it is possible to paraphrase it. -] (]) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:Because, once again, you are misrepresenting the source by omitting the fact that the key point of disagreement is NOT about whether Russia interfered or not, but rather, what their goal was.] (]) 05:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Volunteer Marek}} I don't know what you're referring to.

::{{u|Sagecandor}} I don't mind the paraphrase you've introduced, which more accurately reflects the source than our previous text. -] (]) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::: by {{u|Darouet}} followed by by myself. Glad we were able to work together collaboratively on this. ] (]) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I reverted Sagecandor's edit . The reason given in my edit summary was "Not supported by source. The source didn't say that the 'some' and 'many' were in the 'intelligence community' and didn't say that some 'doubted' the conclusion, but rather said not enough evidence for a firm judgement." --] (]) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::Again, for the umpteenth time, the issue is how the info from the source is being presented. The way Darouet is trying to present it is as if there was a dispute about '''whether the interference by Russia happened'''. There is no such disagreement reported in the source. The disagreement presented in the source is about what the evidence says about '''the purpose''' behind the interference - where they trying to help Trump or just sewing chaos. In the source, where it says "This conclusion was based on...", the "this" is pretty clear in the context. But Darouet chops off that context to make it seem like "this" refers to something else. It amounts to misrepresenting the source.] (]) 16:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Could you suggest an edit? --] (]) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

* Sorry, didn't see there was a discussion going on here. I already changed the wording back to Sagecandor's because it summarizes the source accurately and briefly: ''"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."'' - the conclusion having been stated in the first paragraph of this Misplaced Pages article. Since the consensus here seems to be use Sagecandor's version, I'll leave it, yes/no? ] (]) 16:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::No, I think you need to self revert your edit which restored a change that Sagecandor recently made and was reverted. At present you're in violation of an ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDY, which could lead to you being blocked. There isn't consensus here for the version that you restored. --] (]) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this:
*{{tq|This conclusion was based on ] gathered prior to the election, while others in the intelligence community felt they could not come to strong conclusions.<ref name="swell">{{cite news|last1=Mazzetti|first1=Mark|last2=Lichblau|first2=Eric|title=C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0|accessdate=12 December 2016|work=New York Times|date=11 December 2016|quote=many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments}}</ref>}}
Better wording for compromise to all ? ] (]) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

*The evidence for the hack being directed or ordered by the Kremlin is also circumstantial (according to any sensible definition of the word). It does not mean it's wrong or improbable, but it's simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise. See ] or an elaboration. I'm not sure we should use that exact word, but it's simply a fact that direct or even semi-direct evidence does not exist.] (]) 00:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
**{{Ping|Guccisamsclub}}Is my suggested wording okay ? ] (]) 00:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
***It's certainly OK in my opinion, because it describes the nature of the evidence presented so far (the CIA admits it has ''no specific direct evidence'', although it has not presented any yet) and it is explicitly described as "circumstantial" in some sources. I think circumstantial works fine because it is not a POV-term like "speculative" or "alleged". Convincing evidence can still be circumstantial. ] (]) 00:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
****Great thank you {{u|Guccisamsclub}} good to hear we agree on this proposed wording. And probably over time more information will come to light as government officials make more things public on the record, hopefully. ] (]) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
*****I modified the intro wording at . Anyone else feel free to let me know and I'll modify it or undo it. Further suggestions on how to improve the wording would be appreciated. Glad {{u|Guccisamsclub}} and I could agree on this. ] (]) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
*Sagecandor, No. it introduces more problems, in addition to those I mentioned previously. The source didn't say "intelligence community". You left out "overwhelming" from the source's phrase "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". You represent your first part as fact instead of opinion. Also, your edit modifies a previous edit that is a violation of an ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDY so that your edit may be a violation too. --] (]) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
**Phew this is laborious. , per talk page request by {{u|Bob K31416}}. Will propose alternate wording. ] (]) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
*{{Ping|Guccisamsclub|Bob K31416}}How about this wording:
**{{tq|This conclusion was based on significant ] gathered prior to the election; others felt there was not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions.<ref name="swell">{{cite news|last1=Mazzetti|first1=Mark|last2=Lichblau|first2=Eric|title=C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0|accessdate=12 December 2016|work=New York Times|date=11 December 2016|quote=many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments}}</ref>}}
*Look acceptable now? ] (]) 00:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
*You probably want to attribute both, as the RS does. Nobody disagrees that the evidence is circumstantial: some think its "overwhelming", others dont. ] (]) 00:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
**{{Ping|Guccisamsclub|Bob K31416}}Doesn't the proposed wording already say that? How would you change the proposed wording without using quotations from the article but instead paraphrasing? ] (]) 01:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
****Re how to change the wording without using quotations – "It appeared to several American officials that the conclusion was based on ] obtained before the election and that many, but not all, believe the evidence to be overwhelming." --] (]) 01:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
*****I'm okay with that wording by {{u|Bob K31416}}, {{u|Guccisamsclub}}, is that good with you ? ] (]) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
******Cool. ] (]) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
*******] made a comment previously, which may need some clarification, and that editor may want to comment on whether this is OK. --] (]) 01:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== SYNTH ==

I have reverted two edits that made SYNTHy insinuations. Any sources that directly and explicitly express doubt as to the Russian interference should be presented and evaluated in policy-compliant manner, including as to RS, WEIGHT, and V. ]] 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, that cherry-picked quote from McCain is both out of context, and obfuscates the overall theme of the source article which is that McCain wants an investigations while acknowledging that the Russian's interfered and it would not be out of character for them to try to swing an election.- ]] 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::No problem, best to stick to concrete actions currently being undertaken and simply state those as facts, with less emphasis on quotations in the article. ] (]) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::SPECIFICO, you're not entitled to two reverts at this page (as you should well know considering your past efforts to get me blocked simply for making multiple ''edits'' to articles subject to DS, ). I agree with Sagecandor about moving away from quotations, but given the current strong emphasis on quotations it is important to make sure the nuances of the subjects's remarks are accurately conveyed; "''the facts are there''" is misleading when McCain candidly concedes there are few facts at present pertaining to Russia's motive. A note disclosing Morell's conflict of interest—it is quite unusual for a former Director of Central Intelligence to openly take sides in a Presidential campaign the way Morell did—would not be uncommon and would not constitute SYNTH unless we added a "''therefore''" clause explaining that readers should disregard his commentary. Finally, SPECIFICO, if you continue this pattern of only reverting edits by your "opponents" while vowing the ] will catch up with you.] (]) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== BLP rational for removing information regarding Seth Rich ==

{{replyto|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I hate to point out the obvious here, but BLP relates to information regarding living persons. So, using it as grounds for is confusing to me. - ] (]) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:] says: {{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.}} ] (]) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Hence the edit was in full compliance with BLP because it was sourced to several RS. ] (]) 02:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::Well, this should be considered when assessing Assange's credibility. I've recently added this info to ]. I don't see this as BLP vio against Rich, since the edit did not lend any credibility — rather the exact opposite — to the insinuations by Assange and WikiLeaks. It's only unfair to Assange: we're noting that he's feeding conspiracy theories, but not commenting on the fact that disinformation is an important part of the CIA's job. So if we add the stuff about Rich back, we should probably add the unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory" from former CIA officer Glenn Carlee . ] (]) 21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

==]==
I think it is important to note somewhere that the hacking/interference was allegedly conducted by the Russia’s ] military intelligence (hence the possible sanctions), as noted
and . There are other military and intelligence organizations in Russia, but that one was specifically involved according to the publications. ] (]) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

== U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack ==

*{{citation|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146|work=]|date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 14, 2016|title=U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack|author=William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Cynthia McFadden}}

New information from '']'' on personal involvement by ] in directing the covert operation. ] (]) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
: My word that article provides some great details. I need to find the time to help add some of this. ] (]) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

::Can't we at least pause for a few hours before inserting breaking news with the most far-reaching conclusions. Is WP a newsdesk now? (Side note: if they do a "leak" on Putin as payback, that will certainly be of huge interest and the best thing to come out of this whole scandal) ] (]) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, it is a topic with wide coverage, and '']'' is a reliable source. But {{u|Guccisamsclub}} I agree with you that ]. ] (]) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::This is a significant development, but it would be wise to wait for a couple of additional sources to corroborate it before adding it to the article.- ]] 02:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::It's attributed in the text in every sentence to '']''. ] (]) 02:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Found a second source, will add that also. ] (]) 02:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Craig Murray ==

Any reason why he's being left out? Here's a recent source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html -- just wondering, don't have time for an edit war. ] (]) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:''The Daily Mail'' fails ]. ] (]) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::The source originally cited was the Guardian, and there are other RS'. ] (]) 01:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Links? ] (]) 01:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

He's cited in this piece. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report -- Also any authoritative discussions regarding the Daily Mail being an unreliable source on Wiki? It's frequently cited elsewhere... it's one of the biggest UK newspapers. ] (]) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/ Washington Times ] (]) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the info. There appears to be no justification for removal besides ].--] (]) 04:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:It appears involved admin Volunteer Marek simply and he wanted to make a ].] (]) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Undue weight for consortiumnews.com ? ==

This edit appears to create ] for source consortiumnews.com, which I'm not even sure is a reliable source here.


Face it. They're both just conspiracy theories. Stop treating one as fact and the other as fiction. I hate how each side flaunts the same conspiracy theory but acts like it's not a conspiracy theory just because it fits their narrative. When a source doesn't fit a person's narrative, they label it an unreliable source, when a source does fit their narrative, they label it a reliable source, despite the characteristics of said sources being the same
In addition with regards to the group behind the memo, this description is not encouraging: .
] (]) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


:Because foreign interference in the 2016 election is a fact and a stolen 2020 election is fiction. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
If this development has not been covered by multiple other independent reliable secondary sources other than the primary source itself -- it should be removed. ] (]) 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::No, it's not. Neither is fact. If Russiagate were, there would've been sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and even this page acknowledges that there wasn't. ] (]) 15:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
: Concur.] (]) 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::I agree. While most of the text/diff was well sourced, the part sourced to consortiumnews.com should indeed be removed as based on a single primary source and essentially an opinion piece. ] (]) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC) :::THis is about Russian interference, there is evidence of that. What there is not evidence for is Trump knowingly asking them to do it. ] (]) 15:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Your mistaking {{tq|foreign interference}} for {{tq|collusion}} is unfortunate, but not our problem. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::So you choose to separate the Interference from Trump. That's fine, as long as you accept the ridiculous nature of the collusion c ] (]) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Where do we say there was collusion? ] (]) 16:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: IP24.121.228.241, more accurately, where do we say there was "conspiracy"? There was plenty of cooperation, also known as collusion, but Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination". These are specific terms used in investigations, so we should be careful. Mueller's investigation was a limited, not very thorough, and strictly criminal investigation, so non-criminal, even treasonous, collusion was of little interest to him, and he said so. He specifically addressed collusion and how he did not treat it the same as conspiracy. See ].
::::: The ], which dwarfs the Mueller investigation in size and thoroughness, was a counterintelligence investigation, and it found plenty of very worrying open and secret cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Read ].
::::: On August 16, 2018, former CIA Director ] stated that Trump's claims of no collusion with Russia were "hogwash":
::::: {{blockquote| The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.<ref name="Brennan_8/16/2018">{{cite news | last=Brennan | first=John O. | title=Opinion – John Brennan: President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash | newspaper=] | date=August 16, 2018 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html | access-date=August 18, 2018}}</ref>}}
::::: Trump and Barr claimed that Mueller exonerated Trump and that there was "no collusion", but that was false:
::::: {{blockquote| As Mueller made clear in the public statement he offered Wednesday — his first of substance since being appointed as special counsel — Trump’s summary was not an accurate one. The special counsel’s report explicitly rejected analysis of “collusion,” a vague term that lacks a legal meaning. Instead of a lack of “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Mueller said that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."<ref name="Bump_5/29/2019">{{cite web | last=Bump | first=Philip | title=Trump's mantra was once 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It isn't anymore. | website=] | date=May 29, 2019 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/trumps-mantra-was-once-no-collusion-no-obstruction-it-isnt-anymore/ | access-date=September 29, 2024}}</ref>}}
::::: So words mean something. Be careful and be specific. -- ] (]) (PING me) 17:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::you dont sound academically oriented. russiagate is a conspiracy theory ] (]) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Again this article is about Russian interface, not collusion. ] (]) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There was foreign interference in every election, and technically all kinds of errors in every election, yet there are no dozens of sections articles with references longer than my arm about them. Who cares if he met with foreigners prior to assuming office? Thats normal, every president did it and he's doing it now. Who cares that some Russian university bought $~200k in facebook ads or ran some experiments? Every Canadian, European and American university has similar social media experiments (I took part in one). Zero convictions came from this, its all smoke and mirrors.
::::From the outside, this is a 4 year attempt to delegitimize an elected president, an attempt by one party, media, loyalists of the prior regime, and supporters of institutions who wanted to ilicitly grab power for their bureocratic fiefdoms. These groups colluded to perform a soft coup which succeeded in many ways - eg. refusal to follow direct POTUS orders on exiting Syria, direct statement that a general would "warn china" of a surprise attack the POTUS does, refusal to end the lockdown after the first two weeks... It has never happened before in history.
::::And Misplaced Pages is now part of this soft coup, with all that entails. ] (]) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:because[REDACTED] has unfortunately a far left bias ] (]) 09:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::If you mean a bias for RS, yes. ] (]) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


{{reftalk}}
:::This is not the kind of source we should use for this article when there are many, many much more reputable sources. - ]] 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::OK, I removed it. ] (]) 02:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::I completely agree. ''Consortium News'' is basically a self-published blog specifically devoted to ]'s conspiracy theories, such as the ]. Parry may have been a respected journalist once, but his credibility has all but evaporated—as several discussions at ] have affirmed.] (]) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Agree with above analysis by {{u|Casprings}}, {{u|My very best wishes}}, {{u|MrX}}, and {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}. Unfortunately, the poor sources were reverted back into the article at . ] (]) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 ==
:Your comment gives ] to the ] regarding ]. Note that
:* the drafters of the have excellent reputations: ], ], ], ], Elizabeth Murray (Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)), and Kirk Wiebe (former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.))
:* AEI is well-known to be unreliably neoconservative, as noted by several sources including
:** : ''In 2009, AEI, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, received the contribution from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), Taiwan’s equivalent to an embassy. The think tank couches its hard-nosed advocacy of arms sales and trade agreements with Taiwan as a strategic necessity for the United States. “Withholding needed arms from Taiwan in the present makes a future conflict—and US intervention therein—more likely,” wrote AEI senior research associate Michael Mazza in an October 2011 article in The Diplomat. But AEI’s undisclosed source of foreign funding raises ethical and legal questions about AEI’s Taiwan-policy work.''
:** : ''It wasn't until the George W. Bush administration, when its strong neoconservative leanings lined up nicely with Bush's foreign policy agenda, that AEI again became prominent. But as Bush's neoconservative policies fell out of favor and a new administration took over, it was evident AEI still had not captured the insider-Beltway status that made Heritage so influential.''
:** : ''Outside of the administration, the chief fulcrum of neoconservatism is the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. The day after the Libby verdict, AEI held its annual black-tie gala at the Washington Hilton, and for some reason, they invited me. I did not go expecting contrition, but under the circumstances, it seemed possible that self-examination might be featured on the menu. Once a lazy pasture for moderate Republicans hurtled into the private sector by Gerald Ford's 1976 defeat, AEI took a right turn during the Reagan years and emerged under George W. Bush as a kind of Cheney-family think tank.''
:** : ''I had first met Pletka 12 years ago, when A.E.I., seen then as the intellectual command post of the neoconservative campaign for regime change in Iraq, welcomed another visitor from the East: Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, the purveyor of “intelligence” about Saddam Hussein that would later turn out to be bogus. The shift in emphasis seemed marked. It was always apparent that fulfilling Chalabi’s ambitions was likely to require a war.''
:AEI is not a "reliable secondary source," period. ] (]) 03:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::We are in consensus here on the talk page that consortiumnews.com fails ]. ] (]) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=y}}
== Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races ==
]:


During a ] with Russian Foreign Minister ] and Ambassador ] on May 10, 2017...
*{{citation|title=Russia targeted Democrats in competitive House races, and the GOP played along|work=]|url=http://theweek.com/speedreads/667293/russia-targeted-democrats-competitive-house-races-gop-played-along|date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016}}
*{{citation|url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/14/hacked-material-found-its-way-into-house-races/95420664/|accessdate=December 15, 2016|work=]|title=Hacked material found its way into House races|author=Jason Stein and Mary Spicuzza |date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016}}
*{{citation|url=http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/gop-super-pac-linked-to-paul-ryan-used-illegally-hacked-material-against-democratic-house-candidates-report/|work=]|date=December 14, 2016|accessdate=December 15, 2016|title=GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report|first=Sophia|last=Tesfaye}}


This is the same event, can you please add a hyperlink? —— ] (]) 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not just "presidential" election in 2016.
:{{done}} ] (]) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Grateful. —— ] (]) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 ==
Multiple elections.


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=yes}}
Article title should NOT say "presidential" but just "election" or "elections" in title.
In the U.S. Government Response section, I think the sentence "At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Should be changed to "At least 17 distinct legal investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." I think the original phrasing is unclear as it makes it seem like there were 17 intelligence investigations whereas the cited source is only talking about legal cases against Donald Trump in relation to the 2016 Election. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Unbalanced section ==
] (]) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


This article's section titled "2020 committee report" (8.1.2) contains three paragraphs verbatim of Democratic members' assessment of the Committee report, sourced from the end of Volume 5 of the Report under the title: ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HEINRICH, FEINSTEIN, WYDEN, HARRIS, AND BENNET. The same section of this article represents Republicans' view with a partial quote, the equivalent of a single sentence, from Senator Rubio, which is sourced from ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT,
== Adrian Chen removal ==
COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE in Volume 5 of the Report. This, in my assessment, is a clearly and seriously unbalanced treatment of the partisan reactions to the report. A remedy is required and could be one of the following: 1) Reducing the size of the Democratic quoted response and adding a similarly-sized block quote from the Republican response; 2) Eliminating the three paragraphs quoting the Democratic response and adding a Democratic response to the body of the text similar in size the to single quotation from Rubio; 3) Enlarging the Republican quotation in the body of the text and adding a similarly-sized Democratic quotation in the body text while removing the oversize Democratic block quote; 4) Adding three paragraphs of quotations from the Republican response to balance the extended Democratic block quotation. My preference is #1, #2 or #3, because lengthy quotations of primary material are discouraged in Misplaced Pages. The Democratic response in the committee Report is considerably longer than the Republican response, but that does not justify such clearly unbalanced treatment (effectively one sentence, compared to three paragraphs) in this section of this article, a situation that can readily and justifiably be interpreted as a partisan slant in this article that we should unhesitatingly correct. ] (]) 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


Done. {{tick}} ] (]) 00:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with removal of source ] with this edit .


:That is an invalid argument per ]. In other words, there is no obligation to include one party's take just because another party's take is included. But I have deleted all of those lengthy quotes because they are cited only to primary sources. ] (]) 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Adrian Chen is not being cited as a foreign policy expert.
::I can accept deletion of all the primary source quotations. Originally, the Democratic block quotation was introduced with essentially undisguised favoritism by an editor who wrote:
::"Contrary to some of the Republican members of the Committee, the Democratic Senators had no doubts about Trump and his campaign's efforts to help Russia"...
::...and then proceeded to load up the section with the three paragraphs of Democratic opinions about the Report, while constraining the Republican response to the single-sentence Rubio quotation.
::This was not a case of false balance, however. That part of the NPOV policy says: "policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". Applying that guidance to justify the three-paragraph vs. single-sentence imbalance that existed in the article section would denote that the Republican opinion is, according to some unspecified authority, "minority", "fringe" or "extraordinary". Undoubtedly, some professional pundits and some Misplaced Pages editors believe that to be the case, but such political opinions cannot be reflected in the content and proportionality of our articles, unless explicitly attributed.
::The U.S. Republican and Democratic political parties contend the issues covered in the Senate Report and use different key words to make their points, especially "collusion" and "cooperation". I am not aware that any neutral or undisputed authority has adjudicated that one side or the other is in the minority or espouses a fringe view. Rather, this is a case of political partisanship between the two major U.S. political parties, and we have an obligation to represent their views with adequate balance. ] (]) 02:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


==Opening sentence==
He is being cited as an expert on online and social media.


'''I've been reverted. '''
He is a staff writer for '']'' and his research on Russian trolls has been widely cited.


] (talk | ])
This material should be added back to the article.


Undid revision ] by ] (]). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV
] (]) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


:It would appear that anything the US "intelligence community" claims is now, per Goegene, a '''fact''' - unless you can '''prove''' it isn't. This is so bizzare that it appears to '''prove''' the online conspiracy theories that the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki. Seriously? And is the American Intelligence Community the only one on Earth whose utterances are taken as FACT - or are there others? ] (]) 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: I agree. ] (]) 03:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::It was just US intelegence that said it. ] (]) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Is this fact being disputed in reliable sources? ] says, {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.}}. So, I will ask you again, {{u|Sarah777}}, is there credible opposition in reliable sources? If there is not, then this is a ''fact''. ] (]) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You are assuming there are reliable sources to support the original claim. What are they? ] (]) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not sources exist for ]? ] (]) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Reliable ones - you know, other than the "US intelligence community" or sources merely citing them. Yes, I'm asking for that. ] (]) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There are 605 sources cited in the article. You must not be serious. ] (]) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm very serious. Can you point out a few of those 605 sources which are not citing the "US intelligence community" or sources merely repeating those claims? ] (]) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"Can you point out a reliable source, but not one of those 605 reliable sources?" The RS are RS, even if you want to discount them all. What would you accept as a valid source on this topic? A MAGA Republican's twitter feed? You're not going to be satisfied with the result of this conversation so it's best to accept it and move on. {{tq|the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki}} is pretty ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So, out of 605 "reliable sources" you can't even supply one?! And I'm not American and have zero interest in the Maga folk. To me the DNC and Maga are two sides of the same coin. ] (]) ] (]) 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Btw..."but not one of those 605 reliable sources" - I'm stating that I don't beleive any of them are reliable sources. Seemingly you can't supply any source that hasn't originated with the US "intelligence community". Why am I not surprised? ] (]) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, not "can't", "won't". I'm not playing your game. It's not on me to satisfy you personally after all of the years of editing and consensus-building that has taken place on this article, especially when you've already ] to such a ridiculous place beyond the pitch. I don't care where you're from (other than it influencing my choice of the word "pitch" over "field") and what you personally believe is irrelevant here. I care that we have RS in the article, 605 of them in fact, and they are reliable ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Nonsense. And you probably know it. ] (]) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:56, 2 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections at the Reference desk.
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.
Good articlesRussian interference in the 2016 United States elections was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 6, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconComputer Security: Computing High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).
Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:
Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...
  • Review importance and quality of existing articles
  • Identify categories related to Computer Security
  • Tag related articles
  • Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
  • Identify articles for improvement
  • Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
  • Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconEspionage Top‑importance
WikiProject iconRussian 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / Technology / Post-Cold War C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Politics and law High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections / Government / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Why does Misplaced Pages label the 2020 election theft conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, but not the 2016 Collusion?

Face it. They're both just conspiracy theories. Stop treating one as fact and the other as fiction. I hate how each side flaunts the same conspiracy theory but acts like it's not a conspiracy theory just because it fits their narrative. When a source doesn't fit a person's narrative, they label it an unreliable source, when a source does fit their narrative, they label it a reliable source, despite the characteristics of said sources being the same 24.121.228.241 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Because foreign interference in the 2016 election is a fact and a stolen 2020 election is fiction. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not. Neither is fact. If Russiagate were, there would've been sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and even this page acknowledges that there wasn't. 24.121.228.241 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
THis is about Russian interference, there is evidence of that. What there is not evidence for is Trump knowingly asking them to do it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Your mistaking foreign interference for collusion is unfortunate, but not our problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
So you choose to separate the Interference from Trump. That's fine, as long as you accept the ridiculous nature of the collusion c 24.121.228.241 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Where do we say there was collusion? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
IP24.121.228.241, more accurately, where do we say there was "conspiracy"? There was plenty of cooperation, also known as collusion, but Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination". These are specific terms used in investigations, so we should be careful. Mueller's investigation was a limited, not very thorough, and strictly criminal investigation, so non-criminal, even treasonous, collusion was of little interest to him, and he said so. He specifically addressed collusion and how he did not treat it the same as conspiracy. See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report, which dwarfs the Mueller investigation in size and thoroughness, was a counterintelligence investigation, and it found plenty of very worrying open and secret cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Read Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015–2016 foreign surveillance of Russian targets.
On August 16, 2018, former CIA Director John Brennan stated that Trump's claims of no collusion with Russia were "hogwash":

The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.

Trump and Barr claimed that Mueller exonerated Trump and that there was "no collusion", but that was false:

As Mueller made clear in the public statement he offered Wednesday — his first of substance since being appointed as special counsel — Trump’s summary was not an accurate one. The special counsel’s report explicitly rejected analysis of “collusion,” a vague term that lacks a legal meaning. Instead of a lack of “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Mueller said that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

So words mean something. Be careful and be specific. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
you dont sound academically oriented. russiagate is a conspiracy theory Nickmariostories (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Again this article is about Russian interface, not collusion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
There was foreign interference in every election, and technically all kinds of errors in every election, yet there are no dozens of sections articles with references longer than my arm about them. Who cares if he met with foreigners prior to assuming office? Thats normal, every president did it and he's doing it now. Who cares that some Russian university bought $~200k in facebook ads or ran some experiments? Every Canadian, European and American university has similar social media experiments (I took part in one). Zero convictions came from this, its all smoke and mirrors.
From the outside, this is a 4 year attempt to delegitimize an elected president, an attempt by one party, media, loyalists of the prior regime, and supporters of institutions who wanted to ilicitly grab power for their bureocratic fiefdoms. These groups colluded to perform a soft coup which succeeded in many ways - eg. refusal to follow direct POTUS orders on exiting Syria, direct statement that a general would "warn china" of a surprise attack the POTUS does, refusal to end the lockdown after the first two weeks... It has never happened before in history.
And Misplaced Pages is now part of this soft coup, with all that entails. 72.136.117.53 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
because[REDACTED] has unfortunately a far left bias Nickmariostories (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
If you mean a bias for RS, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Brennan, John O. (August 16, 2018). "Opinion – John Brennan: President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  2. Bump, Philip (May 29, 2019). "Trump's mantra was once 'no collusion, no obstruction.' It isn't anymore". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey:

During a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on May 10, 2017...

This is the same event, can you please add a hyperlink? —— Cbls1911 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Grateful. —— Cbls1911 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the U.S. Government Response section, I think the sentence "At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Should be changed to "At least 17 distinct legal investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." I think the original phrasing is unclear as it makes it seem like there were 17 intelligence investigations whereas the cited source is only talking about legal cases against Donald Trump in relation to the 2016 Election. HolyRomanSloth (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Tessaract2 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced section

This article's section titled "2020 committee report" (8.1.2) contains three paragraphs verbatim of Democratic members' assessment of the Committee report, sourced from the end of Volume 5 of the Report under the title: ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS HEINRICH, FEINSTEIN, WYDEN, HARRIS, AND BENNET. The same section of this article represents Republicans' view with a partial quote, the equivalent of a single sentence, from Senator Rubio, which is sourced from ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT, COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE in Volume 5 of the Report. This, in my assessment, is a clearly and seriously unbalanced treatment of the partisan reactions to the report. A remedy is required and could be one of the following: 1) Reducing the size of the Democratic quoted response and adding a similarly-sized block quote from the Republican response; 2) Eliminating the three paragraphs quoting the Democratic response and adding a Democratic response to the body of the text similar in size the to single quotation from Rubio; 3) Enlarging the Republican quotation in the body of the text and adding a similarly-sized Democratic quotation in the body text while removing the oversize Democratic block quote; 4) Adding three paragraphs of quotations from the Republican response to balance the extended Democratic block quotation. My preference is #1, #2 or #3, because lengthy quotations of primary material are discouraged in Misplaced Pages. The Democratic response in the committee Report is considerably longer than the Republican response, but that does not justify such clearly unbalanced treatment (effectively one sentence, compared to three paragraphs) in this section of this article, a situation that can readily and justifiably be interpreted as a partisan slant in this article that we should unhesitatingly correct. DonFB (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. checkY DonFB (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an invalid argument per WP:FALSEBALANCE. In other words, there is no obligation to include one party's take just because another party's take is included. But I have deleted all of those lengthy quotes because they are cited only to primary sources. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I can accept deletion of all the primary source quotations. Originally, the Democratic block quotation was introduced with essentially undisguised favoritism by an editor who wrote:
"Contrary to some of the Republican members of the Committee, the Democratic Senators had no doubts about Trump and his campaign's efforts to help Russia"...
...and then proceeded to load up the section with the three paragraphs of Democratic opinions about the Report, while constraining the Republican response to the single-sentence Rubio quotation.
This was not a case of false balance, however. That part of the NPOV policy says: "policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". Applying that guidance to justify the three-paragraph vs. single-sentence imbalance that existed in the article section would denote that the Republican opinion is, according to some unspecified authority, "minority", "fringe" or "extraordinary". Undoubtedly, some professional pundits and some Misplaced Pages editors believe that to be the case, but such political opinions cannot be reflected in the content and proportionality of our articles, unless explicitly attributed.
The U.S. Republican and Democratic political parties contend the issues covered in the Senate Report and use different key words to make their points, especially "collusion" and "cooperation". I am not aware that any neutral or undisputed authority has adjudicated that one side or the other is in the minority or espouses a fringe view. Rather, this is a case of political partisanship between the two major U.S. political parties, and we have an obligation to represent their views with adequate balance. DonFB (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I've been reverted.

Geogene (talk | contribs)

Undid revision 1264022576 by Sarah777 (talk). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV

It would appear that anything the US "intelligence community" claims is now, per Goegene, a fact - unless you can prove it isn't. This is so bizzare that it appears to prove the online conspiracy theories that the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki. Seriously? And is the American Intelligence Community the only one on Earth whose utterances are taken as FACT - or are there others? Sarah777 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It was just US intelegence that said it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this fact being disputed in reliable sources? WP:YESPOV says, Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example the sky is blue not believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.. So, I will ask you again, Sarah777, is there credible opposition in reliable sources? If there is not, then this is a fact. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You are assuming there are reliable sources to support the original claim. What are they? Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not sources exist for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Geogene (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable ones - you know, other than the "US intelligence community" or sources merely citing them. Yes, I'm asking for that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There are 605 sources cited in the article. You must not be serious. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm very serious. Can you point out a few of those 605 sources which are not citing the "US intelligence community" or sources merely repeating those claims? Sarah777 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Can you point out a reliable source, but not one of those 605 reliable sources?" The RS are RS, even if you want to discount them all. What would you accept as a valid source on this topic? A MAGA Republican's twitter feed? You're not going to be satisfied with the result of this conversation so it's best to accept it and move on. the CIA controls certain articles and has infiltrated the Arb Management system of Wiki is pretty WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
So, out of 605 "reliable sources" you can't even supply one?! And I'm not American and have zero interest in the Maga folk. To me the DNC and Maga are two sides of the same coin. Sarah777 (talk) Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Btw..."but not one of those 605 reliable sources" - I'm stating that I don't beleive any of them are reliable sources. Seemingly you can't supply any source that hasn't originated with the US "intelligence community". Why am I not surprised? Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No, not "can't", "won't". I'm not playing your game. It's not on me to satisfy you personally after all of the years of editing and consensus-building that has taken place on this article, especially when you've already moved the goal posts to such a ridiculous place beyond the pitch. I don't care where you're from (other than it influencing my choice of the word "pitch" over "field") and what you personally believe is irrelevant here. I care that we have RS in the article, 605 of them in fact, and they are reliable whether you like that or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense. And you probably know it. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Difference between revisions Add topic