Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:36, 2 November 2017 editBob K31416 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,028 edits →Need section summarizing publicly available evidence: link← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:56, 2 January 2025 edit undoCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,281 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 74.124.173.248 (talk) to last revision by CzelloTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ds/talk notice|restriction=1RR|topic=ap|style=long}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Off topic warning}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}} {{Not a forum}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{FailedGA|19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=2}}
{{Old moves
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1=
|collapse=yes
{{WikiProject Computer Security|importance=High |computing-importance=high}}
| list =
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Not moved''', 21 December 2016, ]
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
*: MRV, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Endorsed''', 7 January 2017, ]
{{WikiProject Espionage|importance=Top}}
*: RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Moved''', ]
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''Not moved''', ]
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Grizzly Steppe, '''Not moved''', 30 December 2016, ]
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, '''No consensus''', 7 January 2017, ]
{{WikiProject Internet|importance=High}}
* RM, 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia, '''No consensus''', 4 February 2017, ]
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=High}}
}}
{{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 banner shell|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProject Computer Security |class=B |importance=High |computing-importance=}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|pol=y|hist=y}}
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject United States|importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Top |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=High |US-history=yes |US-history-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject United States Presidents|importance=high|trump=yes|trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Espionage |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Hillary Clinton |class=B |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Internet |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=Start |importance=mid |Science=yes |Technology=y |Intel=y}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance= |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia |class=B |importance=Mid |pol= |hist=}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=Top |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=High}}
}} }}
{{Press {{Press
Line 40: Line 30:
|date=December 21, 2016 |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) |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 = 16 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/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? ==
== RfC: Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid and related emails to Trump’s lawyer? ==
{{archive top|1=Closed per AN request. There is '''no consensus''' to include this material here, but several editors suggest it could be used in ] instead. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)}}

Should the article include material about ]'s communication with Vladimir Putin's aid, {{color|blue|and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen}} in which he wrote {{tq|"Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."}} and material about Sater's series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, ]?

See above discussion for further background.- ]] 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Corrected: added text in {{color|blue|blue}}.- ]] 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
{{hr}}

*'''This is incorrect.''' Sater sent that email ({{tq|"Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."}}) to Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, not to an aid of Putin. No article I've read discusses any contact Sater might have had with Putin, because the evidence they possess are Cohen's emails. I'd suggest you check the and edit this, because right now people are voting on false information. ] (]) 23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

===Support===
{{strikethrough|Support
* And move to '''Trump: A Russian agent'''. ] (]) 14:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)}}
Striking joke vote. ] (]) 14:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Is that a joke (and therefore actually an oppose vote)? Not helpful. ] (]) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
* Clearly relevant to the subject and needed per ].] (]) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
* When the logical connection (an attempt, or at least an offer to use Russian Government officials to -directly or indirectly- aid a US election) is this obvious, and when the sources themselves are explicitly making the connection in their voices (note the use of the plural there), then this is a no brainer. <s>'''Hell yes, we should include it.'''</s><sup>See comment in "Oppose" subheading</sup> But if we're going to include it ''now'', we need to find sources critical of those making the connection to balance. If we can't wait until we're using hindsight to examine the issue, we can at least ''try'' to be as balanced about it as we can. Also, we shouldn't be stating anything in wikivoice unless it's something that both political sides agree on. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
* Support. It is obviously relevant to the topic at hand. ] (]) 18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*Support, but ] is a good 2nd choice. ] (]) 11:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - There is an obvious connection to the 2016 election made by the sources. This material ties in closely with investigation into collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign.- ]] 03:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - obviously relevant and well sourced.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''', subject to correcting recipient, relevant and neutrally phrased. ] would be a good 2nd choice. As with other political scandals, the character of those surrounding the principal is as relevant as the actions of the principal themselves. Would you buy a used political campaign from this person? ] (]) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The sources clearly connect it to Russian interference in the election: {{tq|"The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process."}} We have to follow their judgment in terms of focus and weight, which means including things that they cover as relevant to this topic even if some editors personally feel that the papers are making a mistake or exaggerating it. I also don't see how anyone can credibly claim that it's ] given that the sources are at least a month old; given the level and depth of coverage it received, at this point it clearly deserves at least a sentence or two in the article. --] (]) 02:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Documented psy-ops messin' per RS. ]] 02:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If it is sourced, relevant fact, it should be included. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

===Oppose===
;Oppose
* The article scope is alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. Based on current reporting, the Felix Sater story doesn't seem to involve any Russian interference in the US elections. This article isn't a ] for all stories involving the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." If there is a strong desire to include the Mr. Sater story in this article, I suggest a name change: ] was only half in jest, since it's what some editors seem to desire out of this article. -] (]) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
* I agree with Thucydides411. The scope here is Russian interference in the election, not links between Trump associates and Russians. As Objective suggests, if this is included the more appropriate article would be ]. Even there the title restricts its scope to links to Russian ''officials.'' ] (]) 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
* Per Objective3000 below, '''add to ] instead'''. The links are clearly there, but it's a much stronger linkage with that article than this one. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Off-topic. This material has nothing to do with any "election" "interference" by "Russia." Also, '''MrX misrepresents the sources '''—the {{tq|"our boy"}} quote is from an email from Trump business associate Sater to Trump lawyer Cohen. By misattributing this hyperbolic statement to an exchange between Cohen and ''Peskov'', MrX falsely implies that Peskov (and perhaps Putin himself) considered Trump {{tq|"our boy."}} The RfC should probably be amended, or else we are all debating a false premise.] (]) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Not here, but in the "links" article.''' That was good suggestion from Objective3000. Sater keeps turning up in these Russia connections, but there is no evidence he actually helped Russia interfere with the election; he seems to have been more of a freelancer with one foot in Russia and one foot in the Trump camp. --] (]) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As far as I've read, this story has nothing to do with actual Russian government efforts to interfere in the election. The way reliable sources present it, Sater just sounds like a braggart who didn't know what he was talking about, and who had no real contact with any Russian officials of note. If anything concrete comes of this, we can add it, but right now he's so completely irrelevant to this topic as to not merit mention. ] (]) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - Off topic. ] (]) 14:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose - Unless it literally says the 2016 United States election or something similar then it can't be included here. ] is a different matter though. ] (]) 14:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::It literally says ''"he could engineer Putin’s support for a Trump Tower in Moscow and thus, somehow, a victory in the US presidential election."'' ] (]) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
:::That's speculation. My grandma could have "somehow" walked on the Moon too. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – Source is grasping at straws. Indeed, ] would be the best title. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''OPPOSE''' because we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, not even a digest of periodicals, and not on a deadline. Rushing sensational material into an article is wrong no matter ''whose'' POV it favors.
:Someone accused editors who oppose going with this just now of pushing POV. When the US's leading progressive political journal ran an article questioning the Obama administration intelligence community's assessment that the Russians hacked the DNC Emails, it got called "fake news" on this page several times, which will doubtless be a shock to '']'' and its subscribers. Usually, it's conservatives saying bad things about ''The Nation''.
:] ] and ] - if there's anything to it, it'll still be includable later. When we do allude to the Sater Email, we need to weight it properly by including the statement by the Email's recipient, Mr. Cohen (President Trump's attorney). ] (]) 06:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::], I moved this from the 'threaded discussion' to the 'oppose' section. I presume that was your intention. ] (]) 07:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''', this looks like ]. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Sater ''actually'' had a hand in getting Trump elected. This is just another gossip story that was boosted by "Russiagate" media trend. --] (]) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
*Two minds, whilst I think it shows that there were some with (very) tenuous ties to the Trump campaign seeking Russian assistance it is also true that this was not his campaign directly (or even indirectly) doing this.] (]) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::Cohen, being Trump's lawyer, is a pretty direct connection. Also source puts Sater ''"at the heart of the Trump-Russia inquiry"''.] (]) 15:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

::It also doesn't seem to involve any actions taken by the Russian government. Russian actions are, after all, the topic this article purports to cover. -] (]) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Please stop being obscurantist. So what if it doesn't directly "involve any actions taken by the Russian government". It involves Trump associates SEEKING Russian government to take actions. There's the fact of interference happening. And there's WHY and HOW it happened. This is the second part.
:::The problem here for you is that you reject the idea of Russian interference ''a priori''. So to YOU whenever a source tries to explain the WHY and HOW Russian interference happened, of course you're going to think it's not irrelevant because you don't such a thing happened in the first place. But that is YOUR own POV, that is YOU trying to impose your personal opinions on the article, that is YOU refusing to follow the policy of ]. That is YOU breaking Misplaced Pages policy and now, edit warring in contravention of it. Not clear why we should put up with this.] (]) 16:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

::::Capitalizing random words doesn't make your point any clearer. This material isn't relevant, but you're trying to coatrack it into the article. And really, you're the last person who should be throwing around accusations of ]. -] (]) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::They're not "random". The capitalization stress the "YOU", as in Thucydides411, for a reason - to emphasize that YOU are trying to cram your own personal opinions down everyone's throat here, rather than relying on reliable sources per WP:RS. It's gone on long enough.] (]) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::What opinions have I tried to "cram down everyone's throat"? I've been arguing all along for a more cautious approach in this article that doesn't strongly state any side's opinion. My personal opinions on Russiagate are very different from any content I've proposed to add to the article. I don't think you've exercised any comparable caution in how you've approached the article.
::::::Just look at the current situation, for example: you're trying to add in new content, which I and a number of editors think does not fall under the subject area of this article, alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. From my perspective, it looks a lot like you're trying to ram something into the article that, at best, has only a tenuous relation to the subject area, and then you're throwing around accusations when you don't immediately get your way. -] (]) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|a number of editors}} Hope you’re not including me. I’m ambivalent on this subject and looking for a compromise. But, I agree with VM’s comments. I also think you should remove your comments from the HT talk page as I think they are harmful to HT, and not useful to the project. ] (]) 00:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, I got to ask Thucy, on HT's talk page you say that "JFG is one of the few regular editors I interact with in American politics articles". Now, since you pretty much edit only this article, where exactly have you interacted with JFG in "American politics articles"? Or with HT for that matter, since the ONLY pages you've ever edited together are drama boards , not even here. Is it some kind of ] kind of thing? (And if you think this is off topic - it's much less so than bringing up 8 year old ArbCom cases just to be a deeayceekay) ] (]) 10:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Volunteer Marek is exactly right. Thucydides411 is engaged in long-term tendentious editing on this article. His conduct should be reviewed at ]. ] three months ago, but unfortunately, I've been too busy to complete and file it.- ]] 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Thuc, please keep your "personal opinions" off this page. WP editing is not about anybody's opinions. It's about conveying the weight of RS discourse on the subject. And by "subject" we mean the subject of this article, which -- as you know -- is not "alleged Russian interference..." RS tell us in some detail that psy-ops to create chatter among folks in Trump's circle is Russian interference. I'm not going to repeat the details here, because the current discussion is more limited in scope. All these Russian-Trumpan connections are understood by RS accounts to be elements of the extensive and wildly successful psy-ops campaign. ]] 23:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::What I meant was that there is no evidence that any one fro the Trump campaign took him up on the offer. Thus the link is no more then Bert from the pub sending an e-mail to Cohen saying he get get trump two ounces of snout can be used to prove trump smokes dodgy fags.] (]) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I get what you're saying, but the subject in the sentence that is the article title isn't Trump; It's Russia. So to keep with the weed (I think it's weed, my euphemisms are more American than yours) analogy, we're not including "so and so offered to buy Trump two ounces of cheap weed" in an article about Trump, we're including "so and so said Backstreet Larry can get him weed at cheap prices" in an article about ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but anyone can claim they can do something, the issue is whether or not this is credible (and it seems not). Simply put this is a bet business man trying to sell a bridge and failing.There is no evidence that anyone took him seriously, or even actually had any contacts with the Russians to any meaningful degree.This really is some back street shyster getting for more publicity then his influence deserves, it's a nothing. The more I think about it the less relevant it all seems.] (]) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::The sources seem to disagree with you. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 18:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::No, Slatersteven accurately paraphrases : {{tq|"'''There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties.''' In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But '''Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries'''.&nbsp;... As a broker for the Trump Organization, '''Mr. Sater had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen.'''"}} Nowhere does America's paper of record endorse a connection to election interference; to the contrary, it explicitly states {{tq|"The emails obtained by ''The Times'' make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails."}}] (]) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Ever heard of a disclaimer? News outlets like to do that. They make a claim, then they point out that the claim isn't 100% certain to cover their asses if they have to recant later. Cherry picking the sources to support an interpretation isn't a particularly smart thing to do when you're discussing things with people who've read the sources themselves, because it just reflects poorly on your judgement. And before you end up on a podium again:
::::::::{{tq|The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.}}
::::::::{{tq|American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process.}}
::::::::Or perhaps:
::::::::{{tq|The Trump Organization on Monday turned over emails to the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election and whether anyone in Mr. Trump’s campaign was involved. Some of the emails were obtained by The Times.}}
::::::::Or maybe:
::::::::{{tq|Mr. Trump, who began praising Mr. Putin years before the presidential campaign, has said there was no collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian sources.}}
::::::::For a source not drawing a connection, they sure seem to write quite a bit about the election inteference. Those quotes I gave aren't all of the coverage that article gives to the interference, and yet they still make up about 15-20% of the article themselves. I'm sorry, but when 20% or more of an article is devoted to a subject that's not in the headline, the assertion that the source isn't drawing a link between the headline and that subject is just complete bullshit.
::::::::It's surprising, really. There's a situation in which the Trump campaign was offered a chance to interfere in the election and they ignored it. To editors not so dead-eyed focused on defending Trump against any hint of wrongdoing (to the point of consistently denying the involvement of Russia to begin with), this seems like the sort of thing that would help balance out the views. It's a chance to show that the Trump campaign had standards, if not of ethics then at least of competence. Besides, you haven't been paying attention to the !voting, above. I actually !voted to exclude it from this article and add it to a more relevant article. So all you're accomplishing here is showing off your political POV, and we've all already seen it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*Saturnalia, please read ].] (]) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*I’d remove it from here, add it to ] and call it a day. If and when the story expands, then restore it here with additional info. ] (]) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*this is part of the long-documented and ongoing Russian psy-ops on the Trump team. It is not clear to me that we have enough context and detail to give a good encyclopedic balance to this content. RS clearly discuss the Russians having messed with the minds of the Trump circle, but the details, at least as publicly reported by RS, are not fully elaborated just yet. This may be one of those things that's not worth the trouble and will become clear with time. ]]
**Uh, what, SPECIFICO? No ] that I have seen suggests anything remotely resembling your spectacular, unsupported assertion that a plan for a Trump Tower in Moscow—proposed by a Trump business associate and completely ignored by the Russian government, which made no attempt to help the project along in any way, shape, or form—{{tq|"is part of the long-documented and '''ongoing''' Russian psy-ops on the Trump team"}}—certainly not '']'' or '']'', which broke the story. Can you provide ''any'' sources to substantiate your claim, or is this yet more ]?] (]) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Suggest''' placing a list of sources at the top of the RfC so that un-involved editors who are invited via the RfC process don't have to read through the lengthy discussion to find out what developments have been made per ] and ] - which are the main things which would affect my decision to support or not support this proposal. Thank you. ] (]) 04:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Limitations of evidence publicly presented in written reports by intelligence agencies ==


Following on from {{u|Red Rock Canyon}}’s offering above re “a section on the limitations of the evidence publicly presented by the US government” — here’s a start:

<blockquote><poem>The ODNI, in its 1/6/2017 report, indicated that the report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign".

The New York Times stated that "What is missing from the public report is … hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … he message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.' There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow's propaganda machinery."<ref name="NYTone-off">{{cite news |title=Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html |newspaper=] |first=Scott |last=Shane |date=January 6, 2017 |accessdate=October 9, 2017}}</ref></poem></blockquote>

] (]) 01:57, October 10, 2017 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}
: In the first sentence, I'd like to see two words added (CAPS here): "...indicated that the PUBLIC report DELIBERATELY..." -- ] (]) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:: It's important to not imply that the NYTimes article expresses anything but a wish for more information, not an accusation that the information doesn't exist. The ODNI and other sources make it plain that such information does exist in the full classified report, but it is not YET provided to the public, which makes complete sense. Key information MUST be withheld until the right time. -- ] (]) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

:::It's more than just a desire for more information. The author discusses the doubts that many people have about the report, given that it contains so little new information or hard evidence. The article closes with
::::{{tq|But this report is unlikely to change the minds of skeptics who, like the president-elect, remember the intelligence agencies’ faulty assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and fear being misled again.}}
:::-] (]) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:::: That doesn't change my point, but actually reinforces it; it recognizes that these skeptics ''do'' erroneously and illogically infer from the lack of detail that it doesn't exist, and they don't have the sense or patience to wait for the end of the investigation when it ''will'' be revealed. Instead they posit that the lack is proof the evidence doesn't exist. This shows they don't understand that "]".
:::: This demonstrates how there is no amount of evidence or preliminary provision of some information which can change the mind of this type of skeptic. They are ideologically blind and will insist on believing what they wish to believe. You are a good example, and you doggedly persist right here on these pages. We see it by your endless repetition of the same arguments month after month. IIRC, this is called "stonewalling" (or maybe some other term(s) fits better). -- ] (]) 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::The NY Times article doesn't say the skeptics are wrong or illogical. It says they aren't willing to trust the intelligence agencies, precisely because so little evidence has been supplied, and because of the history of the intel agencies (e.g., about Iraqi WMD). The article says nothing about skeptics being "ideologically blind" or insisting on "believing what they wish to believe." You've seriously mischaracterized the article. -] (]) 05:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::And, like flat earth skeptics, 9-11 skeptics, and the JFK's alive in Tanzania crowd, there are virtually none of that ilk represented in published discourse. Hence we ignore them. ]] 21:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::There are a lot of articles that talk about the problems of believing these intelligence-agency claims without evidence. The New York Times article being discussed above is one of them. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article about the JAR that you wanted to exclude is another. A lot of these articles bring up the misrepresentation that occurred in the run-up to the Iraq War as a reason why skepticism exists about current-day US intelligence-agency claims, especially when those claims are made without evidence.
:::::::I get that you're trying to push the view that US intelligence agency claims are absolute truth, because in this case they align with your political views, but Misplaced Pages can't take that line. -] (]) 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::How very rude of you! I have no views about your American politics. Maybe that's why it's easy for me to edit according to WP neutrality policy. I have no opinions. It's pure process -- like flipping flapjacks. One up, one down, one to go, on to the next. ]] 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::That's funny. Tell me another joke. I'm sure that trying to exclude the Süddeutsche Zeitung as a supposedly fringe source was as part of your commitment to neutrality. -] (]) 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@{{u|BullRangifer}}, how about this as 1st para:

<blockquote>The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the report “does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.” (This appears in a header at the top of each page of the report prefaced by “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment, …”.)</blockquote> ] (]) 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

: We're getting closer. The real difference in content between the classified and declassified reports should be stated explicitly, so using those words would help. Let's see how this looks:
<blockquote>The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the DECLASSIFIED report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign" contained in the CLASSIFIED REPORT.</blockquote>
: Is that accurate? -- ] (]) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

::We don't know if there is significant evidence in the classified report, so the wording shouldn't give the reader any impression that we're stating such evidence exists. It might exist, but all we have is the word of an unreliable source. -] (]) 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
:::We have months of additional revelations of Russian interference. ] (]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
::::@{{u|Objective3000|O3000}}, Is there any more recent in reports published by intelligence agencies? ] (]) 19:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::This is neither fish nor fowl. Irrelevant to this article which draws on the abundance of RS evidence of the Russian attack on US democracy. ]] 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::That’s so yesterday. There are continuing stories of Russian interference. Here’s today’s . ] (]) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::: But muh 17 agencies!!1! I thought that was super important. All the major outlets had story after story for '''months''' about the "report from the 17 agencies." Comey, Clinton, Trump, all the major players addressed it. Now all of a sudden it's incidental, insignificant? No one's buying that. Tough pill to swallow for the Hillbots. ] (]) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Name-calling and failure to ] is not useful and does not convince. ] (]) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thx, {{u|Objective3000|O3000}}, I’ll take that as a ‘no’. ] (]) 00:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Human, it's hard to know what you're driving at with these extended interrogations. Frankly it reminds me of Inspector Clouseau, "so you ate the popsickle but discarded the stick! A-HA!!" Where is this leading? Could you state your point in a sentence or two? Thanks. ]] 00:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Specifico, given that you inserted a cite to , perhaps you’ll relate to that article’s noting that

:::::::::<blockquote> 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report … found that remarks by administration officials generally reflected the intelligence, but failed to convey “substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” In general, officials strongly suggested that WMD production was ongoing, '''reflecting “a higher degree of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.'''</blockquote>

:::::::::Why do you insist on repeating that error? ] (]) 07:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::What is "that error"? Diff please? We're not privy to your back story here. Please try to communicate more directly. Nobody seems to understand what you're trying to say. ]] 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Do you agree it was an error for Administration officials to strongly suggest that WMD production was ongoing, reflecting a higher degree of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves? ] (]) 03:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::For sake of discussion, I'll assume your answer is 'yes'. The diff then is that your edits to the article and contributions to the talk page rely on an 'abundance of RS evidence'. That's exactly the problem here, in that it reflects a higher degree of confidence than in the intelligence reports. ] (]) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Instead of responding with a simple explanation or diff that would further discussion here, you pose cryptic queries and assume some imaginary response? Nobody seems to know or care what you're talking about at this point, so I think this long and magnificent thread is drawing to a close. EOM. ]] 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@{{u|SPECIFICO}}, Yes, you do seem unable to address those who question your overreach. E.g., on ], you said: "The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed." Are you really that omniscient? As {{u|Thucydides411}} noted: “That's an assumption. It may be true, or it may not be true. All we know for sure is what's in the unclassified report.” You chose not to respond. ] (]) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry, I fail to understand your point. Please take my responses according to the words that are in the responses. IMHO, the question is moot. ] (]) 00:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I asked “Is there any more recent in reports published by intelligence agencies?” you responded by linking to an article that did not (unless I missed it) cite intelligence agencies. ] (]) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

:::I agree that we shouldn't say that there is evidence contained in the classified report (not until we have some reliable sources that have seen it), but we should tell readers that the ODNI says that. This might be a better way of presenting it, as direct words from the report:
The ODNI states in its public report "“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment.... he declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods."
:::I think it makes sense to include something like that as context, alongside any discussion about the lack of evidence. The NY Times article here quotes that section, and I think many other articles about the lack of evidence acknowledge this as the agencies' excuse. - ] (]) 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::::RRC, That looks good to me. Of course, that is exactly what the fringe sources deny and so I sure hope we do not resume discussing them here 9 months after they've been rejected and discredited. ]] 02:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
As this section is about the "lack of evidence", the lede sentence should lead on that point rather than burying it with couching. As my last version above indicates, I agree the couching from the report should be included, but after the "lack of evidence" is clearly indicated. ] (]) 02:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:Pardon me, but that's not gonna happen. The article starts off with, like, what? "There is no evidence of ''']'''". ]] 03:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::From the article:
<blockquote><poem>The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises on Thursday <cite> from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that he would “push the envelope” to try to make more information public. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Obama had directed officials to “make as much of it public as they possibly can.”

…

Susan Hennessey, a former intelligence agency lawyer who is now the managing editor of the online journal Lawfare, wrote <cite>: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” </poem></blockquote>
::] (]) 03:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::As many editors agreed each of the previous times we addressed this complaint, the JAR is not a very important part of the story and it's only marginally related to the topic of this article. The event itself is the topic, not the unclassified report. ]] 03:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

::::Excuse me? The JAR is only marginally related to the topic of the article? You mean the most comprehensive report in which US intelligence agencies have accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 US Presidential election is only marginally related to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?
::::The JAR is a central part of this story, and our article does a terrible job of summarizing the reaction to it. -] (]) 06:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

::::@{{u|SPECIFICO}} The proposed text and the comments I quoted refer to the 1/6/2017 statement. ] (]) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{U|Humanengr}} - Oh, yes. I think you're right - this line doesn't have to be the first sentence of the section. I think it'd be better to lead with a general statement summarizing the criticism in the sources, and then also include the quote from the assessment. {{u|SPECIFICO}} - this is about a specific section in the article that summarizes criticism of the lack of evidence in the publicly released US intelligence assessments - not just the JAR. These assessments are an important part of the story (and the article obviously agrees, since the very first words reference them), and many reliable sources carried some mention of their lack of publicly available evidence, which would improve the article if included. Also, Humanengr was talking about the lead ''of this section'' - nobody is talking about starting the article with "there's no evidence this happened" or changing the article lead at all. No need to get so defensive. ] (]) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::Also, here are some sources that might be helpful. went into some detail about the lack of evidence in the January 7th report. Here are some others from around then that mention the lack of evidence, but not in any detail: , , . ] (]) 21:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' The longstanding consensus has been against this, except for a compromise that we achieved involving a piece by Kevin Poulson. That compromise involved about three sentences in total. Nothing has changed in the meantime that would require a reevaluation. It's surprising to see it suggested that it carries enough weight to warrant its own subsection, and to do so would be to give it much more attention than sources ever did. Also, see WP:CRITS, anyone that hasn't. ] (]) 22:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:This isn't a vote, and nothing concrete has been presented, so I think you're kind of jumping the gun here. The goal isn't to add a "criticism" section to the article, it's include mainstream views on the ICA assessment that currently aren't in the article - this would probably be done best via a paragraph added to the existing ICA section, as per the "integrated" guideline on the CRITICISM page you suggested we read.
:<s>Additionally, the discussion and compromise you mention (about Kevin Poulson) was about a December 2016 analysis released by the Department of Homeland Security specifically about hacking. What we're proposing is something about January 2017 assessment released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They're completely separate things - separate documents written by separate organizations on separate subjects. I think you shouldn't just blindly oppose something when you clearly don't even know what it is.</s> Regarding the sources, in the days after the ICA was released, several major newspapers devoted significant sections to discussing its complete lack of evidence, and many major newspapers that covered the document mentioned its lack of evidence. ] (]) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::My understanding, from this section and the section above it, is that you want to add a <i>section</i> about limitations in the report. That's not appropriate weight. You're right that nothing concrete has been presented, other than your intent to dedicate an entire section to this. It doesn't merit a whole paragraph either. ] (]) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm a little confused. So if I had initially said "add a sentence" then that would change your mind? Or "add 3 words"? How long is a sentence or a section or a paragraph? There is nothing concrete right now. <s>If I thought you were opposed to this on general principle, then that would make sense, but you seem to have been very confused as to what the topic of this proposal even was until 15 minutes ago, so it's strange that you have such a strong opinion about it.</s> ] (]) 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::::It's not nice to tell people they're confused unless you're sure that that's the case. Here's a diff to help your memory . It's not an old diff at all. ] (]) 23:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
::::WP:Weight is one of the arguments I've just floated here, and as far as that goes, a few words is a completely different request from a standalone subsection, or 1/3 of article, etc. I'm not pre-agreeing to anything, but it is one factor. ] (]) 00:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::RR, we've had extensive discussions of this and rejected UNDUE weight to these dissections of the unclassified report. None of the sources you listed is of current interest. They are from 9 months ago when much less corroborating public information was available. The intelligence reports are not of lasting significance. A couple of years hence, the article will not start with the intelligence report. It will more likely start with facts established in US court or congressional proceedings. ]] 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Geogene}} - You're right. I completely forgot I had mentioned it, and when I read your "oppose" comment, I thought that you believed that the entirety this section was on something unrelated. I got upset, and I overreacted. I essentially called you stupid when I know that isn't the case, and I apologize.
:::::SPECIFICO, the ICA is still the same and the Intelligence Community has not released any public documents since then. Right now, the ICA plays a major role in this article - it's in the first sentence, it's at the center of the public American accusation of Russian interference, and it's brought up over and over again. I just want to add more information about it. You're right - hopefully there will be significantly better sources for this article down the line, and when that time comes it can be completely reorganized top to bottom. But right now most of the sources are news stories, released within a few days of the events they covered. January reviews of a document released on January are still just as relevant as the majority of the sources used in this article. ] (]) 00:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Red Rock Canyon}} You're of course right that contemporaneous reactions to the intelligence reports are still relevant to this article. There was obviously more coverage of those reports in the weeks after they were published than now, so most articles discussing them at length were published soon after the intel reports came out. "But they're 9 months old!" is just a last-resort argument when no other argument for excluding reliable sources is handy. -] (]) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::No, on the contrary for an encyclopedia contemporaneous sources can be the worst, not the best. ]] 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
*Personally, I think we should be discussing the limitations of the evidence for the claim that I'm not notable enough for a WP article about the enormous size of my genitalia. I mean, is there '''any''' evidence that I'm not packing more heat down there than Mount Vesuvius? It's disgraceful for WP to implicitly take the position that my one eyed trouser snake is of normal proportions without the slightest shred of evidence. Alternatively, one could argue that since there are '''no''' RSes advancing the claim that I'm basically a human tripod, it doesn't bear mentioning. But that would be left-wing, anti-masculine, anti-MjolnirPants POV pushing at it's finest. WP needs an article on my slappy happy pappy nappy if it is to maintain a neutral POV.
:P.S. Yes, that was satirical. I'm not seriously suggesting that there's a redwood in my pants (I mean, there ''is'', but I ain't about to whip it out on video or anything). But the notion that we need to second-guess what the RSes '''aren't''' saying in order to be neutral is as unbelievably ridiculous as the argument in the first paragraph of this comment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
{{hat|Being vulgar to make apoint, and those being Puritanical about said vulgarity, is distracting from the topic. Take this elsewhere, please. ] (]) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)}}
::Personally, I think you need to knock it of with the gratuitous vulgarity. This is an encyclopedia, not a locker room. ] (]) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::ShitPissFuckCuntCocksuckerMotherfuckerTits. This is a discussion page, not a motherfucking church. Get over it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 05:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

::::It's a discussion page, but your contributions aren't adding anything to the discussion. Get lost. -] (]) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}

* '''Support''' – RedRockCanyon correctly points out that secondary-source coverage of the January IC report deplored the lack of evidence and the cloak of "we can't reveal anything without compromising sources and methods". Nothing new has been revealed on the hacking attempts since that time, only peripheric stories on Russian propaganda, therefore the contemporary sources are still valid. We should be able to convey this state of affairs in a couple sentences. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::It's not constructive to use the language of tabloid cable TV thugs like "deplored" "under the cloak" etc. This is all nonsense misrepresentation of the sources and context. It's undue weight and synth and nothing's changed since it was rejected 9, 7, 6, 4, and 2 months ago. ]] 03:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Wrong, there was never a consensus; editors who participated in previous debates along those lines were split pretty much 50/50. You've just made some of the most vocal calls to exclude this information, often invoking nonexistent consensus or calling into question very reputable sources with ] arguments. To uphold neutrality and balance, it's high time to convey in our article what multiple RS agreed upon. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::No more personal remarks Mr. JFG. Various RfC's demonstrated that "never a consensus" and "nonexistent consensus" are false. Jockeying for this POV nonsense (that gets thumped in every replay of the discussion) achieves what, exactly? ]] 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::Including relevant information widely reported by reliable sources isn't POV. Do you have any arguments other than ]? The only way inclusion of this mainstream view gets "thumped" is by you and others repeatedly reverting. -] (]) 18:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::Oh. You must have overlooked my previous comment. "No more personal remarks". Since all the RfCs and other discussions here have rejected your POV, maybe you need a new approach. Wait a couple of months and mount another RfC. That would be sensible. Maybe your ship will come in. ]] 18:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::SPECIFICO, you're the last one to call for civility. We all know your history here. Give it a break. You've put a lot of effort into keeping the mainstream view presented in reliable sources of the intelligence reports out of this article. Drop the stick and move on. -] (]) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Per long standing consensus and per the fact that WP:RSes do not reflect this view.] (]) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::Plenty of RS were shown to reflect this exact view. Read archives. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we see some suggested text?] (]) 11:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Slatersteven}} There's some text proposed by {{u|Humanengr}} at the top of the section but it's mostly a long quote from '']''. I think we should rather keep that as a citation and write some paraphrase expressing clearly how this source and others have evaluated the missing elements from the IC report(s). What struck me at the time was that each new report was supposed to bring more damning information, and yet after reading them there was not much new. That happened with the escalation of reports from October, December (twice) and January, then we seemed to enter a long period of ''stasis'', from which nothing new emerged. Finally, in the last couple months, we are being treated to quasi-daily revelations of Mueller's progress: interesting stuff but straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry, not very inspired to write appropriate prose tonight, I may try over the weekend. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::That is why I was asking, we have a long quote that is being argued over but no idea about what we are going to try and say.] (]) 21:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::{{tq|straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports}} -- But ''not'' straying from the topic of this article. So no reason to go into undue detail about the declassified intelligence reports. ]] 22:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. The lack of publicly available evidence was also noted by which are not "pro-Kremlin" or "Putin apologists". Criticism of this "trust us" position is widespread enough to be presented in the article. --] (]) 10:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - The substance of the material may have some merit, but the way it's written is problematic. There is too much reliance on quotes, especially elliptical quotes which tend to be misleading.- ]] 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
:We can always rewrite is. ] (]) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The suggested text doesn’t match the overall message of the source. ] (]) 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
::The 1/6/2017 NY Times article paras 1-4 present the allegations (without evidence); paras 5-8, Putin’s motivation; paras 9-16 and 18-19, the lack of evidence in the report; para 17 support for allegation; para 20 re years-old tactics; para 21 re Trump, skeptics, and past faulty assessments by intelligence agencies. ] (]) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Let's pull out Dewey Defeats Truman and Lincoln Shot by Unknown Assailant. ]] 20:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

::::Hyperbole doesn't help. If there's newer reporting that says the declassified January 6th intelligence report contains significant evidence, then we might consider the January 6th NY Times article to be out-of-date. If there isn't, then carping about how January 2017 is ancient times is just ridiculous. -] (]) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

* I '''support''' inclusion of the mainstream view that the declassified January 6th ODNI report did not contain hard evidence to support its claims. That's something that many reliable sources, including the NY Times, have reported on. -] (]) 21:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
::Not only is such repetition unconstructive. It also violates of our WP guideline with respect to disruptive editing: ]. ]] 22:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}This article is not about the report. It's about the Russian attack. Undue opinion regarding the unclassified report is irr.]] 22:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
:You mean ''alleged'' Russian attack. Policy requires us to call it that as long as reliable sources do. ] (]) 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
::Welcome home, Rodney Dangerfield. ]] 23:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
::@{{u|SPECIFICO}} Are you talking about the 01/06/2017 Shane Scott NY Times article linked above in Sources? ] (]) 23:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

== News of Russia's actions during the 2016 election ==

The first news of Russian interference in the US election was first published on June 15, 2016 in the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age in a story by Chris Zappone entitled . <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/trumpputin-russias-information-war-meets-the-us-election-20160609-gpf4sm.html</ref>

The article revealed "how Russia is attempting to support Trump through social media, by helping galvanise and motivate extremists who in turn support the controversial Republican candidate. A network of Russian-backed anti-Western websites are linked with American white supremacist, sovereign citizen, and conspiracy theory sites. Activists connected to those sites support the Trump campaign, often parroting Moscow's criticism of the US, NATO and the general ills of Western society."

The article discussed:
* The role of social media to try to shape outcome of the election.
* The effort to "increase acrimony" within Western democracy and distort domestic political issues.
* The institutional blind-spot in the US to defend against this kind of information attack. "there are no authorities charged with rebutting a coordinated effort by Russia to sway Western domestic public opinion. Russia's information war defies simple categorisation as a domestic, international, diplomatic or military problem for Western countries. "
* The "content feedback loop" on the internet and social media between Trump's backers, the alt-right, white supremacists and Russian outlets.
* How the "US is just another country in which Russia is building ties with fringe groups in an effort to sway the domestic political discussion and gain leverage"
* Looks ahead to the challenge for democratic nations: "If a Trump battalion of meme-armed supporters, some of whom are singing from a Russian hymnsheet, simply drown out Hillary Clinton online to the point she can't communicate with the broad masses, it may be a real worry - not just for Clinton, but for the outlook for democracy circa 2016."

A follow up article dated July 26, 2016 "" <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/dnc-leak-russia-better-at-information-war-now-than-during-cold-war-20160725-gqdotv</ref> discussed the overall influence strategy being employed by Russia while the 2016 election was under way.
"The goal of distributing internal DNC emails is not only to create disorder within the party, as has happened after WikiLeaks published embarrassing internal documents that led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The emails and other information can be used to shape broader views of the US political system among American voters and in the wider world, as a form of information war waged by Russia towards the West."
It also stresses foreign interference via social media:
"In a globalised, wired world, some of the loudest voices calling for protest in the US...need not be in those countries. WikiLeaks, a global network, has tweeted right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter (tweet later deleted) and messages stressing disorder at the convention."
The article discusses the broader strategy of sowing "discord in Western publics, as Russia takes a more aggressive geopolitical stance."

A follow-up article also on Sydney Morning Herald/The Age on August 9, 2016 observed the connection between Trump's online campaign and Russian information war strategy. <ref>http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-campaigns-firehose-of-falsehoods-has-parallels-with-russian-propaganda-20160808-gqo044</ref>
"The characteristics of the Trump campaign's media push - its relentlessness, its volume, the cacophony of voices - share traits of a 21st-century propaganda technique pioneered, if not perfected, by Russia."
"It's clear that the way information is used by the Trump campaign is not meant to be fact-checked, weighed against earlier statements, or even to create the building blocks of a political policy discussion. Rather, it's designed to go past the public's heads and directly to their hearts."
The story was republished on Fairfax Media on October 13.
] (]) 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

:That shows that others had drawn the conclusion before Clinton's loss. But you would need secondary sources that mention mention it. Your first source btw is "analysis" not actual news reporting. ] (]) 06:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::The linked sources appear to cite plenty of third parties and evidence. It's not a foodie fashion blog. "Analysis" of news is not like "Opinion" I like biscuits and jam. ]] 12:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

== Time to reconsider ==

CNN apparently has:


<s>10 Oct 2017
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/devin-nunes-subpoenas-russia-dossier-firm/2017/10/10/id/818922/
<blockquote>House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has subpoenaed the co-founder of a Washington opposition research firm that produced an unsubstantiated dossier on President Donald Trump in the panel's probe into '''alleged''' Russian meddling, CNN reported Tuesday.</blockquote>
</s>

11 Oct 2017
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/11/media/fox-world-cup-us-fail/index.html:
<blockquote>And even if the U.S. had qualified, tense relations between Washington and Moscow, including continued U.S. probes into '''alleged''' Russian meddling in last year's election, may also have put a dampener on ratings.</blockquote>

] (]) 17:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
:Why would you cite Newsmax? ] (]) 17:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Right — here instead (linked in above):
Corrected:

10 Oct 2017
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/fusion-gps-subpoenas-devin-nunes/index.html?CNNPolitics=Tw:

<blockquote>(CNN)The chairman of the House intelligence committee has issued subpoenas to the partners who run Fusion GPS, the research firm that produced the dossier of memos on '''alleged''' Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign, according to sources briefed on the matter.</blockquote>

] (]) 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Researching further, I see it might be a momentary blip. Postponing further discussion. ] (]) 02:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

== Jeff Sessions congressional testimony ==

- Some interesting new statements here. ]] 13:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

== This must not be an article as part of a series about Donald Trump, but russian interference only ==

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776

'''Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta'''
by TOM WINTER and JULIA AINSLEY

WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.] (]) 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)] (]) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


:Nice try, but the possible involvement of others in other dealings does not negate the wealth of entanglement and collusion between Trump associates and Russia. This isn't a tit-for-tat or either-or situation. ] (]) 14:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:No, all. this means is we can make it part of their Wikiprojects too, assuming of course this is all linked to RUSSIAN interference (in the 2016 election).] (]) 14:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:Also, any firm worth its salt is gonna ask courts to stop Congress from looking at its records. They could be selling rosaries to nuns in paradise, and they'd still do this. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's edit in the article just the fact NBC News reported.] (]) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:What has this to do with Russian interference?] (]) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:: What is Muller investigating?] (]) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::You are ware that one kind of investigation (such as a break in) can lead to another?] (]) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::This is not about "another" investigation.] (]) 15:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::No it is about some unnamed sources making an unofficial claim that they are "the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller", note not "part of the Russian investigation". So the implication is that it is a separate investigation.] (]) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::So, is there nothing with the russian interference case?] (]) 16:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I am not sure what you mean.] (]) 16:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC).
:::::::"Washington lobbying firms receive subpoenas as part of Russia probe". Maybe it can be more transparent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-lobbying-firms-receive-subpoenas-as-part-of-russia-probe/2017/08/25/55e547de-89c2-11e7-a50f-e0d4e6ec070a_story.html?utm_term=.d45ec387cd62] (]) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I do not subscribe so cannot confirm, but other reports on this seem to be talking about Mercury Public Affairs and SGR LLC for answers and records pertaining to Michael Flynn, can you provide the quote where it talks about Podesta.] (]) 16:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::You can do it with your own eyes. I know it's hard to realise that the collusion story can be just wishful thinking.] (]) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''I do not subscribe so cannot confirm'''.] (]) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::The Podesta being talked about is Tony Podesta, not his brother, John Podesta. Aside from the fact that this seems to have come to Mueller's attention through his investigation of Manafort, this seems to have nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election. ] (]) 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:. WT is not RS. Please stop posting hysterical statements to the talk page.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

::Thankfully your order has nothing hysterical about it. These are just facts.] (]) 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
::Can we have a link to the RSN discussion that decide this please?] (]) 16:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:Rather then posting third party commentary and links how about explaining how any of this makes the 2016 election Russian interference not about Trump?] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment on the content not the user.] (]) 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

:I wish the reliable source noticeboard was better organized rather than a lump of all old discussions, like, there should just be a "Washington Times" section for easy and quick reference. But anyway, if one searches in those archives, there is ], ], ]. The W. Times is not quite on the Breitbart or Newsmax level of atrociousness, but appears to be frequently called out for it's extreme rightward slant and poor fact-checking, not to mention the ] (glad to see that's a redirect here) ownership. ] (]) 17:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:: Maybe WT is not liberal enough to be a RS.] (]) 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:: Does CNN not appears to be frequently called out for its extreme leftward? Why this censor? ] (]) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::And from this my take away is there is no consensus it is not RS.] (]) 17:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:::It’s RS for anything not involving facts.:) Seriously, the reason RSN appears disorganized is almost nothing is ever called flat out non-RS for everything. Context matters. But, WT is considered non-RS when it’s brought up. If something is notable enough for inclusion, there’s a better source. ] (]) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:::: What about NBC News?] (]) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::What has any of this to do with the 2016 presidential elelction?] (]) 12:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::Nothing at all. It's an attempt to coatrack the article and waste our time. ] (]) 12:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::What we have in terms of reality about russian interference? A fake dossier paid by Trump's enemies, including the DNC and Clinton?] (]) 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::What has that got to do with any of the above, which are about some deals done in 2010?] (]) 13:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


Please do not remove material from talk pages (once it has been replied to), many have replied to that and their points now may take on a different meaning.] (]) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:The whole thing could be hatted, though. This discussion is a sad waste of time. Even if the Pee Pee Papers were completely debunked, that's only one of many separate allegations of Russian interference in the election. Same thing with Russia's ad buys on Facebook. Even if they were completely neutral (and they weren't), you still have Russia's hacking of Podesta and the DNC's emails. The subject of this article is not something that is going to go away, no matter how much some editors wish that it would. They want this article to affirm their worldviews, but it's obvious that those views are so far from mainstream that we are never going to be able to accommodate them. We can't do anything about it, but letting them post here is just giving them a microphone to spread their conspiracy theories, which is effectively the opposite of disseminating knowledge. What some of us mainstream editors <i>could</i> do is to stop encouraging them. ] (]) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
::That's why obvious trolling by SPA's should be hatted or archived on sight and editors should not enable this kind of disruption by unduly engaging or providing a platform for non-article-improvement related soapboxes. This whole stupid thread could have been avoided if it were not reinstated after I archived the initial rejection of the claims. ]] 02:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
::@{{u|Geogene}}, You said: “… could be hatted …; … so far from mainstream; … letting them post here”. Is that what you really mean to say? Please reconsider. Did we grow up in the same country? Did we not protest the same wars? Did the MIC go away? ] (]) 02:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Please discus how to improve the article, this is not a soapbox.] (]) 09:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

== October 2017, House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology ==

The article needs mention of the deliberations of the subcomittee; Foreign Agent Registration Act, Voice of America, and other essential comparitive arguements of the topic were heard. First hearing is today.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) date (UTC)</small>
:What? ] (]) 22:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

== Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier ==

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

Is the RS encyclopedic material regarding the Russian ad buys on social media being unbiased and designed to create general upheaval just invisible?

Included: academic study on the social media buys, facebook denials, facebook admissions but nothing about the facebook admission that the actual ads were unbiased? Just must not be encyclopedic?

Why is this article perpetually ignoring any and all RS encyclopedic material that contradicts the left wing cabal fake narrative?

<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)</small>

:You should avoid bad faith comments if you want anyone to cooperate with you. One reason the new material is not included is that it was literally released today. They're explaining it on CNN as I type. This article does say by the way that Democrats paid for the report. ] (]) 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:: This is not a valid argument. There are any facts that has been ignored a long time in this article. That seems this is a bias article.] (]) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::It's hard to "perpetually ignore" something that just came out. Also note that the involvement of the Clinton campaign in paying for the research to compose the dossier doesn't in any way disprove its content. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Are there others sources, a RS about the dossier content, or just BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS??] (]) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What I'm wondering here is, why do 126.209.43.217, 71.224.251.239, and {{u|Neuwert}} sound so much alike? ] (]) 01:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:This is not a valid argument too. I would suggest you start a investigation.] (]) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
The content has been added where it belongs, at ]. -- ] (]) 05:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
::So, why don't you edit that article with this fact. I saw that you edited that today, but forgot to creat a new title with this fact.] (]) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We should have a line on this here.] (]) 12:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is one line enough? This is collusion, interference and obstruction with Russia from the DNC. Shouldn't it have it's own article and maybe 23 more like it?
:is it, does the source say this?] (]) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

== Russians ran the biggest Black Lives Matter Facebook page ==

Interestingly not a peep written here about it. Russian collusion with Hillary and friends? <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html</ref> Discuss. ] (]) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC){{reflist-talk}}
:So suggest an edit.] (]) 14:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

:Did you actually read the source? It says nothing about collusion involving Clinton. In fact it says,
::"Some of the Twitter accounts also promoted anti-Hillary Clinton stories, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN. The U.S. intelligence community believes one reason Russia meddled in the election was to damage Clinton's chances of winning."
:Nothing to discuss here.- ]] 14:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
::The Russians running the biggest Black Lives Matter Facebook page which has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with internal U.S politics is "nothing to discuss"? Interesting take. As to the edit, how about someone adding it to the Social Media section? ] (]) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
:::That is not what was said.] (]) 14:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

In September 2017 CNN reported that an internet activist group called Blacktivist was in fact a Russian front designed to try and inflame racial tensions within the USA during the 2016 ellection. They went on to claims that this was "the broader Russian goal of dividing Americans and creating chaos in U.S. politics...".

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=yes}}
] (]) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Firstly I would like to add a citation for the statement made under the heading Republican National Committee: The "RNC said there was no intrusion into its servers, while acknowledging email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached." This can be corroborated by the following link to a Politico article : https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/republican-national-committee-was-hacked-rep-mccaul-says-228183
Secondly, under the heading Steele dossier, I want to add the following citation from a Washington Times article: Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent, was hired by Fusion GPS to produce opposition research on Donald Trump (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-fusion-gps-Trump-dossier/)
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The Colin Powell information is cited in the next sentence and the Washington Times is not a RS for political coverage. ] ] ] 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

== First charges filed in Mueller investigation ==


Just FYI. Article may need significant updating starting Monday. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html ] (]) 00:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

== Talking Points Brought to Trump Tower Meeting Were Shared With Kremlin ==


Another fact needs to be added. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html ] (]) 01:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

:Do you think you could summarize what you think should go into the article? Whose talking points were they, who was at the meeting, who shared the points with the Kremlin, and what relevance does that have to this article? ] (]) 01:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

== BuzzFeed: "This Russian Campaign Turned Against Trump In The Days After The Election" ==

As ''BuzzFeed'' states, this {{tq|"lines up more with the idea that Russian interference campaigns were about highlighting and deepening tensions in the West, rather than outright supporting Donald Trump."}}] (]) 08:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
:We are discussing this about two threads up.] (]) 10:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

== Russian ad buys sought to sow political discord did not favor one candidate over another ==

New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/media/facebook-black-lives-matter-targeting/index.html

The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/technology/google-russian-ads.html



Hmm the academic speculation regarding the Russian trolls still in the article, the encyclopedic facts above still not in the article.
:Can we keep this in a single place?] (]) 23:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

== Paul Manafort, Who Once Ran Trump Campaign, Told to Surrender ==

Paul Manafort, Who Once Ran Trump Campaign, Told to Surrender
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)</small>


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
{{Edit semi-protected||ans=yes}}
] (]) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
As per above unsigned cmt by Casprings, BBC have reported same (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740), states Manafort is facing charges but "nature of charges is unclear", also says business associate Rick Gates faces charges. Please could article have line added wherever appropriate to reflect new developments? ] (]) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
*] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? ] (]) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (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)
Unsealed and already uploaded on wiki commons. Need to be added.] (])|
:Yep. It was added to another article earlier in the morning, and then updated a couple dozen times:) ] (]) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (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)
:::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 wikipedia 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}}
== Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton ==


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 ==
Pretty big in relation to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/george-papadopoulos-russia.html ] (]) 15:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=y}}
:He didn't meet with Russians but with someone who had met Russians. And Trump never met this adviser. While no doubt this has relevance, you need to explain what that is and source it. ] (]) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
]:


During a ] with Russian Foreign Minister ] and Ambassador ] on May 10, 2017...
:: and a whole bunch more.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


This is the same event, can you please add a hyperlink? —— ] (]) 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:If nothing else, this demonstrates that the Russians compromised the Trumps and the campaign -- witness the coverage of the matter in this article. ]] 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Grateful. —— ] (]) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 ==
:::The ''USA Today'' article says, "The proposed trip did not take place, according to the court filing." ] (]) 19:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|answered=yes}}
This is something to keep an eye on, <s>although it doesn't yet relate to this subject or have anything worth adding to the article.</s> (Actually I see it is there, under "other Trump associates".) But it may prove to be very important in the future, because 1) this was a plea bargain in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and provide information, and 2) one big glaring item in the information about these proposed meetings is that he discussed them with an unnamed "campaign supervisor" - widely believed to have been Manafort. So, as they say, watch this space. --] (]) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
:RS discuss Russian psy-ops. If the Russians have succeeded in fomenting the discussion of the ''possibility'' of Russian interference they have been successful. Daily RS discussion of the ins and outs of the investigations, recriminations against everyone from Nunes to HuckabeeSanders, and all the current Fox News Hillary uranium coverage, tell us that they have successfully intruded in US civic processes. Whether the interference extends to various alleged crimes or direct electoral interference is the only point. ]] 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
: {{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Kislyak Picture == == 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,
The Kislyak picture uses a <nowiki>{{who?}}</nowiki> tag. The persons are described in the text, the tag should be removed.----] (]) 21:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
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}} - {{thanks}}- ]] 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Done. {{tick}} ] (]) 00:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


: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)
== Need section summarizing publicly available evidence ==
::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:
This very long article is full of opinions and claims to have evidence by various arms of the US government and by cybersecurity firms. The latter are linked to the government through contracts and/or ownership by former military/intelligence operatives. There are also claims by Facebook, but their evidence is also kept secret. According to "public evidence of Russian meddling, something that has not so far been presented, would be sure to translate into tougher U.S. sanctions against Moscow". Why don't we have a section on publicly available evidence? Because there isn't any? ] (]) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::"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==
:The article presents what is contained in the sources cited, no more and no less. Articles aren't written to satisfy your political opinions. ] (]) 11:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


'''I've been reverted. '''
::Nothing to do with my politics. My source discusses the implications in case any evidence is made public. I can't see this addressed elsewhere in the article. ] (]) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Yeah, sure, buddy. You were recently warned about soapboxing on your talk page. ] (]) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::How would we address this?] (]) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::We could include the Reuters quote: “public evidence of Russian meddling...has not so far been presented....”. Plus any reports that the evidence exists but is non-public. Does “presented” mean presented in court or presented anywhere?] (]) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Aside from the fact that it's undue weight, it's not clear that Reuters isn't talking about the Manafort/Gates indictments specifically. Plus, several new or low edit count accounts have been pushing for this, and it's disruptive to keep posting the same damn thing over and over again after it gets dismissed the first time. The Keith McClary account posted the same political arguments here on 19 December, that was dismissed. Continuing to come here to make the same complaint is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that is disruption. I have now posted DS alerts on that user's talk page. If this sort of soapboxing continues, then some combination of SPI and AE will be in order. ] (]) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::December 2016? Are you kidding me? Consensus can change, and he’s presented a brand new Reuters article. I’m not saying I support any article edits at this point, but you seem to be overdoing it with the gag orders.] (]) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Well, this time he's asking for an entire subsection, last time he wanted an entire alternate article... ] (]) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Yes I understand we can include the quote, how and where, randomly insert it? |It will need context, so I am asking what is the suggested edit.] (]) 17:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Good questions. I don’t know, but will keep an eye on this interesting discussion. Kind of short on time right now to do research. Cheers.] (]) 18:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


] (talk | ])
:The Reuters article says that public evidence of Russian meddling has not so far been presented. Should that statement be in the article, e.g. as the last sentence of the lead? --] (]) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::You mean one of the most prominent locations in the article? ] (]) 22:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Yes. It's a general statement that sums up the situation regarding public evidence and would have good context as it would be in a paragraph about investigations underway. Here's a possible sentence for the end of the lead.
:::::As of October 31, 2017, public evidence of Russian meddling has not been presented.
:::--] (]) 23:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Undue weight for one little line in one Reuters piece, considering the thousands of news articles that have been written about this. Further, the last sentence of the lead is one of the most conspicuous parts of an article. ] (]) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::: The lede section acts as a concise overview of the topic for the reader. The lack of public evidence is a notable fact that aids the understanding, therefore it should be (briefly) mentioned there. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::The lead is a concise summary of the body. Not everything in the body merits mention in the lead. If this is only source, then it doesn't merit mention in the body. ] (]) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::: Read tomorrow's newspaper. Congressional testimony. Social media ads. No evidence? Editor time is scarce and valuable. It's time to drop this and work on article improvement. This complaint didn't make sense even before the election. "Russia if you're listening...Clinton emails..." ]] 23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Could you provide an excerpt from an RS that gives public evidence of Russian meddling? Thanks. --] (]) 23:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::See? Remarks that like just show what a waste of time these stupid threads are. I hatted this, it should have been left that way. ] (]) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::No reason to call a source request "stupid". — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::This thread is stupid. It started out as a transparent and partisan NOTFORUM screed identical to others we get on a monthly basis. Now some editors are using it to try to create a song and dance about evidence being classified and that, therefore, it doesn't exist. This is not productive behavior. The "request" that we create a subsection about the lack of evidence--was not actionable per NPOV guidelines and at best was borderline trolling. Just like that user's last visit here contained a "request" that we move the article to "lack of evidence of Russian meddling". This should not have been unhatted. That was poor judgement, and I for one do not appreciate that. ] (]) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages talk threads are often stupid, but that’s not the threshold for making them disappear. As many commenters have said here, they find the Reuters quote interesting and worth finding out more about. You tried to shut it all down not just by hatting, but by hatting in such a way that the tiny discussion that already occurred became invisible. Please don’t do stuff like that again.] (]) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::If think that it's warranted, then I will do so. This was warranted. By that, what I mean in this instance is that it was repetitive, partisan, inactionable, and NOTFORUM. Even if you like the Reuters piece, the delivery was terrible. ] (]) 02:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
:On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading. It is probably referring to no ] rather than no evidence of any kind, which includes ]. Direct evidence may involve classified information about intelligence gathering that wouldn't be available to the public. So if the statement appears in the article, it may need to have that context. --] (]) 01:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::The proposed section is not needed and certainly not warranted based on on a couple of sentences in a single Reuter's article. Find a dozen or so strong sources that discuss the importance of public evidence and then we will have a basis for a meaningful content discussion.- ]] 01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


Undid revision ] by ] (]). Without credible opposition in reliable sources, this is a statement of fact, not a POV
As others have said, the lead is a summery of our article (it is not there for emphacise), so until someone can provide some kind of text for the main body disusing this it cannot go in the lead.] (]) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (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)
Psy-ops. ]] 13:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::It was just US intelegence that said it. ] (]) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --] (]) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
:::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 United States PresidentsTemplate: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 wikipedia 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: