This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Jasonanaggie added an external link to the Committee to Investigate Russia. User:Thucydides411 removed it saying "doesn't look notable to me." User:SPECIFICO restored it saying "Link is AOK. WP:EL need not be Notable." (Strictly speaking, since it had been challenged it should not have been restored without discussion.) I removed it again, saying "This is just an advocacy organization - no indication of who is behind it or where they are getting their information. We can't give an ES listing to every anonymous advocacy organization in the world". SPECIFICO pointed out to me that the organization isn't quite anonymous - there is a "board of advisors" of five people, a couple of whom have some credibility. I still maintain that we should limit our external links to major or highly noteworthy publications and organizations. There must be dozens (at least) of organizations promoting one viewpoint or another on this subject. Thoughts from others? --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless this organization is particularly notable, I'd leave it out. It looks like just another one of many such think-tank-backed groups. Looking through the "Further Reading" and "External Links" section more broadly, I can't see any consistent logic in what's included. It looks like a hodge-podge of random links and book suggestions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting site. But, we can't link to it. Objective3000 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, thanks for your note. I'm curious why this specific page should be linked? The website states of itself that it formed "to help Americans recognize and understand the gravity of Russia’s continuing attacks on our democracy." Of the Advisory Board, Boot has "lectured on behalf of the U.S. State Department and at many military institutions[1], Clapper directed US Intelligence, Ornstein and Sykes are journalists (Ornstein's also a part of the American Enterprise Institute think tank), and Reiner is an actor. Sure, it's an advocacy group, but why should it be promoted in the external links of this site? -Darouet (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. BTW if you Google for coverage about this group, none only one of those five "advisors" get the headlines. What reporting there is, is about two celebrities and one neocon: they say it was created by Rob Reiner and David Frum, and is headlined by Morgan Freeman. BTW its creation was announced (wait for it) today. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Today is so yesterday. We need news published in the future. Objective3000 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Guys, "Notable" is not the test one way or the other, so please drop that. I pointed that out in my edit summary when I reinstated the link. It's very disappointing to see it repeated here by editors who presumably have read the brief history of this little matter. (Off-topic, as an aside, RS have covered the formation of this group fairly widely and it may soon be NOTABLE and have its own article.) At any rate, we have Clapper, Frum, Ornstein, Sykes, and then among social commentator/public figures Freeman, & Reiner. The EL section is not a curated top ten list. It's links that editors have added that may be relevant and informative. I didn't add this one but I think that @Jasonanaggie: made a valid contribution and certainly one that should not be reversed based on misinformation and misrepresentation of WP policy. This one meets WP:EL and up to now the arguments to exclude it are simply arbitrary or erroneous. At any rate, we should hear what Jasonanaggie has to say. SPECIFICOtalk 23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No one is stopping Jasonanaggie from making a case. The cast of characters is very interesting. I’m sure the site is of value. But, I think it’s too soon with too little in the way of secondary mention, and, in any case, requires discussion before inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a very small issue. But the test for an External Link is not as strong as the test for article content. This site is run by many notable figures whose credentials are evident. It appears to aggregate content by the best of the best commentators and reporters on the subject. It's a typical "external link" site. My only point here has been that this link has not been challenged for any reason grounded in WP guidelines. Judging from their comments, it appeared to me that the editors who rushed to wipe it had not even scrutinized the site or the relevant WP guideline. If so, that was a mistake. SPECIFICOtalk
What makes the site quite useful is that it is a bipartisan project; look at the people on the committee, both republican and democratic voices. They aim to make the large amount of information and events consumable by people who are new to the topic; it has timelines and summarizes all the players. This can give the narrative starting from zero for people just wanting to get up to speed on the issue. I found it to be a good source of knowledge and links to articles for people, but hey what do I know...Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It may have both Republicans and Democrats on its committee, but its approach is very much advocacy. That's not just my opinion; that's how it was reported (to the extent that it was reported) in the media. A lot of the sourcing (Variety, Hollywood Reporter) was from entertainment-related publications that focused on its celebrity origins. Some reports (Newsweek, RT, the Daily Beast) featured Morgan Freeman and his insistence that the U.S. "is at war with Russia". Breitbart focused on how much, and how publicly, Reiner hates Trump. There was some neutral coverage - CNN, Fox, The Hill - based on the organization's press release and website, with no original reporting. All of this was opening-day coverage; will there be any more? We can give it a little time, to see if Neutral Reliable Sources begin to treat it as a valid, credible site. A few days or a few weeks won't hurt. In the meantime, as far as I am concerned it is just another advocacy site. BTW Thuc made a good point about the "Further reading" section; some of those links are one-sided advocacy books, others are news reports that ought to be sourced into the article if we are to use them at all. We need to take a look at that section. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like advocacy sites, and I don't like external links generally. But looking at the relevant policy, I see WP:ELYES #3, WP:ELMAYBE #4, WP:ELNO #1, possibly #2 (because I can't factcheck everything there), and #11. Geogene (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for listing specific criteria. My analysis:
ELYES#3 - it remains to be seen if the information is neutral (doesn't sound very neutral) and accurate (time will tell). At this point, no.
ELMAYBE#4 - "contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources even if it doesn't qualify as a reliable source" - could be a maybe, depends on how it develops
ELNO#1 - depends on how it develops
ELNO#2 - depends on how it develops
ELNO#11 - does not apply
My conclusion: maybe a little later, depending on how it develops and what independent sources say about it; does not qualify just yet. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
For now, I would oppose inclusion: it's mostly covered by celebrity mags, and with its dubious choice of experts and Hollywood-ish presentation style, it looks largely like a PR stunt exploiting a hot topic. --S. Roix (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You linked to an opinion piece by a non-notable POV spinner who engages in various laughable deprecations of the site. The site apparently republishes noteworthy material from RS and NOTABLE commentators across a broad spectrum. Hard to reconcile that with the slam from Bloomberg. SPECIFICOtalk 01:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@S. Roix: That's an interesting article. Leonid Bershidsky is a well-known commentator and critic of Putin, by the way. The "War" video with Morgan Freeman speaks pretty heavily against InvestigateRussia's credibility. I don't think it's the sort of neutral resource we should be pointing readers to. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying we should discount Bershidsky's article (or that it's fake news) because he's from Russia? I hope I'm misunderstanding you. We don't discount commentators because of their national origin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting link. It says there is a coordinated Russian attack (including paid social media trolls as well as named commenters) to discredit Morgan Freeman, and by extension this site. They must be scared of it. From our point of view, their reaction and the coverage it is getting may add to the site's notability. Not necessarily its credibility, though; that remains to be evaluated by independent observers. Interesting comment from your WaPo link: "But as ThinkProgress points out, the committee does not boast any actual Russian experts in its governing body."--MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree. And isn't that a strange bit of nonsense "No Russia experts in its board" echoing the less strange but no less nonsensical bit in the Bloomberg piece. Remember this site is an aggregator that's posting clippings from the notable and reliable worldwide media. It's like saying to reject the WaPo because Jeff Bezos can't see Russia from his house.SPECIFICOtalk 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Inclusion of this promotional link seems like a straightforward violation of the relevant policy. I cannot fathom why it is still being considered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Wrongeroo, the guideline doesn't say unique additional content or information. The it says unique "resource" - and thanks to the Advisory Board, the site provides a curated selection for what they call "one-stop shopping" so that the public can find a trove of significant information in one convenient easily-accessed facility. So it's ELNO_YES on that one. SPECIFICOtalk 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. CIR isn't a credible group. It may be interesting from a publicity angle (given its celebrity involvement), but it's not a place I would direct readers to for further information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No reasoning, no WP guideline test, just a general disdain for the hollywood elite? It's not their information. They are the curators, not the authors. You may not find them "credible" but several previous presidential administrations have relied on their judgment and counsel, so in NPOV terms, yes they are credible. You'll need to find a different basis to impeach. SPECIFICOtalk 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO:, by that logic, the VIPS people behind that Nation article are automatically credible because they used to work in the NSA, and yet I seem to recall you fighting heavily against that being added anywhere in the article (and rightfully so). Right now our external link section is very limited, with only a few links to pretty important primary sources. There's no reason whatsoever to add a link to this group that isn't also a reason to add a link to VIPS, and I think you and I agree that those guys are just an advocacy group with no credibility. The fact that the American government once trusted these people has absolutely no bearing on their credibility or noteworthiness on wikipedia, nor on whether adding that group to the external links would actually improve the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Uno, we should not mix up the criteria for article content vs. the criterion for EL. #verydifferent. Due, This website is an aggregator of very high quality content from a range of reliable publishers. Tre, these are not an incoherent list of guys who retired 25+ years ago. These are currently active experts who enjoy broad apolitical recognition of their judgment and expertise. I mean the experts, not the publishers Reiner and Freeman. Advocacy Group? What do they say they're advocating? Dissemination of news? SPECIFICOtalk 19:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
They make it very clear what they are advocating, starting with their launching video: "WHY IT MATTERS: Morgan Freeman warns Russia is waging war on the U.S. We need to pay attention before it's too late." That's a very strong POV and certainly sounds like they will choose to aggregate information that makes Russia look bad. Looking at their website today: Their current news reports are neutral and factual, but nothing you can't get everywhere else including here. Their choice of videos ("Do Russia's war games have a darker purpose?") seems a little more out there. My opinion remains: don't decide now. Give the site a week and see what they are like, what kind of news they aggregate, and see if independent neutral sources evaluate them as a resource - instead of just commenting on the celebrities involved. There is no harm in waiting a few days to get a better perspective on what this site really is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That is a POV like, "Smoking is bad for your health and can cause emphysema and heart disease..." and then providing links to the best and most thorough reporting on clinical surveys and medical information. It's not a POV to say that the Russians attacked the Amercian democracy or the 2016 elections. That's what RS tell us in this article. If the article were written by the half-handful of editors here who deny that, I could understand this website would be POV and not a proper EL. I have not said we should rush to put this in. As you know I always put new findings up on the talk page and say let's see what develops. But to call this POV or advocacy is incorrect. The presentation of the sponsors, Reiner and whosis is typical of their personal styles, but that's true of all businesses, journals, think tanks, research institutes, and public parks. SPECIFICOtalk 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Molière said: "Trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit." Give it some time and we'll see if it blossoms. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. However I'm very disappointed by the non-policy based and non-NPOV efforts to demean this fledgling resource. I'm astonished to see its advisory board called unfit to curate a group of mainstream media reports or of anyone denying the mainstream and WP view that the United States was attacked by the cyber-antics of the Russians. 23:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
As you say, it’s fledgling. Efforts to claim that there was no interference are not gaining traction here, and evidence to the contrary continues to mount. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is why I've never thought it worth the time to scuffle much with the dwindling ranks of the deniers here. With investigations underway, their denials are rapidly becoming untenable as are their editing theses. If you compare where we are with this article today vs. 9 months ago, it's striking and I think we were correct not to get too much into the weeds with the false narratives that were being promoted earlier this year. I must say the time scale is greatly compressed now, with Mueller taking a fast track on a certain part of the investigation. I think that there are other parts, at least as far as public information is available, that are still in the very early stages. But Mueller may think that the individuals he's targeting now will lead him to substantive information on a wide range of topics that are less in the current news. SPECIFICOtalk 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe we should wait a bit, and if the publicity doesn't die off, a separate article can be a good idea. Just like VIPS, it may turn out not to be suitable for this article, but notable on its own. --S. Roix (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
puh-leeze! Nobody has suggested adding anything about this website to the article text. Let's keep clear the guidelines WP gives us to create good pages here. SPECIFICOtalk 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Thucydides411 acted properly according (even if he didn't cite them at the time) to the criteria MelanieN listed above. Regardless of its composition, the "Committee to Investigate Russia" isn't an officially-appointed group. It is not officially bipartisan, nor is it neutral on the topic of this article. And it is vulnerable to the same criticisms VIPS was on findings based on its investigations - more so, for it lacks VIPS's track record in exposing abuses of the national intelligence community. It fails as an encyclopedic source unless its findings (nowhere in evidence) are confirmed in other reliable sources outside of a sensationalistic press cycle (not WP:SENSATION) to themselves be reliable. We ought to wait for those findings to emerge and be evaluated next to the official independent investigation before linking to them. loupgarous (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Facebook
We now have RS reporting that suggests we should remove any endorsement of facebook's narrative that they, the world's most sophisticated social media shop, were snookered by the tricky Russians and had no idea any weird stuff was being put up as targeted ads: [6]. Let's see how this develops over the next day or two so we can adjust the tone of the most recent language. SPECIFICOtalk 23:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting new detail in that story: Facebook only began looking into this when Senator Warner went there and asked them point-blank if there had been any Russian advertising during the election. This was after Facebook had shut down thousands of Russian fake accounts related to the French election. I agree we don't put anything in the article just yet, but let's see what else develops. For one thing, it turns out the reason Mueller got so much more information than Congress did, is that Mueller got a search warrant so his people could go to Facebook and TAKE what they wanted. If the committee does get Facebook to testify, that would be a good time to expand the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I was struck by the disconnect that we might accept the crafted press release words of a company amid this investigation while elsewhere denying the US Intelligence Estimate. SPECIFICOtalk 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any "endorsement of Facebook's narrative" in Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Social_media_and_internet_trolls at the moment. What endorsement are you referencing? I also don't see anything in the Washington Post article you linked that suggests that Facebook was aware of Russian election-related ads before they began their internal investigation. What specific passages in the WaPo article are you referencing?
In general, we don't take any unreliable parties at their word: neither Facebook nor US intelligence agencies. We can report their opinions as their opinions, and we can report notable reactions to those opinions. Currently, this Wiki article seriously underplays criticism of the December 29th JAR, but I don't see a similar problem in the Facebook section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to read this talk page and the discussion hereupon. SPECIFICOtalk 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You didn't answer any of my questions. I honestly don't know what endorsement you're talking about, or what you're pointing to in the WaPo article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
So be it. SPECIFICOtalk 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Are you okay with the way SPECIFICO is behaving here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: you're being adversarial. Other editors would like to know what you're proposing and why you're proposing it, and your refusing to answer these very reasonable questions smacks of stonewalling someone out of petty resentment. It does not help your case in the slightest. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Rock. No, nothing adversarial here. The editor apparently can't even be bothered to review the lengthy thread above on this very page -- a thread in which he himself participated. I tried to politely direct him to review that, and as you may not know, he had also participated in an ill-fated discussion of the same topic on another editor's talk page to fast-track facebook's POV into the article. Anyway apparently both those slipped his mind and so he asked me for guidance and then commented on what he understands rather than what's being discussed. I feel his pain, but it's ultimately his choice whether to review the discussions and share his analysis here, hence my "so be it." SPECIFICOtalk 23:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're proposing, SPECIFICO. That's why I asked you to clarify. You responded in an adversarial manner, without clarifying anything. Do we currently have an "endorsement" of Facebook's views? What does the WaPo article you linked have to do with Facebook being "snookered by the tricky Russians"? How are you proposing, concretely, to change the text of the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
New reporting
New reporting from the Daily Beast says that Russians used Facebook to organize demonstrations FOR TRUMP. If confirmed this is extremely important. Because up to now we have only heard about using fake accounts to promote divisive social issues - to make people more extreme in their feelings about (say) gays or immigrants. That may or may not have violated any laws. But if foreign money was used to promote a candidate, that is clearly illegal. This is definitely something to keep an eye on, and to add to the article if additional confirmation is forthcoming. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also this [7]. Interesting bias on WP that on some issues, editors will uncritically accept new media and internet 2.0 cult of personality gurus while doubting the mainstream RS we are bound to represent. SPECIFICOtalk 12:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: And more. Innocent denials not looking so good [8]SPECIFICOtalk 04:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this second one is a bombshell. I hadn't previously seen this reported - "Facebook detected elements of the Russian information operation in June 2016 and then notified the FBI" - but the WaPo article lays it out in detail. Let me give some thought on how to condense that down into something for our article. I'm still hoping for independent confirmation on the Daily Beast's report about pro-Trump rallies. If none is forthcoming we may eventually use it anyhow, clearly sourced to The Beast. BTW is this stuff going into the Facebook article too? I don't follow that page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It always amazes me how otherwise smart, worldly folks think their behavior will not come under scrutiny. And of all people cybergeekies ought to know about audit trails and traceable records. But in this case, it's just overlooking the possibility that somebody might track down the people they talked to. This is why I am so skeptical of any first-person narratives, especially those that are uncritically repeated by the media, and primary sourced statements. We'll see how this develops. SPECIFICOtalk 16:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The title of this section, "New Reporting", ought to tell us what to do - consult WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:SENSATION and WP:NODEADLINE. If there's anything to this new reportage, it'll still be includable later - with any necessary retractions, qualifiers and disclaimers to explain away the sensationalism. Placing this in the article at this point, before the special investigator appointed to look into the matter (and who's been very aggressive in doing so) rules on the charge, isn't encyclopedic. It's "breaking news" and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Speculation based on those stories beyond what is in the stories themselves is WP:OR. loupgarous (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that some editors can be somewhat hasty in adding new material before we can determine whether it is notable enough to be included, but you seem to be advocating that we just delete the article until the US government investigations are complete. That's a position undermined by the very policies you cite: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information", from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, for example.
The reason people open threads on recent reporting in the talk page is so we can discuss together whether these reports have lasting historical significance and decide whether and how the information should be incorporated into the article. More often than not, we decide not to add the information, or to wait days or weeks until more sources have covered the issue and it can be put in proper perspective. There is no policy on wikipedia that says we have to wait to add information of obvious encyclopedic and historical relevance until government investigations are concluded. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
??
The article begins “… concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered”, citing a 10/7/2016 article that referenced the DHS-ODNI Joint Statement. That release said “… we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.” Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Incidentally, sources are not required in the lead where they already exist in the body. Geogene (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't strongly oppose, but that reads like an opinion piece. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"reads like an opinion piece." So what? We are supposed to also use opinion pieces. We just attribute them. Keep in mind that our job is to document "the sum total of human reality" (Jimbo), and opinions are a large part of that reality. --- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene Thx … the key here is that any cite for the lede sentence include the 'high confidence' phrasing. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Any other comments before changing the cite as discussed above? Humanengr (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Trump’s company had more contact with Russia during campaign, according to documents turned over to investigators
It’s part of the investigation so I think it fits here.
I agree with FallingGravity, the Washington Post article is about associates of Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion of WaPo statement as counterpose is NPOV
Trump's transition team used the term "same people” without indicating whether that referred to analysts, their superiors, or agency heads. The WaPo statement — which refers only to 'analysts' — might fit elsewhere in this article. But it is improperly counterposed here. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Anyone with a basic grasp of English grammar can see that the word "people" can refer to not only individuals, but groups. And especially with Trump, who does not always use the King's English, to say the least. At the very least, the statement should be attributed to the Washington Post, and not put in the voice of Wikipedia, because it makes us look either semi-literate or as if we're peddling an agenda and selectively interpreting Trump's use of the word 'people' to mean that which will make him look the worst. Marteau (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality In your revert, you said the WaPo statement “seems clearly relevant”. How is it relevant? Humanengr (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you read the WaPo article? It clearly discusses Trump's claim and directly states that"the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior." Neutralitytalk 16:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
And the WaPo's implicit assumption that by "people" he can only be referring directly to those analysts and not any of the other many meanings the word "people" could take is inexplicably sloppy work for such a normally fine column. That some editors either do not see this (or refuse to see this) and instead hold up WP:RS as if it were some kind of ward against evil while ignoring WP:COMMON_SENSE is par for the course in political articles. Marteau (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you disagree with the WaPo is fine, but it's not a justification of expunging the source. Your statement is in the nature of media criticism. The key thing is that if Trump's claim is noteworthy, so are the well-regarded sources that undercut or debunk the claim. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
As Barton Swain points out in an opinion piece in the Wapo ("When pundits say ‘the same people,’ they usually mean different people"), the term "the same people" is not meant literally. I think we can expect readers to have a reasonable command of the English language and understand that. The editors who support inclusion are the same people who objected to twisting Obama's "You didn't build that" statement. TFD (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"The fact that you disagree with the WaPo is fine, but it's not a justification of expunging the source." Actually, yes, it is. WP:COMMON_SENSE. Unlike some editors, I do not share the fetish for keeping obviously incorrect material in the encyclopedia simply because a source with a history of being reliable says it. At a minimum, and as a compromise, I attempted to at least take it out of Wikipedia's voice and add attribution of the statement to the Washington Post, but that was shot down on the grounds of the alleged impeccability of the column in question. It's absolute ludicrous, incorrect, damaging to the encylopedia's content and reputation, and does violence to logic. Marteau (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
No, this is merely an ipse dixit statement on your part. You claim that "common sense" supports you and that the Washington Post is "obviously incorrect." I don't accept that, and no source has been brought to bear to actually support those claims. Neutralitytalk 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality Do you take the two expressions 1) "same people" and 2) "the intelligence analysts" to refer to the same set of individuals? Humanengr (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I think; what matters is what the sources think. Neutralitytalk 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"President-elect Donald Trump's transition team slammed the CIA Friday..."
Not that he "slammed intelligence analysts" but that he slammed the agency in general. Clearly, CNN believes "people" in Trump's quotation was a slam at the agency. That the WaPo chooses to parse "people" as meaning only individual persons with no allowance for him possibly meaning the agency in general is an error of basic grammar, logic and fairness. Marteau (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you personally think the WaPo was wrong is not really relevant. Has there been a retraction? Have other reliable sources cast doubt on the WaPo claim? The answers appear to be "no" and "no." Neutralitytalk 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether we think a source is wrong, personally, should be completely relevant to our editing and our handling of the encyclopedia. "Ignore All Rules" and such, as is highlighted at the very top of your user page. Our editors admirably ignored the WP:RS rule when Clock Boy was being said to have "invented" a clock by multiple reliable sources, and properly removed insertions of his clock being an "invention" so I know using common sense is not forbidden on Wikipedia in general, just here at the moment. Marteau (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The sentence is a clear testable fact, sourced to a factual reliable source. I think instead of whether or not it should be attributed to the Washington post, the real issue is whether this fact check warrants mention at all. I think it should probably be removed - it simply doesn't improve the article. If this was a major important claim that Trump had made, and the fact check made a significant difference in its meaning, then that would be good to put in. But various fact checkers have come out saying that hundreds of Trump's statements are false. If we included a correction on every false statement by Trump, we'd basically have to add a sentence every time he's mentioned. This fact check is such a minor correction based on a strict and atypical reading of his language. Most readers who understand English would probably not come away from this section believing that the exact same people who were responsible for the Iraq intelligence are also responsible for the Russia intelligence. Claim/counterclaim makes for awkward reading, and it's just unnecessary in this case. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Two points:
The fact check is overly pedantic in the first place. I think everyone knows that Trump was talking about the CIA in general, and not the specific analysts who made the assessments. From that standpoint, the fact check is sort of silly.
The sentence we have now doesn't really sum up the results of the fact check, which is "Not Quite Right." The WaPo fact check focuses on whether or not CIA analysts correctly assessed the (non-)existence of Iraqi WMD, and only briefly mentions that the analysts working on Russia today are likely different than the analysts working on Iraq 15 years ago. The WaPo conclusion is that the intelligence was spun by politicians, and that it was faulty, which is why it rates Trump's statement "Not Quite Right."
The WaPo conclusion is that the intelligence was spun by politicians - Glad to see that reiterated here. Because the text that I inserted to clarify that has recently been reverted here and needs to be restored to the article. If not, we have the article supporting Trump's POV (or calculated deflection) that the incompetent, erratic, or dishonest intelligence community fooled everyone on the Iraq2 WMD claim. This point has been made abundantly clear in virtually all the RS reporting on the WMD issue, including extensive reporting on the Colin Powell UN speech, Cheney's Mushroom Cloud, and other misrepresentations of intelligence. SPECIFICOtalk 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
What I said was that The WaPo conclusion is that the intelligence was spun by politicians, and that it was faulty. The WaPo fact-check entry doesn't really go into a third aspect of what happened with Iraq - the complicity of the intelligence community in the Bush administration's spinning of intelligence. The national intelligence estimate put out in the run-up to the Iraq War was itself heavily spun, because the entire direction of policy at the time was in favor of war. The NIE assessed, for example, that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to be used in centrifuges, despite DOE analysis showing that the tubes were unsuited for this purpose. It wasn't purely administration spinning - the spin extended into the intelligence agencies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Since December 2016, SPECIFICO has made numerous incomprehensible edits denying that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD in order to paint the CIA as infallible. (See, for example, here,here, and here.) She is only able to generate this remarkable conclusion by way of deliberate cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, similar to her misquoting of Thucydides411 above. Her false, unsupported assertions have been repeatedly debunked on this talk page, for example here,here, and here. The text being debated in this thread was a compromise proposed by me and implemented by FallingGravity after SPECIFICO insisted that the Trump transition team's uncontroversial statement of fact needed to be counterbalanced by some criticism, however spurious. For those interested in the details of Glenn Kessler's fact check of both Trump and Nancy Pelosi, and SPECIFICO's distortion of what Kessler actually said to buttress Pelosi's revisionist talking point that the CIA never said Iraq had WMDs, they can be found below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content:
Kessler: "Before the October 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], some intelligence agencies assessed that the Iraqi government was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, while others disagreed. The NIE reflected a majority view that it was being reconstituted." cf. 2008 Senate Intelligence Committeereport: "Statements by the president, vice president, secretary of state, and the national security advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by the intelligence community, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."
Kessler: "The intelligence community consistently stated between the late 1990s and 2003 that Iraq retained biological warfare agents and the capability to produce more." cf. 2008 Senate report: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."
Kessler: "The October NIE said that Iraq retained between 100 and 500 metric tons of chemical weapons. The intelligence community assessed that Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide its capability in its dual-use chemical industry. However, intelligence assessments clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production [emphasis added] was ongoing." cf. 2008 Senate report: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information. Statements by the president and vice president prior to the October 2002 NIE ... did not [reflect] the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing."
Michael Morell: "Does the CIA get everything right? Absolutely not. Was Iraq WMD one of our biggest failures? Yes. But the CIA gets most things right."
Kessler: "The clearest example of stretching the intelligence concerned Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaeda and by extension the 9/11 attacks, which were thin and nonexistent—but which the Bush administration (especially Vice President Cheney) suggested were deeply suspicious. ... The [2008 Senate] report said such Iraq/al-Qaeda statements were 'not substantiated by the intelligence,' adding that multiple CIA reports dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating partners—and that there was no intelligence information that supported administration statements that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda. However, the Trump team kept its complaint isolated to intelligence findings that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the Senate report found that remarks by administration officials generally reflected the intelligence, but failed to convey 'substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.'"
Kessler: "Neither Trump nor Pelosi gets this correct. The intelligence community's assessments on Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs turned out to be woefully wrong, largely because analysts believed that Iraq had kept on a path of building its programs rather than largely abandoning them after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Thus the stockpiles theoretically got larger as time went on. But at the same time, Bush administration officials often hyped the intelligence that supported their policy goals—while ignoring or playing down dissents or caveats from within the intelligence community."
SPECIFICO's summary: "However, the intelligence analysts involved in monitoring Russian activities are most likely different from those who assessed that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and a 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that the Bush Administration's claims on the subject were 'not substantiated by the intelligence.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Coming into this discussion having glanced at it a few times and then giving it a quick read-through, I'm seeing valid points by both sides. First, the WaPo article absolutely makes the link between the "analysts" they say are different, and the "people" Trump blamed for the WMDs. But on the other side, it's pretty damn clear that the US Intelligence community thought that Iraq had a WMD program back before the invasion. (That doesn't absolve the Bush administration from blame for hyping that up to the Nth degree, as if Saddam was about to start launching nukes at Israel, Iran or both, of course.)
I can understand the arguments about a false balance here, but I think they're missing the point that Trump's complaints aren't infallible. If we're going to include Trump saying something which the RSes say is false, then we need to include an RS saying that it's false. Unless there are RSes defending Trump's statement, this isn't really controversial.
This claim was published explicitly as a fact check of both Trump's statement and the claim about the intelligence community not being to blame WMDs, and it raises several valid critiques of Trump's claim. The fact that an editor who supports inclusion has made edits which suggest that the Bush administration was more to blame than the intelligence community is really irrelevant. (And for the record, I accept the notion that SPEC's edits were "denying that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD". Sorry SPEC, but this is pretty clear). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
To reiterate, Kessler does not assert that Trump's statement was "false," only that it is mostly true but "not quite right." I agree that Kessler raises several important caveats, but none of them refute Trump's essential point that the CIA has a checkered past: "Trump's complaint about this semi-ancient history is a bit odd because a) the intelligence analysts who worked on Middle East WMDs are not going to be the same as analysts focused on Russian cyber-behavior; b) the intelligence collection for hacking in the United States by overseas powers would be different from assessing illicit weapons programs in the Middle East; and c) reforms were put in place after the Iraq War to make it harder for suspect intelligence to bubble up to the top ranks without careful scrutiny. (For instance, a new procedure required heads of intelligence agencies to vouch personally for the credibility of any of their own agency's sources that are used in a major estimate.)" Some of this nuance was lost in translation by FallingGravity's edit, which reduced Kessler's argument to a minor semantic quibble.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Kessler article never uses the phrase "not quite right". In fact, it states "Neither Trump nor Pelosi gets this correct." in the first sentence of the last paragraph. I don't agree that FallingGravity's edit makes this into a "minor semantic quibble", though I'm a little confused by why the edit says "most likely" when the source leaves no room for doubt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
TTAAC I do actually like that edit better as it better describes what was said. And I'm okay with attribution, since Trump's comments are attributed as well. But I still think the "most likely" needs to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"The Kessler article never uses the phrase 'not quite right'." Not in the body, but every one of Kessler's fact checks ends with a "Share The Facts" graphic repeating the disputed statement and assigning it a rating. In this case, Kessler's rating is "Not Quite Right."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Point of fact: the Kessler article labels Trump's statement "Not Quite Right." It's right at the bottom of the page, in the "Share the facts" box. If you click the button to share the Kessler article on Twitter, for example, you get a little box with Trump's quote and "Not Quite Right." But I'm just a moronic liar, so what do I know. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree in re the "most likely" needing to go. The statement is directly attributed to the gentleman and he never qualified it in any way. Our saying he did is incorrect. Marteau (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Although I have to admit I don't follow the logic of your initially reverting my edit when I gave attribution to the quote, citing WP:YESPOV, but now because since "Trump's comments are attributed as well you're "OK" with it. MPants at work, what happened to WP:YESPOV? Or are we ignoring that rule now? Marteau (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have thought about this issue and I've just reviewed WP:YESPOV as you (Pants) advised and it does indeed point out that uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. As was also pointed out to me, the Post has not retracted this, nor have any other sources criticized this interpretation, therefore, as WP:YESPOV is policy, the attribution must go. I'm going to go ahead and remove it and return the statement to Wikipedia's voice. My apologies for my strident advocacy for ignoring policy on this issue. Editors going off and choosing which policy to follow would lead to chaos and I stand corrected. Marteau (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The WaPo statement in question appears in a subsection of ‘Commentary and reactions’. Do any other subsections of this section include a counter to a statement by the subject of that subsection? Humanengr (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post: Google uncovers Russian-bought ads on YouTube, Gmail and other platforms
Continued details to include.Casprings (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
The entire article and the 24 or so related articles revolve around Russia colluding/ interfering/hacking on behalf of Donald Trump in opposition to Hillary Clinton. 71.224.251.239 02:44, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
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.
Hmm the academic speculation regarding the Russian trolls still in the article,
the encyclopedic facts above still not in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Need the section "Proof"
There needs to be the section listing the items that prove that the phenomenon asserted in the subject actually took place, preferably with bullet points. People read this article in search of proof, and are left with just a wall of text, and without a clear proof. "U.S. Intelligence Community was confident", "investigations are underway", "Barack Obama warned Putin ... to stop" - none of these prove Russian interference. Yurivict (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason to discuss a statement in principle. Since you have identified a way in which you feel the article can be improved, the next step is for you to bring links to RS presentation of proof, and your proposed article text describing the proof, to this talk page. When there needs to be any kind of something it's up to someone or anyone to propose it. You did not do that last time you visited. SPECIFICOtalk 15:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, I can't find the real proof in the text of the article. All proof can be reduced to the statement "CIA is convinced that the interference took place", which isn't a proof at all. Somebody should either create such section, or prepend "Conspiracy theories about the" to the the article's title, or explain how is this not a conspiracy theory. In its current form the article just doesn't answer any questions. Yurivict (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's a start: The summary sentences in the lede, from "The United States Intelligence Community concluded …" through "In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper …" make the following claims:
Claim
Proof
WP RS report claim as 'fact'
Russia interfered
??
yes
Trump ordered influence campaign
??
yes
Russia directed hacking of emails
??
yes
Russia hacked servers and forwarded contents to WikiLeaks
WP:DENY He says the article needs to show the proof. Simple solution: Add the proof to the article. Not a solution: Say the article needs something and do nothing about improving it. SPECIFICOtalk 01:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Given that the agencies haven’t released any proof (under reasons of protecting methods and sources, etc.), perhaps the question marks in the above table should be replaced by “not provided by ODNI”. That seems well-documented. Humanengr (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This is nonsense. We treat it like WP:RS treats these statements.Casprings (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We cannot add proof because none has been presented in reliable sources. The article does mention the source of the claims. TFD (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
WP does not, and indeed cannot, provide proof of anything, ever. WP has no such authority. The only thing we do is present what the actual authorities say. This is the definition of an encyclopedia. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@TFD, thx re "We cannot add proof because none has been presented in reliable sources." In view of WP:NEWSORG saying "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.", on what basis can any RS be considered reliable when asserting a claim as fact without providing proof? Humanengr (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
For one thing, there are a ton of different reliable sources discussing this, and basically all of them agree. It'd be a bit of an abuse of the whole case-by-case policy to declare every single one of them unusable. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
In this case the reliable sources are news outlets and they are reliably reporting what intelligence officers say. TFD (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@TFD, Intelligence officers have said x, y, z but have provided no proof. What then is justification for titling the article as fact? The refrain here seems to be “RS asserts it as fact.” But -all- such RS that state (or restate) claims as fact fail per the indicated RS policy. Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree the title is misleading and should be changed. (What about "Russiagate?") But the lead at least does not say the claim are true just that U.S. intelligence Community is highly confident it is true. Incidentally the phrasing seems to be wrong because we now know that it was a report by an ad hoc group of agents from several agencies. TFD (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@TFD Do we know that? If you're talking about the January intelligence assessment, then that was a document published by the Office for the Director of National Intelligence. At the time, the people involved said this was an official report representing the US Intelligence Community. Since then, the new (current) Director of National Intelligence, Director of the CIA, and Director of the NSA have all confirmed that this represents the official position of the US Intelligence Community. I think we've been over this dozens of times since January, and unless you have some hitherto hidden evidence that somehow trumps all the public statements of all these government officials and all the analyses of secondary reliable sources, then our position should stay the same as it was before.
@Humanengr So you're saying that we should just ignore all RS, at our own discretion. Do you see how that could be problematic? I'm more sympathetic to the idea that we include a section on the limitations of the evidence publicly presented by the US government, since it does seem that enough sources discussed that topic to make a decent section about it. But that would have to be in addition to what we already have. Otherwise we'd be blatantly ignoring the vast majority of RS simply because we don't think what they're saying is true. That's not how wikipedia is run. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Red Rock Canyon, When RS make claims w/o supporting proof — which they cannot provide since none has been made available — it’s not a matter of arbitrary discretion to regard a claim as unsupported. I am not saying here to ignore RS for all claims (e.g., that Y said such-and-such), but that their claim that x is fact is clearly unsupported. If it’s unsupported, it’s entirely degrading to WP and misleading to the reader to present it as fact anywhere, most egregiously in a title as the title frames reader expectations for what the article will present. Humanengr (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it works. That sounds like you coming up with an ad-hoc rule so you can change the article to your liking despite the lack on any reliable sources supporting you. If there were other sources more suited to the article - scholarly articles, published political science or history books - then maybe it would make sense to ignore the newspapers. But the only authoritative sources we've got are the newspapers. We either use them or delete the article and wait a few years for something better to come along. Picking and choosing which of what they say is true or false is original research. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately that problem does not arise because the media do not say the opinions in the report are true, they merely say they are what they were. TFD (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think what was said was that the DNI represented 16 intelligence agencies, but that got reported as 17 organizations involved. In fact, it was only the DNI, CIA, FBI and NSA.[10] The report has the seal of the DNI. Presumably the Director selected members from the three agencies. The term "represents" here is non-standard. We normally don't say that soldiers are represented by their officers or workers are represented by their bosses. TFD (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I've read that politifact article. The people who said "all 17 agencies" were involved were incorrect, but nowhere in this article do we make that claim. Which part of the article are you talking about? The only time "represent" is used in that fashion seems to be in the section about Vladimir Putin. I'm not sure why it's written like that - the language seems odd and confused, if not wrong. In general, the ODNI is in charge of the US intelligence community, and if they say some analysis or conclusion reflects the opinion of the US intelligence community, they are automatically right - unless there's some inner battle between agencies that breaks into the public. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The article begins, "The United States Intelligence Community concluded...." The IC is a "federation of 16 separate United States government agencies...headed by the Director of National Intelligence." While one could argue the opening sentence is factual, it is misleading. It implies that all these agencies were involved. In fact we don't know if any agencies were involved, just that the head of the DNI selected agents from three agencies. TFD (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
>For one thing, there are a ton of different reliable sources discussing this, and basically all of them agree.
You fail to see the conflict of interest they have here. These so called """"""""""""reliable source"""""""""""" make a lot of money by pushing this conspiracy theory.
It's shameful how blindly Wikipedians trust any and all big news sources. This kind of shit makes Wikipedia a fucking news aggregator and not an encyclopedia. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is not the platform to push the "mainstream media is fake news" narrative. ValarianB (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not what the source you presented (or any source I know of) says. It says that the CIA, FBI, and NSA were involved in the assessment as organizations - not that they just chose some people from them to help out. But that's all beside the point. It doesn't matter who wrote the report. Its conclusions have the public backing of the intelligence community as a whole. We don't say that this particular report was written by some theoretical supercommittee consisting of every single person from every US intelligence agency. We say it represents the conclusions of the intelligence community, and that is a fact supported by the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Red Rock Canyon, Accepted WP practice — which this article adheres to (for the most part) — is to properly refer to a claim as a claim and to properly cite its source. The most impactful place this is not done is the title. Why the inconsistency except to push a PoV. No satisfactory explanation for that exception has been given, it is that exception that is ad hoc. Humanengr (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it's about the title again. I recommend you go back to one the countless move article debates in the talk page archives. There you shall find page after page of explanation, and I hope you find it satisfactory. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Consensus can change and it is not a good reason for violating policy, in this case "Neutrality in article titles." What do you think of "Russiagate," which is AFAIK the only term used? TFD (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not a lot of discussion and it was pointed out that there was no connection between all the Russia stories. But I think there is: the Kremlin allegedly put Trump in power because he was pro-Russian and Trump himself or his aides may be complicit. TFD (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't refer to earlier title debates because I believe prior consensus is somehow set in stone, but because Humanengr is simply restating arguments that have been addressed over and over again, without any new evidence. There's a reason for the link at the top of the page to all the previous movement requests, and that's to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Boys and girls why do you jump in for another episode of dancing with the trolls every time a drive-by throws up this same kind of diversionary BS? SPECIFICOtalk 15:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Tsk tsk SPECIFICO, I'm going to give you a templated warning for that comment. Having said that, yes, y'all have been taken for a ride. I have left the original commentator a note about discretionary sanctions. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Sure, go on, continue to enable that sort of behavior. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411, that applies to you in the first place, enabling someone who is clearly here to either promote an agenda or, at the very least, prevent article progress and drop a time sink on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yurivict asked a reasonable question and made a proposal about article content. Calling them a troll is demeaning. I don't really expect you to object to SPECIFICO's insult, since you've made it clear that you only apply civility standards in one direction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
…since you've made it clear that you only apply civility standards in one direction. I’ve run out of appendages counting the number of editors that you have accused of bad faith over the last year. At some point, you might consider the possibility that the editor with an agenda is you. Just a suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Red Rock Canyon, re prior discussion — for reference, MjolnirPants wrote: "RSes aren't calling it 'alleged' or 'purported' or 'supposed' or 'claimed' or 'accused'. They're calling it interference/involvement. So that's what we do. Second guessing reliable sources based on our own analysis is blatant WP:OR." in a discussion titled "Shouldn't this be 'alleged involvement'?" For the sake of discussion, I'll accept MjolnirPants's argument that because RS's aren't calling it 'alleged', the title should not use that term. The problem is, however, that everywhere else we rely on RS's saying something, we attribute the statement to them in a cite. But that isn't being done (even implicitly) in the title itself. That's what's wrong. AFAICS, nowhere in the talk pages has this inconsistency been addressed. Humanengr (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that for any controversial topic, there is a tipping point where the need to specify "a source says X did Y" transitions into simply saying "X did Y", because the clear majority of sources consistently and reliably report it as such. We're long past the point where Russian meddling in the election is idle speculation. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@ValarianB, Thx — we agree it’s controversial. Is there any other controversial topic in WP where the title does not clearly indicate the controversy? I don’t see any. (Exclude from that any in the List of conspiracy theories, where the nature of the debate is otherwise prominently indicated.) Humanengr (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Controversial does not mean objectionable. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is controversial, but that does not mean that the pro-pizzagate acolytes get their say, as their point of view is universally derided. The article even begins with "...is a debunked conspiracy theory", not "sources claim it is debunked". The title of this article reflects the assessment of the intelligence community ans how the majority of reliable sources discuss it; Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election. Not "claimed", bot "according to..". They did it. Finally, please do not ping me in an discussion I am already participating in. Entirely unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I’m not sure if you saw my edit where I added a parenthetical to indicate I was excluding ‘conspiracy theories’ —which highlight, as you say, that characterization is the article. Are you saying that not believing Russia interfered in the election is a conspiracy theory. Humanengr (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Humanengr, I can't speak for ValarianB, but I can answer your question in the affirmative.
An alliance consisting of the Russian FSB, Putin, Wikileaks, Trump administration, Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller, RT, Sputnik, etc. have created a conspiracy theory which accuses the DNC and Hillary Clinton of masterminding a false flag operation, and that it was them which created the whole Russiagate series of events, even though this began long before the campaigns and makes no sense. They posit that Russia and Trump are innocent of any collusion and that the DNC actually hacked itself, leaving false leads which pointed toward Russia.
So yes, there is such a conspiracy theory, but it lacks any good evidence and is only posited by unreliable sources as part of an obvious attempt to cover-up a series of crimes.
The actual Russiagate events are backed by much more and better evidence which actually make sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer, thx, that packs in a lot to respond to. I’ll start here: 1) Is that the only basis on which a reasonable person can conclude that the ‘Russia interfered’ meme is either false or grossly overhyped? 2) How would you say that list of conspirators differs from a ‘neocon enemies list’ (assuming you accept that as a term of reference)? Humanengr (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Humanengr, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. I don't believe it's false or overhyped. There are myriad RS which describe myriad different types of evidence which show that Russia meddled in the election and has not stopped its hacking and influence campaign against American (and others') democracy.
I also don't use the term "neocon enemies list". I just listed some of the players actively pushing that conspiracy theory and aiding the cover-up. As Fyddlestix says below, "It's no longer controversial", just as it's also no longer controversial that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the opposite. We're way beyond that. We see things as they are. We're looking at a very active cover-up and disinformation campaign. It's no long a question of "if" Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia, but "how" he'll get pushed out of office, and how many will go with him. That's the most realistic view of the state of affairs, as described by RS. Only fringe sources say otherwise, and many of them actively help the cover-up. Per fringe and due weight, those sources get short shrift here, as they should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer I wasn’t asking whether -you- thought it was false or overhyped (obviously you don’t), but whether the -only- way a reasonable person could conclude that the ‘Russia interfered’ meme is false or overhyped was a consequence of some such conspiracy. [I can respond to the other issues but, for efficiency, I’ll limit my responses to one point at a time.] Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not traveling down this road of semantic gymnastics with you, sorry. The title of this article fits the subject matter, there's nothing else to this angle. ValarianB (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This is silly. It's no longer controversial that Russia interfered in the election - enough RS have reported on enough aspects of this that to argue that Russia didn't interfere (or to claim that "there's no proof" of it) is now the REDFLAG claim. Anyone who has been reading (reputable) newspapers should be able to see that by now. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 9 October 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved – Unanimous opposition. Closing early per WP:SNOW. — JFGtalk 19:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
2. I think the interference is about one election. It may have happened in multiple states, but it seems clear that Russia interfered in the Presidential election Casprings (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Since the U.S. does not, unlike France, have separate presidential elections, any interference will affect the election of officials at all levels. TFD (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I stand with TFD. Anyway, the change would not be likely to change search engine results landing on the article. There were primaries, there were state campaigns, targeted interference in the state elections and possibly at the polls. It seems like "elections" is OK. SPECIFICOtalk 19:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose A significant part of the interference seems to have been in the form of ads and propaganda focusing on issues as well as candidates. This may have had effects on any office up for vote in the general election, not just the president. Even if the goal was to influence the presidential race, many of the methods were non-specific, and the election itself is integrated. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per Red Rock Canyon, changing it to "Presidential election" would be incorrect, as it was broad ranging disinformation targeting all candidates of all elections. I also think that capitalizing "interference" would be grammatically incorrect. Titles do not have to match official documents, it's an encyclopedia and not a transcription service.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The interference by Russia was not limited to the Presidential election.- MrX 14:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as the scope is broader than just the federal election, e.g. Russia's attempts to meddle in the Democratic primary. ValarianB (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose per above, considering they reportedly tried to interfere with the DNC. Jdcomix (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose because the interference was aimed at, and did affect, other elections, just not nearly as much as the presidential campaign.
The problem we have here is that we don't cover that aspect very well at all, so the title doesn't fit very well with the content. We need to add more of that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Any additional comments:
I think this is unneeded precision and detail. Do you have any evidence showing this could be confused with something else? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Time to reconsider
CNN apparently has:
[other 10 Oct cite subsituted; see below; thx O3000]
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has subpoenaed the co-founder of a Washington opposition research firm that produced an unsubstantiated dossier on President Donald Trump in the panel's probe into alleged Russian meddling, CNN reported Tuesday.
And even if the U.S. had qualified, tense relations between Washington and Moscow, including continued U.S. probes into alleged Russian meddling in last year's election, may also have put a dampener on ratings.
(CNN)The chairman of the House intelligence committee has issued subpoenas to the partners who run Fusion GPS, the research firm that produced the dossier of memos on alleged Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign, according to sources briefed on the matter.
Researching further, I see it might be a momentary blip. Postponing further discussion. Humanengr (talk) 02:28, 15 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 Russia's information war meets the US election. [1]
The article revealed "how Russia is attempting to support Trump through social media, by helping galvanise and motivate extremists who in turn support the controversial Republican candidate. A network of Russian-backed anti-Western websites are linked with American white supremacist, sovereign citizen, and conspiracy theory sites. Activists connected to those sites support the Trump campaign, often parroting Moscow's criticism of the US, NATO and the general ills of Western society."
The article discussed:
The role of social media to try to shape outcome of the election.
The effort to "increase acrimony" within Western democracy and distort domestic political issues.
The institutional blind-spot in the US to defend against this kind of information attack. "there are no authorities charged with rebutting a coordinated effort by Russia to sway Western domestic public opinion. Russia's information war defies simple categorisation as a domestic, international, diplomatic or military problem for Western countries. "
The "content feedback loop" on the internet and social media between Trump's backers, the alt-right, white supremacists and Russian outlets.
How the "US is just another country in which Russia is building ties with fringe groups in an effort to sway the domestic political discussion and gain leverage"
Looks ahead to the challenge for democratic nations: "If a Trump battalion of meme-armed supporters, some of whom are singing from a Russian hymnsheet, simply drown out Hillary Clinton online to the point she can't communicate with the broad masses, it may be a real worry - not just for Clinton, but for the outlook for democracy circa 2016."
A follow up article dated July 26, 2016 "DNC leak: Russia better at information war now than during Cold War" [2] discussed the overall influence strategy being employed by Russia while the 2016 election was under way.
"The goal of distributing internal DNC emails is not only to create disorder within the party, as has happened after WikiLeaks published embarrassing internal documents that led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The emails and other information can be used to shape broader views of the US political system among American voters and in the wider world, as a form of information war waged by Russia towards the West."
It also stresses foreign interference via social media:
"In a globalised, wired world, some of the loudest voices calling for protest in the US...need not be in those countries. WikiLeaks, a global network, has tweeted right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter (tweet later deleted) and messages stressing disorder at the convention."
The article discusses the broader strategy of sowing "discord in Western publics, as Russia takes a more aggressive geopolitical stance."
A follow-up article Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda also on Sydney Morning Herald/The Age on August 9, 2016 observed the connection between Trump's online campaign and Russian information war strategy. [3]
"The characteristics of the Trump campaign's media push - its relentlessness, its volume, the cacophony of voices - share traits of a 21st-century propaganda technique pioneered, if not perfected, by Russia."
"It's clear that the way information is used by the Trump campaign is not meant to be fact-checked, weighed against earlier statements, or even to create the building blocks of a political policy discussion. Rather, it's designed to go past the public's heads and directly to their hearts."
The story was republished on Fairfax Media on October 13.
Melbedit (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That shows that others had drawn the conclusion before Clinton's loss. But you would need secondary sources that mention mention it. Your first source btw is "analysis" not actual news reporting. TFD (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The linked sources appear to cite plenty of third parties and evidence. It's not a foodie fashion blog. "Analysis" of news is not like "Opinion" I like biscuits and jam. SPECIFICOtalk 12:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Jeff Sessions congressional testimony
[11] - Some interesting new statements here. SPECIFICOtalk 13:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid and related emails to Trump’s lawyer?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid, and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in which he wrote "Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." and material about Sater's series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen?
See above discussion for further background.- MrX 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Corrected: added text in blue.- MrX 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Sater sent that email ("Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.") to Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, not to an aid of Putin. No article I've read discusses any contact Sater might have had with Putin, because the evidence they possess are Cohen's emails. I'd suggest you check the news source and edit this, because right now people are voting on false information. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Support
Support
And move to Trump: A Russian agent. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Striking joke vote. Jdcomix (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Is that a joke (and therefore actually an oppose vote)? Not helpful. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearly relevant to the subject and needed per WP:DUE.Casprings (talk) 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. Hell yes, we should include it.See comment in "Oppose" subheading But if we're going to include it now, we need to find sources critical of those making the connection to balance. If we can't wait until we're using hindsight to examine the issue, we can at least try to be as balanced about it as we can. Also, we shouldn't be stating anything in wikivoice unless it's something that both political sides agree on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. It is obviously relevant to the topic at hand. Lizzius (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - There is an obvious connection to the 2016 election made by the sources. This material ties in closely with investigation into collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign.- MrX 03:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Support - obviously relevant and well sourced. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Support, subject to correcting recipient, relevant and neutrally phrased. Links between Trump associates and Russian officials would be a good 2nd choice. As with other political scandals, the character of those surrounding the principal is as relevant as the actions of the principal themselves. Would you buy a used political campaign from this person? Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. The sources clearly connect it to Russian interference in the election: "The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process." We have to follow their judgment in terms of focus and weight, which means including things that they cover as relevant to this topic even if some editors personally feel that the papers are making a mistake or exaggerating it. I also don't see how anyone can credibly claim that it's WP:RECENTISM given that the sources are at least a month old; given the level and depth of coverage it received, at this point it clearly deserves at least a sentence or two in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Support Documented psy-ops messin' per RS. SPECIFICOtalk 02:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Support If it is sourced, relevant fact, it should be included. TP✎✓ 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 WP:COATRACK for all stories involving the words "Trump," "Russia" and "election." If there is a strong desire to include the Mr. Sater story in this article, I suggest a name change: Trump, Russia, you connect the dots was only half in jest, since it's what some editors seem to desire out of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
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 Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Even there the title restricts its scope to links to Russian officials.James J. Lambden (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Off-topic. This material has nothing to do with any "election" "interference" by "Russia." Also, MrX misrepresents the sources above—the "our boy" quote is from an email from Trump business associate Sater to Trump lawyer Cohen. By misattributing this hyperbolic statement to an exchange between Cohen and Peskov, MrX falsely implies that Peskov (and perhaps Putin himself) considered Trump "our boy." The RfC should probably be amended, or else we are all debating a false premise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not here, but in the "links" article. That was good suggestion from Objective3000. Sater keeps turning up in these Russia connections, but there is no evidence he actually helped Russia interfere with the election; he seems to have been more of a freelancer with one foot in Russia and one foot in the Trump camp. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. As far as I've read, this story has nothing to do with actual Russian government efforts to interfere in the election. The way reliable sources present it, Sater just sounds like a braggart who didn't know what he was talking about, and who had no real contact with any Russian officials of note. If anything concrete comes of this, we can add it, but right now he's so completely irrelevant to this topic as to not merit mention. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Off topic. Jdcomix (talk) 14:26, 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."Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That's speculation. My grandma could have "somehow" walked on the Moon too. — JFGtalk 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 The Nation and its subscribers. Usually, it's conservatives saying bad things about The Nation.
WP:NOTNEWSPAPERWP:SENSATION and WP:NODEADLINE - 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). loupgarous (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
loupgarous, I moved this from the 'threaded discussion' to the 'oppose' section. I presume that was your intention. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose, this looks like WP:RECENTISM. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Sater actually had a hand in getting Trump elected. This is just another gossip story that was boosted by "Russiagate" media trend. --S. Roix (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Two minds, whilst I think it shows that there were some with (very) tenuous ties to the Trump campaign seeking Russian assistance it is also true that this was not his campaign directly (or even indirectly) doing this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Cohen, being Trump's lawyer, is a pretty direct connection. Also this source puts Sater "at the heart of the Trump-Russia inquiry".Volunteer Marek (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop being obscurantist. So what if it doesn't directly "involve any actions taken by the Russian government". It involves Trump associates SEEKING Russian government to take actions. There's the fact of interference happening. And there's WHY and HOW it happened. This is the second part.
The problem here for you is that you reject the idea of Russian interference a priori. So to YOU whenever a source tries to explain the WHY and HOW Russian interference happened, of course you're going to think it's not irrelevant because you don't such a thing happened in the first place. But that is YOUR own POV, that is YOU trying to impose your personal opinions on the article, that is YOU refusing to follow the policy of reliable sources. That is YOU breaking Wikipedia policy and now, edit warring in contravention of it. Not clear why we should put up with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Capitalizing random words doesn't make your point any clearer. This material isn't relevant, but you're trying to coatrack it into the article. And really, you're the last person who should be throwing around accusations of POV-pushing or policy violation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They're not "random". The capitalization stress the "YOU", as in Thucydides411, for a reason - to emphasize that YOU are trying to cram your own personal opinions down everyone's throat here, rather than relying on reliable sources per WP:RS. It's gone on long enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What opinions have I tried to "cram down everyone's throat"? I've been arguing all along for a more cautious approach in this article that doesn't strongly state any side's opinion. My personal opinions on Russiagate are very different from any content I've proposed to add to the article. I don't think you've exercised any comparable caution in how you've approached the article.
Just look at the current situation, for example: you're trying to add in new content, which I and a number of editors think does not fall under the subject area of this article, alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. From my perspective, it looks a lot like you're trying to ram something into the article that, at best, has only a tenuous relation to the subject area, and then you're throwing around accusations when you don't immediately get your way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
a number of editors Hope you’re not including me. I’m ambivalent on this subject and looking for a compromise. But, I agree with VM’s comments. I also think you should remove your comments from the HT talk page as I think they are harmful to HT, and not useful to the project. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I got to ask Thucy, on HT's talk page you say that "JFG is one of the few regular editors I interact with in American politics articles". Now, since you pretty much edit only this article, where exactly have you interacted with JFG in "American politics articles"? Or with HT for that matter, since the ONLY pages you've ever edited together are drama boards [12], not even here. Is it some kind of enemy of my enemy is someone I will try to get unblocked kind of thing? (And if you think this is off topic - it's much less so than bringing up 8 year old ArbCom cases just to be a deeayceekay) Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is exactly right. Thucydides411 is engaged in long-term tendentious editing on this article. His conduct should be reviewed at WP:AE. I began documenting a case three months ago, but unfortunately, I've been too busy to complete and file it.- MrX 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. SPECIFICOtalk 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.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but the subject in the sentence that is the article title isn't Trump; It's Russia. So to keep with the weed (I think it's weed, my euphemisms are more American than yours) analogy, we're not including "so and so offered to buy Trump two ounces of cheap weed" in an article about Trump, we're including "so and so said Backstreet Larry can get him weed at cheap prices" in an article about Backstreet Larry's drug-dealing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but anyone can claim they can do something, the issue is whether or not this is credible (and it seems not). Simply put this is a bet business man trying to sell a bridge and failing.There is no evidence that anyone took him seriously, or even actually had any contacts with the Russians to any meaningful degree.This really is some back street shyster getting for more publicity then his influence deserves, it's a nothing. The more I think about it the less relevant it all seems.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Slatersteven accurately paraphrases The New York Times: "There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries. ... As a broker for the Trump Organization, Mr. Sater had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen." Nowhere does America's paper of record endorse a connection to election interference; to the contrary, it explicitly states "The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ever heard of a disclaimer? News outlets like to do that. They make a claim, then they point out that the claim isn't 100% certain to cover their asses if they have to recant later. Cherry picking the sources to support an interpretation isn't a particularly smart thing to do when you're discussing things with people who've read the sources themselves, because it just reflects poorly on your judgement. And before you end up on a podium again:
The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump’s team was part of that process.
Or perhaps:
The Trump Organization on Monday turned over emails to the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election and whether anyone in Mr. Trump’s campaign was involved. Some of the emails were obtained by The Times.
Or maybe:
Mr. Trump, who began praising Mr. Putin years before the presidential campaign, has said there was no collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian sources.
For a source not drawing a connection, they sure seem to write quite a bit about the election inteference. Those quotes I gave aren't all of the coverage that article gives to the interference, and yet they still make up about 15-20% of the article themselves. I'm sorry, but when 20% or more of an article is devoted to a subject that's not in the headline, the assertion that the source isn't drawing a link between the headline and that subject is just complete bullshit.
It's surprising, really. There's a situation in which the Trump campaign was offered a chance to interfere in the election and they ignored it. To editors not so dead-eyed focused on defending Trump against any hint of wrongdoing (to the point of consistently denying the involvement of Russia to begin with), this seems like the sort of thing that would help balance out the views. It's a chance to show that the Trump campaign had standards, if not of ethics then at least of competence. Besides, you haven't been paying attention to the !voting, above. I actually !voted to exclude it from this article and add it to a more relevant article. So all you're accomplishing here is showing off your political POV, and we've all already seen it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
this is part of the long-documented and ongoing Russian psy-ops on the Trump team. It is not clear to me that we have enough context and detail to give a good encyclopedic balance to this content. RS clearly discuss the Russians having messed with the minds of the Trump circle, but the details, at least as publicly reported by RS, are not fully elaborated just yet. This may be one of those things that's not worth the trouble and will become clear with time. SPECIFICOtalk
Uh, what, SPECIFICO? No reliable source that I have seen suggests anything remotely resembling your spectacular, unsupported assertion that a plan for a Trump Tower in Moscow—proposed by a Trump business associate and completely ignored by the Russian government, which made no attempt to help the project along in any way, shape, or form—"is part of the long-documented and ongoing Russian psy-ops on the Trump team"—certainly not The Washington Post or The New York Times, which broke the story. Can you provide any sources to substantiate your claim, or is this yet more original research?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Suggest placing a list of sources at the top of the RfC so that un-involved editors who are invited via the RfC process don't have to read through the lengthy discussion to find out what developments have been made per wp:rs and wp:v - which are the main things which would affect my decision to support or not support this proposal. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
October 2017, House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology
The article needs mention of the deliberations of the subcomittee; Foreign Agent Registration Act, Voice of America, and other essential comparitive arguements of the topic were heard. First hearing is today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.43.217 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
Limitations of evidence publicly presented in written reports by intelligence agencies
[Amended title to clarify]
Following on from Red Rock Canyon’s offering above re “a section on the limitations of the evidence publicly presented by the US government” — here’s a start:
The ODNI, in its 1/6/2017 report, indicated that the report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign".[ref]
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. … [T]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."[1]
In the first sentence, I'd like to see two words added (CAPS here): "...indicated that the PUBLIC report DELIBERATELY..." -- BullRangifer (talk) 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It's more than just a desire for more information. The author discusses the doubts that many people have about the report, given that it contains so little new information or hard evidence. The article closes with
But this report is unlikely to change the minds of skeptics who, like the president-elect, remember the intelligence agencies’ faulty assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and fear being misled again.
That doesn't change my point, but actually reinforces it; it recognizes that these skeptics do erroneously and illogically infer from the lack of detail that it doesn't exist, and they don't have the sense or patience to wait for the end of the investigation when it will be revealed. Instead they posit that the lack is proof the evidence doesn't exist. This shows they don't understand that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
This demonstrates how there is no amount of evidence or preliminary provision of some information which can change the mind of this type of skeptic. They are ideologically blind and will insist on believing what they wish to believe. You are a good example, and you doggedly persist right here on these pages. We see it by your endless repetition of the same arguments month after month. IIRC, this is called "stonewalling" (or maybe some other term(s) fits better). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The NY Times article doesn't say the skeptics are wrong or illogical. It says they aren't willing to trust the intelligence agencies, precisely because so little evidence has been supplied, and because of the history of the intel agencies (e.g., about Iraqi WMD). The article says nothing about skeptics being "ideologically blind" or insisting on "believing what they wish to believe." You've seriously mischaracterized the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
And, like flat earth skeptics, 9-11 skeptics, and the JFK's alive in Tanzania crowd, there are virtually none of that ilk represented in published discourse. Hence we ignore them. SPECIFICOtalk 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 Wikipedia can't take that line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
How very rude of you! I have no views about your American politics. Maybe that's why it's easy for me to edit according to WP neutrality policy. I have no opinions. It's pure process -- like flipping flapjacks. One up, one down, one to go, on to the next. SPECIFICOtalk 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the report “does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.” (This appears in a header at the top of each page of the report prefaced by “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment, …”.)[ref]
We're getting closer. The real difference in content between the classified and declassified reports should be stated explicitly, so using those words would help. Let's see how this looks:
The ODNI, in its public report of 1/6/2017, indicated that the DECLASSIFIED report "does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign" contained in the CLASSIFIED REPORT.[ref]
Is that accurate? -- BullRangifer (talk) 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
We have months of additional revelations of Russian interference. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@O3000, Is there any more recent in reports published by intelligence agencies? Humanengr (talk) 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. SPECIFICOtalk 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That’s so yesterday. There are continuing stories of Russian interference. Here’s today’s [13]. O3000 (talk) 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. 196.55.2.2 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Name-calling and failure to WP:AGF is not useful and does not convince. O3000 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thx, O3000, I’ll take that as a ‘no’. Humanengr (talk) 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. SPECIFICOtalk 00:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifico, given that you inserted a cite to this article, perhaps you’ll relate to that article’s noting that
[The] 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.
Why do you insist on repeating that error? Humanengr (talk) 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. SPECIFICOtalk 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you agree it was an error for [Bush] Administration officials to strongly suggest that WMD production was ongoing, reflecting a higher degree of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves? Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For sake of discussion, I'll assume your answer is 'yes'. The diff then is that your edits to the article and contributions to the talk page rely on an 'abundance of RS evidence'. That's exactly the problem here, in that it reflects a higher degree of confidence than in the intelligence reports. Humanengr (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Instead of responding with a simple explanation or diff that would further discussion here, you pose cryptic queries and assume some imaginary response? Nobody seems to know or care what you're talking about at this point, so I think this long and magnificent thread is drawing to a close. EOM. SPECIFICOtalk 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, Yes, you do seem unable to address those who question your overreach. E.g., on [my talk page], you said: "The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed." Are you really that omniscient? As Thucydides411 noted: “That's an assumption. It may be true, or it may not be true. All we know for sure is what's in the unclassified report.” You chose not to respond. Humanengr (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I fail to understand your point. Please take my responses according to the words that are in the responses. IMHO, the question is moot. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked “Is there any more recent in reports published by intelligence agencies?” you responded by linking to an article that did not (unless I missed it) cite intelligence agencies. Humanengr (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't say that there is evidence contained in the classified report (not until we have some reliable sources that have seen it), but we should tell readers that the ODNI says that. This might be a better way of presenting it, as direct words from the report:
The ODNI states in its public report "“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment.... [T]he declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods."
I think it makes sense to include something like that as context, alongside any discussion about the lack of evidence. The NY Times article here quotes that section, and I think many other articles about the lack of evidence acknowledge this as the agencies' excuse. - Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
RRC, That looks good to me. Of course, that is exactly what the fringe sources deny and so I sure hope we do not resume discussing them here 9 months after they've been rejected and discredited. SPECIFICOtalk 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. Humanengr (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises on Thursday from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that he would “push the envelope” to try to make more information public. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Obama had directed officials to “make as much of it public as they possibly can.”
…
Susan Hennessey, a former intelligence agency lawyer who is now the managing editor of the online journal Lawfare, wrote : “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.”
As many editors agreed each of the previous times we addressed this complaint, the JAR is not a very important part of the story and it's only marginally related to the topic of this article. The event itself is the topic, not the unclassified report. SPECIFICOtalk 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO The proposed text and the comments I quoted refer to the 1/6/2017 statement. Humanengr (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Humanengr - Oh, yes. I think you're right - this line doesn't have to be the first sentence of the section. I think it'd be better to lead with a general statement summarizing the criticism in the sources, and then also include the quote from the assessment. SPECIFICO - this is about a specific section in the article that summarizes criticism of the lack of evidence in the publicly released US intelligence assessments - not just the JAR. These assessments are an important part of the story (and the article obviously agrees, since the very first words reference them), and many reliable sources carried some mention of their lack of publicly available evidence, which would improve the article if included. Also, Humanengr was talking about the lead of this section - nobody is talking about starting the article with "there's no evidence this happened" or changing the article lead at all. No need to get so defensive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, here are some sources that might be helpful. This article 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: Newsweek, USA Today, Fox. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 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. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, and nothing concrete has been presented, so I think you're kind of jumping the gun here. The goal isn't to add a "criticism" section to the article, it's include mainstream views on the ICA assessment that currently aren't in the article - this would probably be done best via a paragraph added to the existing ICA section, as per the "integrated" guideline on the CRITICISM page you suggested we read.
Additionally, the discussion and compromise you mention (about Kevin Poulson) was about a December 2016 analysis released by the Department of Homeland Security specifically about hacking. What we're proposing is something about January 2017 assessment released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They're completely separate things - separate documents written by separate organizations on separate subjects. I think you shouldn't just blindly oppose something when you clearly don't even know what it is. Regarding the sources, in the days after the ICA was released, several major newspapers devoted significant sections to discussing its complete lack of evidence, and many major newspapers that covered the document mentioned its lack of evidence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding, from this section and the section above it, is that you want to add a section about limitations in the report. That's not appropriate weight. You're right that nothing concrete has been presented, other than your intent to dedicate an entire section to this. It doesn't merit a whole paragraph either. Geogene (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. So if I had initially said "add a sentence" then that would change your mind? Or "add 3 words"? How long is a sentence or a section or a paragraph? There is nothing concrete right now. If I thought you were opposed to this on general principle, then that would make sense, but you seem to have been very confused as to what the topic of this proposal even was until 15 minutes ago, so it's strange that you have such a strong opinion about it.Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not nice to tell people they're confused unless you're sure that that's the case. Here's a diff to help your memory [14]. It's not an old diff at all. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:Weight is one of the arguments I've just floated here, and as far as that goes, a few words is a completely different request from a standalone subsection, or 1/3 of article, etc. I'm not pre-agreeing to anything, but it is one factor. Geogene (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
RR, we've had extensive discussions of this and rejected UNDUE weight to these dissections of the unclassified report. None of the sources you listed is of current interest. They are from 9 months ago when much less corroborating public information was available. The intelligence reports are not of lasting significance. A couple of years hence, the article will not start with the intelligence report. It will more likely start with facts established in US court or congressional proceedings. SPECIFICOtalk 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Geogene - You're right. I completely forgot I had mentioned it, and when I read your "oppose" comment, I thought that you believed that the entirety this section was on something unrelated. I got upset, and I overreacted. I essentially called you stupid when I know that isn't the case, and I apologize.
SPECIFICO, the ICA is still the same and the Intelligence Community has not released any public documents since then. Right now, the ICA plays a major role in this article - it's in the first sentence, it's at the center of the public American accusation of Russian interference, and it's brought up over and over again. I just want to add more information about it. You're right - hopefully there will be significantly better sources for this article down the line, and when that time comes it can be completely reorganized top to bottom. But right now most of the sources are news stories, released within a few days of the events they covered. January reviews of a document released on January are still just as relevant as the majority of the sources used in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Red Rock Canyon: You're of course right that contemporaneous reactions to the intelligence reports are still relevant to this article. There was obviously more coverage of those reports in the weeks after they were published than now, so most articles discussing them at length were published soon after the intel reports came out. "But they're 9 months old!" is just a last-resort argument when no other argument for excluding reliable sources is handy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, on the contrary for an encyclopedia contemporaneous sources can be the worst, not the best. SPECIFICOtalk 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Being vulgar to make apoint, and those being Puritanical about said vulgarity, is distracting from the topic. Take this elsewhere, please. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Personally, I think you need to knock it of with the gratuitous vulgarity. This is an encyclopedia, not a locker room. Marteau (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
ShitPissFuckCuntCocksuckerMotherfuckerTits. This is a discussion page, not a motherfucking church. Get over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 05:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a discussion page, but your contributions aren't adding anything to the discussion. Get lost. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Support – RedRockCanyon correctly points out that secondary-source coverage of the January IC report deplored the lack of evidence and the cloak of "we can't reveal anything without compromising sources and methods". Nothing new has been revealed on the hacking attempts since that time, only peripheric stories on Russian propaganda, therefore the contemporary sources are still valid. We should be able to convey this state of affairs in a couple sentences. — JFGtalk 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. SPECIFICOtalk 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 WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. To uphold neutrality and balance, it's high time to convey in our article what multiple RS agreed upon. — JFGtalk 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? SPECIFICOtalk 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Including relevant information widely reported by reliable sources isn't POV. Do you have any arguments other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? The only way inclusion of this mainstream view gets "thumped" is by you and others repeatedly reverting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh. You must have overlooked my previous comment. "No more personal remarks". Since all the RfCs and other discussions here have rejected your POV, maybe you need a new approach. Wait a couple of months and mount another RfC. That would be sensible. Maybe your ship will come in. SPECIFICOtalk 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per long standing consensus and per the fact that WP:RSes do not reflect this view.Casprings (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of RS were shown to reflect this exact view. Read archives. — JFGtalk 11:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we see some suggested text?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: There's some text proposed by Humanengr at the top of the section but it's mostly a long quote from The New York Times. I think we should rather keep that as a citation and write some paraphrase expressing clearly how this source and others have evaluated the missing elements from the IC report(s). What struck me at the time was that each new report was supposed to bring more damning information, and yet after reading them there was not much new. That happened with the escalation of reports from October, December (twice) and January, then we seemed to enter a long period of stasis, from which nothing new emerged. Finally, in the last couple months, we are being treated to quasi-daily revelations of Mueller's progress: interesting stuff but straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports. — JFGtalk 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not very inspired to write appropriate prose tonight, I may try over the weekend. — JFGtalk 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.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
straying far away from the core accusations highlighted in the IC reports -- But not straying from the topic of this article. So no reason to go into undue detail about the declassified intelligence reports. SPECIFICOtalk 22:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Support. The lack of publicly available evidence was also noted by severalotherRS which are not "pro-Kremlin" or "Putin apologists". Criticism of this "trust us" position is widespread enough to be presented in the article. --S. Roix (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The substance of the material may have some merit, but the way it's written is problematic. There is too much reliance on quotes, especially elliptical quotes which tend to be misleading.- MrX 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
We can always rewrite is. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The suggested text doesn’t match the overall message of the source. O3000 (talk) 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. Humanengr (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's pull out Dewey Defeats Truman and Lincoln Shot by Unknown Assailant. SPECIFICOtalk 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. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I support inclusion of the mainstream view that the declassified January 6th ODNI report did not contain hard evidence to support its claims. That's something that many reliable sources, including the NY Times, have reported on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Not only is such repetition unconstructive. It also violates of our WP guideline with respect to disruptive editing: WP:TE. SPECIFICOtalk 22:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is not about the report. It's about the Russian attack. Undue opinion regarding the unclassified report is irrelevant.SPECIFICOtalk 22:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean alleged Russian attack. Policy requires us to call it that as long as reliable sources do. TFD (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome home, Rodney Dangerfield. SPECIFICOtalk 23:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO Are you talking about the 01/06/2017 Shane Scott NY Times article linked above in Sources? Humanengr (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This must not be an article as part of a series about Donald Trump, but russian interference only
Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta
by TOM WINTER and JULIA AINSLEY
WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.
The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.Neuwert (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Neuwert (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice try, but the possible involvement of others in other dealings does not negate the wealth of entanglement and collusion between Trump associates and Russia. This isn't a tit-for-tat or either-or situation. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, all. this means is we can make it part of their Wikiprojects too, assuming of course this is all linked to RUSSIAN interference (in the 2016 election).Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, any firm worth its salt is gonna ask courts to stop Congress from looking at its records. They could be selling rosaries to nuns in paradise, and they'd still do this. Volunteer Marek 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's edit in the article just the fact NBC News reported.Neuwert (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What has this to do with Russian interference?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What is Muller investigating?Neuwert (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You are ware that one kind of investigation (such as a break in) can lead to another?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not about "another" investigation.Neuwert (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
So, is there nothing with the russian interference case?Neuwert (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC).
I do not subscribe so cannot confirm, but other reports on this seem to be talking about Mercury Public Affairs and SGR LLC for answers and records pertaining to Michael Flynn, can you provide the quote where it talks about Podesta.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You can do it with your own eyes. I know it's hard to realise that the collusion story can be just wishful thinking.Neuwert (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not subscribe so cannot confirm.Slatersteven (talk) 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. Geogene (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
[15]. WT is not RS. Please stop posting hysterical statements to the talk page. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thankfully your order has nothing hysterical about it. These are just facts.Neuwert (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we have a link to the RSN discussion that decide this please?Slatersteven (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment on the content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 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 one, two, three. The W. Times is not quite on the Breitbart or Newsmax level of atrociousness, but appears to be frequently called out for it's extreme rightward slant and poor fact-checking, not to mention the Moonies (glad to see that's a redirect here) ownership. ValarianB (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe WT is not liberal enough to be a RS.Neuwert (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Does CNN not appears to be frequently called out for its extreme leftward? Why this censor? Neuwert (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
And from this my take away is there is no consensus it is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 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. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What about NBC News?Neuwert (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What has any of this to do with the 2016 presidential elelction?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing at all. It's an attempt to coatrack the article and waste our time. Geogene (talk) 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?Neuwert (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole thing could be hatted, though. This discussion is a sad waste of time. Even if the Pee Pee Papers were completely debunked, that's only one of many separate allegations of Russian interference in the election. Same thing with Russia's ad buys on Facebook. Even if they were completely neutral (and they weren't), you still have Russia's hacking of Podesta and the DNC's emails. The subject of this article is not something that is going to go away, no matter how much some editors wish that it would. They want this article to affirm their worldviews, but it's obvious that those views are so far from mainstream that we are never going to be able to accommodate them. We can't do anything about it, but letting them post here is just giving them a microphone to spread their conspiracy theories, which is effectively the opposite of disseminating knowledge. What some of us mainstream editors could do is to stop encouraging them. Geogene (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why obvious trolling by SPA's should be hatted or archived on sight and editors should not enable this kind of disruption by unduly engaging or providing a platform for non-article-improvement related soapboxes. This whole stupid thread could have been avoided if it were not reinstated after I archived the initial rejection of the claims. SPECIFICOtalk 02:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, You said: “… could be hatted …; … so far from mainstream; … letting them post here”. Is that what you really mean to say? Please reconsider. Did we grow up in the same country? Did we not protest the same wars? Did the MIC go away? Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Please discus how to improve the article, this is not a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 27 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? [1] Discuss. 182.239.190.220 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So suggest an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 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.- MrX 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? 182.239.190.220 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not what was said.Slatersteven (talk) 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...".
Do you think you could summarize what you think should go into the article? Whose talking points were they, who was at the meeting, who shared the points with the Kremlin, and what relevance does that have to this article? TFD (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
BuzzFeed: "This Russian Campaign Turned Against Trump In The Days After The Election"
Is the RS encyclopedic material regarding the Russian ad buys on social media being unbiased and designed to create general upheaval just invisible?
Included: academic study on the social media buys, facebook denials, facebook admissions but nothing about the facebook admission that the actual ads were unbiased? Just must not be encyclopedic?
Why is this article perpetually ignoring any and all RS encyclopedic material that contradicts the left wing cabal fake narrative?
You should avoid bad faith comments if you want anyone to cooperate with you. One reason the new material is not included is that it was literally released today. They're explaining it on CNN as I type. This article does say by the way that Democrats paid for the report. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument. There are any facts that has been ignored a long time in this article. That seems this is a bias article.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to "perpetually ignore" something that just came out. Also note that the involvement of the Clinton campaign in paying for the research to compose the dossier doesn't in any way disprove its content. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Are there others sources, a RS about the dossier content, or just BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS??Neuwert (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What I'm wondering here is, why do 126.209.43.217, 71.224.251.239, and Neuwert sound so much alike? Geogene (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument too. I would suggest you start a investigation.Neuwert (talk) 11:08, 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.Neuwert (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
We should have a line on this here.Slatersteven (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 23:25, 29 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.
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As per above unsigned cmt by Casprings, BBC have reported same (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740), states Manafort is facing charges but "nature of charges is unclear", also says business associate Rick Gates faces charges. Please could article have line added wherever appropriate to reflect new developments? 217.39.75.98 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? O3000 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unsealed and already uploaded on wiki commons. Need to be added.Casprings (talk)|
Yep. It was added to another article earlier in the morning, and then updated a couple dozen times:) O3000 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Kislyak Picture
The Kislyak picture uses a {{who?}} tag. The persons are described in the text, the tag should be removed.----217.248.28.26 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton
He didn't meet with Russians but with someone who had met Russians. And Trump never met this adviser. While no doubt this has relevance, you need to explain what that is and source it. TFD (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If nothing else, this demonstrates that the Russians compromised the Trumps and the campaign -- witness the coverage of the matter in this article. SPECIFICOtalk 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The USA Today article says, "The proposed trip did not take place, according to the court filing." TFD (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This is something to keep an eye on, although it doesn't yet relate to this subject or have anything worth adding to the article. (Actually I see it is there, under "other Trump associates".) But it may prove to be very important in the future, because 1) this was a plea bargain in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and provide information, and 2) one big glaring item in the information about these proposed meetings is that he discussed them with an unnamed "campaign supervisor" - widely believed to have been Manafort. So, as they say, watch this space. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
RS discuss Russian psy-ops. If the Russians have succeeded in fomenting the discussion of the possibility of Russian interference they have been successful. Daily RS discussion of the ins and outs of the investigations, recriminations against everyone from Nunes to HuckabeeSanders, and all the current Fox News Hillary uranium coverage, tell us that they have successfully intruded in US civic processes. Whether the interference extends to various alleged crimes or direct electoral interference is the only point. SPECIFICOtalk 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting juxtaposition with public stances of Twitter and facebook regarding disclosures. Also ironic in light of Republican concern about Russian mineral investments with reserves in US, while social media investments are not mentioned. SPECIFICOtalk 01:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Russian Twitter Support for Trump Began Right After He Started Campaign
Casprings, could we include this section in the one directly above. Feel free to retitle the combined section. A large investment in a company is an excellent way to get access to its management and its inner workings. Such investors are welcome to visit the executive suite and be introduced to management at various levels of detail. Then today in the Guardian we have the discussion of the Jared Kuschner connection with the Russian investment in these social media broadcasters. SPECIFICOtalk 13:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting meta-discussion and Jimbo Wales comment on the preceding thread.
See [18][19] SPECIFICOtalk 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope that pointless trip through the peanut gallery will be enough. I note that an admin there thinks we're all kind of stupid for even working on this article. That's standard Wikipedia fare, but it wasn't useful or worthwhile. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
But, what happened tot the hat? I thought the above was hatted (for formal wear). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Need section summarizing publicly available evidence
This very long article is full of opinions and claims to have evidence by various arms of the US government and by cybersecurity firms. The latter are linked to the government through contracts and/or ownership by former military/intelligence operatives. There are also claims by Facebook, but their evidence is also kept secret. According to Reuters "public evidence of Russian meddling, something that has not so far been presented, would be sure to translate into tougher U.S. sanctions against Moscow". Why don't we have a section on publicly available evidence? Because there isn't any? Keith McClary (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The article presents what is contained in the sources cited, no more and no less. Articles aren't written to satisfy your political opinions. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with my politics. My source discusses the implications in case any evidence is made public. I can't see this addressed elsewhere in the article. Keith McClary (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, buddy. You were recently warned about soapboxing on your talk page. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
How would we address this?Slatersteven (talk) 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? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it's undue weight, it's not clear that Reuters isn't talking about the Manafort/Gates indictments specifically. Plus, several new or low edit count accounts have been pushing for this, and it's disruptive to keep posting the same damn thing over and over again after it gets dismissed the first time. The Keith McClary account posted the same political arguments here on 19 December,[20] that was dismissed. Continuing to come here to make the same complaint is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that is disruption. I have now posted DS alerts on that user's talk page. If this sort of soapboxing continues, then some combination of SPI and AE will be in order. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2016? Are you kidding me? Consensus can change, and he’s presented a brand new Reuters article. I’m not saying I support any article edits at this point, but you seem to be overdoing it with the gag orders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, this time he's asking for an entire subsection, last time he wanted an entire alternate article... Geogene (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The Reuters article says that public evidence of Russian meddling has not so far been presented. Should that statement be in the article, e.g. as the last sentence of the lead? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You mean one of the most prominent locations in the article? Geogene (talk) 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.[21]
Undue weight for one little line in one Reuters piece, considering the thousands of news articles that have been written about this. Further, the last sentence of the lead is one of the most conspicuous parts of an article. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The lede section acts as a concise overview of the topic for the reader. The lack of public evidence is a notable fact that aids the understanding, therefore it should be (briefly) mentioned there. — JFGtalk 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. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Read tomorrow's newspaper. Congressional testimony. Social media ads. No evidence? Editor time is scarce and valuable. It's time to drop this and work on article improvement. This complaint didn't make sense even before the election. "Russia if you're listening...Clinton emails..." SPECIFICOtalk 23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you provide an excerpt from an RS that gives public evidence of Russian meddling? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 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. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
No reason to call a source request "stupid". — JFGtalk 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. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk threads are often stupid, but that’s not the threshold for making them disappear. As many commenters have said here, they find the Reuters quote interesting and worth finding out more about. You tried to shut it all down not just by hatting, but by hatting in such a way that the tiny discussion that already occurred became invisible. Please don’t do stuff like that again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
If think that it's warranted, then I will do so. This was warranted. By that, what I mean in this instance is that it was repetitive, partisan, inactionable, and NOTFORUM. Even if you like the Reuters piece, the delivery was terrible. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, re: "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.” That's mischaracterizing the issue. The claim is that neither you (nor MSM) have any basis for saying it does exist. Humanengr (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Nor is there any for basis for saying it does not. Therefore we go with what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Re ‘Nor’: So you claim MSM has no basis for saying either it does or does not exist. So we go with what ‘RS’ says. Right? Humanengr (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think (as I said elsewhere) we go with what RS say, not what we think is true. But I have not seen any list represented, so we cannot include one. Until we see such a list for inclusion here I cannot say if it is sourced to RS or is OR (and it is the list we are discussing, if you want to talk about anything else start a new section).Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading. It is probably referring to no direct evidence rather than no evidence of any kind, which includes circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may involve classified information about intelligence gathering that wouldn't be available to the public. So if the statement appears in the article, it may need to have that context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed section is not needed and certainly not warranted based on on a couple of sentences in a single Reuter's article. Find a dozen or so strong sources that discuss the importance of public evidence and then we will have a basis for a meaningful content discussion.- MrX 01:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As others have said, the lead is a summery of our article (it is not there for emphacise), so until someone can provide some kind of text for the main body disusing this it cannot go in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that may be a good example of what's missing from the public evidence. Without giving evidence of a "trail of ruble payments", the article says, "The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties." Maybe there's another article out there that gives the evidence of the trail of ruble payments, if it was made available to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless articles are specifically discussing a lack of public evidence, then we can't use it because it's editorializing/OR. And again, since we can't use this, this post by Bob K31416 is another example of how Wikipedia talk pages are being hijacked to spread conspiracy theories without benefiting the article itself. Not only is this NOTFORUM, is the antithesis of the project's stated goal of disseminating knowledge, and this is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Let me reiterate: it was a mistake to unhat this thread. I hope that mistake isn't repeated in the future. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I would request that editors don't rebut comments like Geogene's above because it would only take threads further off topic. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the topic now? That you have a political opinion that goes against the bulk of reliable sourcing, sourcing which is so abundant that it's literally hard to avoid here in the US, and yet you want to organize a search party to find sources to support your viewpoint in the article? Well, that's not exactly how this is supposed to work, but maybe they'll help you at Jimbo Talk. Good luck. Geogene (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, Geogene is stating the fundamental policy-based operation of Wikipedia editing and talk page discussion. We use reliable sources. We don't second guess them as to how they arrived at the statements they make. This sounds like an updated rehash of the initial denials we heard last year -- the classified sources were not revealed to internet pundits and self-styled consultants who took a call from a journalist, therefore the US intelligence estimate cited by RS is incorrect. We need to ensure we don't give over the talk pages to conspiracy theories, fringe POV pushing and the like. WP policy supports this and we should not fail to embrace it. Time to hat or archive this thread. SPECIFICOtalk 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
OK lets cut to the chase, can we see such a list presented here please?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The situation regarding evidence was stated by the US government in their report of Jan 2017,[23]
"This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign."
This kind of information about the classified nature of the evidence seems to have been left out of our article, or maybe I missed it and someone can point it out? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
—Just thought of doing an edit find for the keyword "classified", and I found in the section January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment the following.
"The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions.[1][2]"
I note that there was nothing about the classified nature of the evidence in the lead. Perhaps that's not considered a very significant fact? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly not a very significant fact, as can be told from the way that reliable sources universally downplay it. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I take your “It’s clearly not” phrase to indicate you have no doubt. Do you ever doubt ‘reliable sources’ when they ‘universally’ agree? Humanengr (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Now, if you ever are going to make a useful suggestion towards improving the article, I suggest you hurry up before I start looking at more serious options than hatting you. This is not some kind of debate club. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The US government document itself didn't downplay it. The first thing in the document is the following.[24]
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
BTW, all of my discussion is about improving the article, in this case about whether or not to put some information in the lead. I think the last part of your comment, like other comments of yours, is disruptive. Now you have expressed your opinion about the significance of the information, which I infer is also your opinion about whether or not mention of the classified nature of the evidence should be put in the lead, and I would like to get the opinion of others too. I'm pretty open minded on the question, so I can go either way, depending on what others say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
So what do you want to add to the article, and where? Geogene (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote in my previous message, I'm pretty open minded on the question and I would like to see what others have to say first, and possibly they may have suggestions themselves. Or who knows, you might change your mind on the question, which would make things a lot more easy. Anyhow, let's get more input. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposed change in first sentence of lead
Since there hasn't been any quick responses and there may not be any responses, I'll present a possibility and if there isn't any support, I'll simply drop it. The possible addition is the phrase, "based on highly classified intelligence," for the first sentence of the lead as follows.
Okay with that. Geogene (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence there was or is any "supporting information". In deference to slatersteven above, one might argue there's no evidence that there was and no evidence there wasn't. So maybe "The United States Intelligence Community concluded, with high confidence based on a claim of 'highly classified' supporting evidence." Humanengr (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Which is why we say only what RS say? So until we have something in the body we cannot have it in the lead. So lets just try and decode if this is even going to be included in the body before adding it to the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I’m ok with that. Humanengr (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
As Humanengr says, we simply don't know if evidence exists. Just leave out the "based on highly classified evidence" phrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course I will oppose the word "claim" or any similar variant that tries to shade or cast aspersions on the assertions that classified evidence exists, because that would be editorializing without sources. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But asserting without sources that classified evidence exists isn't editorializing? You're just asking Wikipedia to treat claims of US intelligence (not Russian intelligence, not Chinese intelligence, mind you) with complete credulity. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, with complete credulity, the same as the bulk of reliable sources do, for as long as they're credulous. This is what NPOV means. You hint at hypothetical situations where I might not agree with a nation's intelligence conclusions even if sources do. In that instance, I would find some other topic area to edit in, because trying to POV-push against the bulk of sourcing is usually a waste of everyone's time. Actually, I do consider this when I scope out new areas to edit. It may not be for everyone but it helps me to avoid "losing" content disputes. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, this thread sure took a couple of surprising turns! So far there are two editors for and two editors against, so either more editors show up to make a consensus for the edit, or it just doesn't get in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Geogene, Can you quote any assertion that indicates "classified evidence exists"? Humanengr (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Not supported by the primary source you quote above. No other source cited by WaPo ‘analyst’ for that assertion. Humanengr (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain how this is a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
PS = the 1/6/2017 report Bob quoted here. Humanengr (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you can conclude that WaPo's statement is not supported by the the primary source and in any case it would be your interpretation of the primary source vs that of the reliable source (WaPo). Also, the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source for the comment I excerpted. Note that there were other reports mentioned in the article and the WaPo covered government briefings not mentioned in that article too.
Now getting back to your original request for a quote of any assertion that indicates "classified evidence exists", you asked for it and you got it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Re "the WaPo article didn't indicate any specific source": It's OR to assume there was (or as slatersteven might say "was not") a source for said statement. On what basis do we know it was not opinion? Humanengr (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a reliable source (The Washington Post). Thanks for your speculations, etc, but I honestly don't think they're useful, so this may be my last comment on them. Peace. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The source doesn't support the claim being made, which is that there is evidence implicating the Russian government. The Washington Post says that "Trump’s attempt to soften the accusation against Russia — whatever the motivation — is helped by the fact that the government agencies involved in the probes relied largely on classified information to find the Russians culpable of meddling." The Washington Post is discussing the lack of publicly available evidence here, and says that any information used is classified. It doesn't say that there is actually classified evidence that points to Russia. When we have other reliable sources explicitly using cautious language to discuss the accusations, (e.g., Reuters regularly referring to "allegations"), then we shouldn't be taking the stand that we know evidence that's never been reported on exists - unless we want to be lackeys of US intelligence, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed edit doesn't say anything about whether or not the highly classified intelligence is accurate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Possible new section
So I shall ask again, can someone actually bother to write a section here for discussion that sumerises what RS say about what evidence is publicly available? Until we know what we are actually talking about this is going to go nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a small box at top right labeled ‘Publicly Available Evidence presented by U.S. Intelligence Agencies’ that currently indicates ‘Status: not yet presented’, citing the Reuters article. If and when such is made available, replace with a new section in the body. Humanengr (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I oppose adding any such narrowly focused content, especially with a single five month old source. The article already discusses evidence throughout. The idea of "unpresented public evidence" is not really an aspect of this investigation and is WP:UNDUE. In fact, it's a red herring.- MrX 12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, you got me curious. What do you mean by "unpresented public evidence"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"‘Publicly Available Evidence presented by U.S. Intelligence Agencies’ that currently indicates ‘Status: not yet presented’"
Now would someone PLEASE close this hot mess?- MrX 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Why should I try to write something I see no need for in the first place?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That is one of the more ill-informed suggestions I've seen thus far, it's like adding some sort of scarlet letter to the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems ill-conceived. Have we ever had another article where we insisted on a separate section, or a disclaimer, or something, spelling out the "public evidence" behind our sources? We state clearly, within the text as we go along, where we are getting our information; that's our job as an encyclopedia. It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the "public" or "non-public" nature of the evidence our sources are relying on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and we should cite that source and leave it at that. Not evaluate it, or put our own spin into it. ValarianB (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that article could be used as a link somewhere in the article. No need to make more out of it than that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN, re "It's not our job to investigate and evaluate the 'public' or 'non-public' nature of the evidence our sources are relying on.": Any objections to putting a note that effect at the top of this and any article that relies on 'non-public' evidence? Humanengr (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be most of our articles. Reliance on Reliable Sources? They commonly use anonymous (i.e. non-public) sources for their reporting, but if they have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" we accept it. Reliance on government sources? Usually based on non-public evidence, whether it is the monthly unemployment report (they don't show us their actual surveys) or the result of an election (we didn't count the ballots ourselves). Reliance on academic sources? We trust that they are accurately reporting their experimental results, but we don't have a way of verifying that. As an encyclopedia we rely on secondary sources; we don't expect to see the primary data. There is no reason to treat this article any differently, in terms of the "evidence" we demand, than we treat the vast majority of our articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the considered response. I was so impressed by your prior response that I neglected to include the critical criterion 'consequence of error'. More precisely, when there is risk of grave consequence from error in the near-term (prior to customary quality control, e.g., scientific or court review), some caveat should be included. Critique? Humanengr (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Classified information isn't available for expert analysis by organizations independent of the government, such as academics, news media, etc. and for publication by those organizations' of their results. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither are anonymous sources used in Reliable Source news reporting, on which we base many articles - but we don't flag those reports as "non-public". There is nothing about this article which is different from hundreds of other unquestioned articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point, which I don't recall anyone previously having made on this page. SPECIFICOtalk 01:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
"Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House."
In any case, the possible section that is being considered is for the evidence that is publicly available, a topic that the The Washington Post thought was worthwhile for an article [26]. I think this will be my last message here because it's very doubtful that the possible section would get a consensus, and that discourages anyone from spending the time to write up such a section and defend it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bob K31416, MelanieN, You didn’t address my point re ‘consequence of error’. In deference to Bob’s immediate prior, we could continue this separately if you prefer. Humanengr (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is the NSA report included in the ‘Background’ section and not in ‘U.S. intelligence analysis’?
It's a report from an 'intelligence agency' containing results the Intercept cited and discussed. It seems appropriate to address that under the heading of ‘U.S. intelligence analysis’. How does that constitute 'Background' to 'Russian Interference'? Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Tightening up the lede
Can we delete the 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede? It moves backwards in time to the superseded 10/7/2016 statement.
The 1st sentence of the 3rd para (about Obama warning Putin) is not directly about investigation. That seems secondary and can be left to the body.
For temporal flow, the next sentence, could start with "In December 2016, Obama had ordered a report …". Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Re "Can we delete the 1st sentence of the 2nd para of the lede?" — I would go with that and add a small mention of the October 7, 2016 statement in the next sentence, i.e.,
According to the ODNI′s January 2017 report that followed its October 2016 statement,[3] ...
The timing of the October 2016 report may be of interest because it came before the November 2016 election.
Re "The 1st sentence of the 3rd para (about Obama warning Putin) is not directly about investigation." — The paragraph that it begins is mostly about Obama's reaction so it may be appropriate there.
Re "For temporal flow, the next sentence, could start with 'In December 2016, Obama had ordered a report …'." — not applicable if the 1st sentence mentioned above is kept.
Thx. Amending my suggestion re 3rd para: as you say, it is mostly (sentences 1, 2, 4) about Obama’s reaction; 3 is re Trump’s. The para is a jumble and not related to elucidating any claims about any interference. So, delete in entirety. Humanengr (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It has a little about senators' reaction too. The paragraph is about the US government's reaction, which is mainly Obama's because the president is the part of the US government that executes foreign policy AFAIK, and the paragraph seems an appropriate part of the article topic and the lead. Regarding the paragraph being a jumble, feel free to suggest a way to organize it better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is ostensibly about ‘Russian unterference’, not reaction to it. Anything that gets in the way of detailing that interference gets in the way. Investigations are part of that effort; reaction is not. Humanengr (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So we disagree about what is appropriate for the article regarding reaction. :) --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
OK in article. In lede, it delays reader from getting to the declared focus. Humanengr (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Re your first idea about the 1st sent of 2nd para, did you lose interest? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you be ok with (deleting the 1st sentence of the 2nd para and) putting the Oct statement in a footnote in the 2nd sentence: "According to the ODNI′s January 6, 2017 report [fn: The ODNI′s January 2017 report followed its October 2016 joint statement with Department of Homeland Security (DHS))[3])] …"? Humanengr (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be OK with that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The two of you can agree to whatever you please, but that will not show consensus among the dozens of editors who participate on this page and who do not approve your comments. SPECIFICOtalk 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you have anything constructive to say regarding this suggested edit? Humanengr (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, please see Wikipedia policy WP:BATTLEGROUND. FWIW, Humanengr and I have disagreed with each other in other sections, but that hasn't prevented us from cooperating on the edit in this section because we are just trying to improve Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm quite confident that my comment is constructive, because it saves you lots of time and effort that could be dedicated instead to article improvements that will be endorsed by your colleagues here. Otherwise I suspect you'll end up disappointed and discouraged. So like it or not, my message is constructive. A tete-a-tete in a walled garden is not going to end up improving the article. SPECIFICOtalk 22:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it won't get consensus? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've already said how I know. Because even in case the two of you agree, you've got the other 56 editors who haven't agreed with you. And you can count on them to remove any edit w/o consensus. That's how it goes. Life in the big city. SPECIFICOtalk 01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
"56 … haven't" (so you say, which is not entirely true) doesn't equal doesn't in this instance. As one prone to overstatement, perhaps you should sit this one out. Humanengr (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything that you don't like about the edit? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I very exhaustively and earnestly discussed this with Humanengr on his talk page a while back and I have nothing more to say about it. SPECIFICOtalk 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And I very much appreciate that you did. For on my talk page your explanation of your view starts with "The article is about the interference in the election.” In that statement, you take interference as fact, whereas all you can properly say is that news media designated as ‘RS' by the WP community take it as fact. That does not make it fact. After some repeated confusions on your part about which report was at issue, you said "I'm uneasy that each explanation of mine prompts another leading question from you.”
I had hoped to reach some common ground with you under the assumption we share some core positions. But I have learned that’s not possible. How unfortunate. Humanengr (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Humanengr, Could you help me out and clarify what that discussion on your talk page has to do with the proposed edit here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for modification of second paragraph of lead
It might be worth showing Humanengr's proposed edit of shortening a sentence in the lead and moving it to a footnote. Here's what I think is his proposal to make a change in the lead's second paragraph.
Support — The change doesn't seem like it would be controversial and reduces repetition and improves readability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Ilky (talk) 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
Not done for now: The Colin Powell information is cited in the next sentence and the Washington Times is not a RS for political coverage. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It should be clarified that "opposition research" means paid for by the DNC. Keith McClary (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article include Kevin Poulsen's analysis of the DHS Joint Analysis Report?
The consensus is against including Kevin Poulsen's analysis of the DHS Joint Analysis Report.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support – Poulsen's comments are just as valid today as they were when he wrote them. Poulsen and other cybersecurity experts have lamented the vagueness of allegations in the report. Several RS have been provided in prior discussions and in the Discussion section below. Certainly, a proper paragraph could be written summarizing them all. — JFGtalk 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose cherrypicked Jan. 6 2017 Daily Beast source. Out of date, off-topic, SYNTH, used to promote fringe denialist theories. SPECIFICOtalk 14:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose until I know what I am being asked to say yes to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose UNDUE and pro-fringe. Besides, this is a major international incident that generates news every day. Why are we scrounging for non-notable opinions from the Daily Beast? Geogene (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - dated, unnecessary. Neutralitytalk 02:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Slatersteven; this is a badly crafted RfC. Can we see the exact content that we want to include here? NickCT (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The RfC has nothing defined enough to !vote for. I'm not going to support including just anything from a source, especially one that seems UNDUE. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
I like to see RfCs that start with such a full, clear statement of the issue and good faith discussion. Sigh. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This RfC seems to be missing a link to Poulsen's analysis. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I just added the link to the RfC statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment What is the suggest edit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no suggested edit, but if you look at the recent edit war in history you can see this content in one of it's forms. The question here is, should Poulsen's analysis, regardless of how the content is written, be noted in this article.- MrX 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned that is not how not works, without knowing how it is going to be used how can I know if the inclusion is valid? If (I say "yes" I may not have said yes to "and Poulsen concluded that it was all the act of a small frog called Derick".Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, sometimes it does work that way and I've explained why in response to TFD. You're welcome to skip past this RfC, or start your own. I'm just trying to end the edit wars.- MrX 17:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Except you will still get the edit war over what we include.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was about to add: I see that someone has added a link to the source to the RfC question, which should be sufficient. If there is consensus to include Poulsen's analysis, we can work on the specific wording. Yes there will probably be more edit waring, insults, and gnashing of teeth... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - MrX 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why editors should be prevented from using information in this article from the Daily Beast. There may be objections to specific material that an editor may want to put in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that the Daily Beast article shouldn't be used where appropriate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I think these RfCs miss the forest for the trees. Below are a number of RS criticisms:
''But security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic "proof" to confirm the government's attribution. Private security firms — like CrowdStrike, who investigated the DNC breach — went much further, they say." - The Hill
"Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." - Ars Technica
"The evidence presented was light on details but centered on the tools and methods used by the hackers." - Washington Post
"But the evidence in a report, in which the administration referred to the Russian cyberactivity as Grizzly Steppe, fell short of anything that would directly tie senior officers of the G.R.U. or the F.S.B., the other intelligence service, to a plan to influence the election." - NY Times
Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless - The Daily Beast
Then the Süddeutsche Zeitung source which is already included. I will not summarize it here.
My primary objection is that our article attributes all criticism to "persons quoted in [Süddeutsche Zeitung]", which is not an accurate reflection of sources. Whether we mention Poulsen or Goodin individually is less important than conveying that lack of public evidence was a common criticism from security experts. Do we have sources for experts who take the opposite position? James J. Lambden (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not a "criticism" -- it's just a fact that you and I, among +/- 6 billion other folks, don't have the security clearance to see all the evidence. The SZ is a secondary source and cites expert analysis. SPECIFICOtalk 00:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
If an unclassified report is not necessarily evidence-free then the criticism is the lack of evidence. If it is, then the criticism is claiming a necessarily evidence-free report as evidence. It is a criticism either way. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
But as I read the Poulsen story it is not critical of the reports evidence, just how it is presented. In deed it seems to be saying that there is better evidence (in the report) that is given less coverage then less credible material. So it can be used to present both "sides".Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have re-read it and I disagree. Poulsen and the professionals he quotes are universally critical of the report. His argument is that other evidence independent of the report provides solid support for Russian involvement. I think that conclusion is appropriate elsewhere in the article but not this section which deals exclusively with the Dec report. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
One of the criticisms seems to be that it concentrated on the PAS webshell rather then on the more sophisticated Russian ones it mentions. Indeed it seems to mainly be critical of the IP list, and of the inclusion of random information well as earnest security advice. So in fact it does say the reports contains evidence of Russian hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
As you pointed out before, this RfC asks an improper question because it doesn't specify any edit. It is about a blanket approval for any edit that uses the Poulsen article, which is difficult to support for any reliable source. However, the effect of opposing the RfC is to exclude the Poulsen article from any use. If the RfC question had been posed to exclude the Poulsen article, then there would be similar problems and it would have difficulty getting the article excluded from use. So by not specifying an edit, the present RfC to include the Poulsen article has gamed the system, and you got hooked into opposing the use of the source and thus hooked into excluding the source from any use in our article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No, as I make clear why I am opposing the request made in the RFC. When push comes to shove there is no reason to include any source, so I have no issue voting to exclude this one. But (as I make quite clear) what I am in fact opposing is the wording of this RFC. If there is gaming of the system it should be reported, not used as a reason for me to say Yes to something I do not see a reason to say yes to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If the RfC question was worded, "Should the Poulsen source be excluded from use in this article?", how would you vote? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, if you wish to start an RFC on this question do so and you will see how I vote. We are discusing this question, not my (or your motives or how we would act on Earth 696). Can an nadmin now step in and close both of these RFCS as not formatted correctly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
By the wording of the RfC question, and by your correct comment about it being an improper question and shouldn't be supported, it discouraged editors who would oppose exclusion from participating in the RfC because they didn't have anything to vote on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not about me, so please stop it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
My comment wasn't about you. It was about the RfC and your correct comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Foreign agents
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem as though we've added information on the classification of RT as a foreign agent in the US (or considered reciprocal moves in Russia).
BBC "RT has been singled out as a propaganda outlet in the wake of alleged Russian meddling in the US presidential vote." [34]
Should this be included? It seems significant. -Darouet (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I think noticing registration of RT and Sputnik as "foreign agents" is fine, because it is directly related to the subject, however, actions by Russian government "in response" are too remotely related and probably should not be included. In any case, the registration or sanctions must already happen to be included here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If we mention it, be sure to say that who has singled them out and their response (not the Russian government's.) TFD (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree this should be included. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This a tit-for-tat cause and effect; it wouldn't be right to include one and leave out the other. Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'm sure I'll be overridden, but can't we wait a few hours for the indictments to be unsealed? O3000 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - 
